Equality and Diversity Are Mutually Exclusive - Essay Example

The notion that equality and diversity are mutually exclusive is one that has raised much concern especially within contemporary British society. Ithas been argued that programs which focus on diversity do so at the detriment of equality. This can be examined especially within the scope of the marginalization of both women and individuals with disabilities. This paper will examine the scope and ramifications of equality and diversity of women and individuals with disabilities and will illustrate that equality can be achieved through diversity especially for women in the workforce. Individuals with disabilities As a direct result of the adverse experiences of people with disabilities and the many barriers restricting their activities, the subject of disability was one that was politicized and had demanded attention by the political systems much like the other Civil Rights movements. For the first time, the disabled represented an interest group and their cause was motivated by the growing concern that individuals with disabilities were systematically victimized and will continue to be violated until something was done to bring attention to their plight (Ward & Meyer 1999). Through sustained activism and advocacy, disability was transformed from a simple cause to one that had taken on a rights-based connotation (Yongjoo & Haider-Markel 2001). The fight to end the systematic discrimination of the disabled was one that was marked by serious limitations on social and political participation. This discrimination prevailed despite the ongoing governmental efforts aimed at improving inclusion of individuals with disabilities. An example of this can be seen in the fact that the employment rates among individuals with disabilities had not been significantly impacted after the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Many disability activists and advocates consistently questioned the efficacy and integrity of governmental programs designed to support the efforts of individuals with disabilities and their families in securing full participation of individuals with disabilities in society. In fact, the Disability Rights Movement has been criticized on the basis that it was a mere duplication in legislative action with regards to the marginalized. It was felt that disabilities policies (especially the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) were unnecessarily litigious, counter-productive, and failed to represent the collective interests of the stakeholders. These differing interpretations of policy effects facilitate the need for more effective communication with regards to disabilities as well as a more comprehensive understanding of the varying perceptions of stakeholders' as they relate to the rights and personal characteristics of the disabled (Fleischer & Zames 2001). The impact of social movements and interest groups on the delineation and definition of the issues involved remains ambiguous to a great extent as there is a wide range of limitations faced by individuals with disabilities. Essentially, individuals often vary in the problem definitions they choose to adopt (Rochefort & Cobb 1994). As with any other civil rights movement, the involvement of citizen as well as their attachment to social movement groups varies with some individuals adopting the issue definition advocated by the social movement while others deviate from this definition. Issue definition at the individual level, however, remains vital because it determines whether individuals exhibit a propensity to make claims on government during policy implementation. This in turn affects the overall impact of the program and reiterates the point that the sole purpose of the government is to respond to the needs of its constituents. The practical implications of this are such than when the demands of the different groups are viewed together; these demands serve to influence program funding as well as to refine the focus of governmental initiatives. Essentially, our frame of thought with regards to social problems relies on the operational definition we utilize when referring to them. Throughout the course of the addressing the social model of disability, one general theme remains evident. That theme relates to the notion that much of the inherent inaccessibility to services for individuals with limitations has a strong socio-economic tie (Lieberman 2002). This is most evident in the comparative incomes of individuals with limitations and those without. The first salient point to be made here is that there is a general correlation between income and political participation. Essentially, individuals of higher income generally participate in political activities while individuals of lower socio-economic status are actively engaged in their day-to-day survival (Milbrath & Goel 1977). In fact Verba, Scholozman & Brady (1995) purport that individuals of higher socio-economic status possess more civic skills when compared to their lower socio-economic counterparts. This effectively accounts for the difference in participation in politics and alignment with movements for the disenfranchised based on socio-economic status. Furthermore, political participation has a strong association with the development of a more intimate understand o the political environment taken within a social context. As a direct result, personal involvement in the political process facilitates a clear understanding of the adverse effects of policy and prompts action on the part of the civic minded individual. The implications of this are such that there has been a class-based determination of policy as it relates to individuals with impairments and the end result is the expectation that middle and upper class individuals are more likely to encourage initiatives aimed at ending marginalization of the disabled (Lieberman 2002). The most poignant contributors to the Disability Movement have to be the body of legislation which denounces exclusionary practices in both education and employment. Even this body of legislation has proven to be discriminatory in nature in that it utilized generalizations in its descriptions of individuals with limitations. These individuals have been described as individuals with special needs and as such they have been further marginalized. A look at the 1948 National Assistance Act and the 1981 Education Act proves to be illustrative of this fact. First and foremost the 1948 National Assistance Act was effective in ensuring that disabled individuals were offered the necessary assistance, however, it was very derogatory in its approach to describing individuals with disabilities. In this case it offered a