“In the end, racist behavior by employees lands at the door of corporate executives. They face a dilemma: If they admit theres a problem, the company is exposed to lawsuits and negative publicity. But denial only makes matters worse. Until more employers confront the rise of ugly racism head on, Americans will continue to see behavior they thought belonged to a more ignominious age” (Bernstein, 2010). If employers confront this behavior, they can act on their impulse for social justice, and seriously influence company policy.
There are many stakeholders in the modern company, when one considers racism in terms of issues of causality, intention, and understanding. Different areas of the company can share the responsibility, even if the company ownership and directors must bear the ultimate responsibility. For it is the leadership of the company that determines its direction, and in eliminating bias, leadership can set an example as well as effective policy. Bias is being subjectively favorable towards one group or conclusion even when faced with contrary evidence. It can be applied to a person’s race, gender, nationality, sexuality, disability, or other variables. For example, whether positive or negative a lot of reportage on African Americans tends to deal more with an in-group perceiving an out-group than a true cultural synthesis of understanding. This is far from a comprehensive definition of discrimination, which can also include social decisions that are based on the gender, disability, or race of a perceived group, to name just a few possible delineations. The cause for most discrimination and prejudice in the workplace is the fostering of stereotypes that seek to assay out-group homogeneity from the perspective of the oppressor. This oppressor is also seen to organize the future of the system through a media system that emphasizes paternalist authority, causing psychological damage through discrimination of