disablement benefit under the conditions that that disability met the guidelines as delineated by the Medical Board. The conditions include the reassurance that there was permanent loss of the physical or a mental capability to function as what was referred to as 'normally'. This determination of normality was based on a 'compassion with a normal healthy person of the same age or sex.' (Hall 1963 pp. 41-45). The Education Acts have been instrumental in attempting to create normalization standards for people with disabilities. The key principles of these normalization standards entail the legislative response to dealing with the developmentally disabled. The 1970 Education Act the 1981 Green Paper and the 1983 Government Circular on Community Care, the King's Fund programme An Ordinary Life (1980, 1984), and more recently the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act and the 2001 White Paper Valuing People have systematically helped to improve the lives of individuals with disabilities. In the process it has embodied a strong push towards the deinstitutionalization movement for individuals with developmental disabilities and as a direct result implored the community to take a more active role. (Brown & Smith 1992). The push to normalization, has also been instrumental in ensuring that there is an assurance of education for the developmentally disabled for the first time in 1970. As such, the achievements were remarkable and have changed the lives of many disabled individuals. Despite this remarkable achievement, some of the ideas within the Social Model of disability proved problematic in that the inclusion of individuals with disabilities facilitated unwarranted attention to the disabled. In lieu of full inclusion of all individuals with developmental disabilities, some theories dictate that such individuals should engage in a constant process of self-regulation to avoid drawing attention to their perceived difference and thereby increasing their chances of social acceptance and 'passing'. Once again this is reverting to the individual treatment of individuals with disabilities rather than unilateral inclusion (Tregaskis 2004). The Disability Movement has made significant changes in the lives of individuals with disabilities. These changes include the inclusion of individuals with disabilities within both the educational and employment segments. It was instrumental in the passage of several prolific pieces of legislature. We have seen a transformation from a medical model of disabilities to a social one. Despite this the attitudes of many individuals have seen very little transformation. Individuals with disabilities are viewed as "abnormal" and their needs are minimized by virtue of normalization movements. Individuals with disabilities have special challenges they face each day. These challenges include inaccessibility of services. Much of this is due to the physical barriers these individuals face. Over the course of time, this inaccessibility is changing but as much as the services are made accessible to individuals with disabilities, the stigmatism and marginalization remains. This will not change until each and every one of us becomes cognizant of the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities and attempt to treat individuals with disabilities as we would able-bodied individuals. On the most fundamental level, these individuals need to be treated with the same respect and dignity afforded each person by virtue of being human. Women In exploring the notion of gender-based inequality and diversity initiatives, the workplace proves to be the ideal testing ground. In so doing, there is a need to make the workforce more female-friendly and to identify diversity programs which may be helpful in impacting an end to gender-based bias in the workplace. In attempting to address the nature of these programs one needs to ascertain the minimal requirements for the integral components of those programs. Kirton (2003) maintained that in order to accommodate women in the workforce, there is a need for eldercare as well as childcare assistance, flexible benefits, flexible scheduling, parental leave, and other work-family programs. Essentially, the trending has been to provide women with those programs. In so doing, the retention, productivity and overall employment satisfaction among women has systematically increased. Colgon & Ledwich (2002) added that there is a need for developmental activities such as mentoring, advanced education, and task-force participation, as well as changing recruiting practices to embrace women and minorities in a bias-free way. In the area of developmental needs, many researchers have been concerned with gender-based mentoring programs. In a study top -level female executives were interviewed. The researchers found that all the women who were in these high-level positions had mentors at one time or another in their careers. Manev & Stevenson (2001) found than organization's promotability ratings were significantly higher for 40 women and minority employees who had been mentored, when compared to a matched control group of 40 non-mentored women and minority employees. Coordinating the attention to diversity management would imply reorganization of the mentoring system, but only after systematic attention is given to promotional career ladders for women. Women need the opportunity to move into line positions. Thus effectively and efficiently ending the word-of-mouth form of internal promotion practices would definitely help. Attention to the subjectivity involved in the promotion decisions of some organizations is also warranted (Jandeska & Kraimer 2005). Besides mentoring systems, organizations must address training opportunities for women. Training is seen as a necessity for women to move up the organizational hierarchy; such programs should include management development activities (Chow & Crawford 2004). Additionally, orientation to organization culture may also be appropriate. The diversity programs just reviewed incorporate the need to address attraction (recruiting), retention (changes in work scheduling and benefits), and development (mentoring, task force participation, and advanced education) needs of women. In conclusion, the notion that there is a divide between equality and diversity is one that incites great debate. As illustrated through the examples of individuals with disabilities and women, it is clear to see that diversity can be utilized as a means of impacting equity in treatment irrespective of individual differences. Utilizing the basic tenets of diversity, one is made cognizant of the differences in individuals. These differences may be based on gender, ability, ethnicity or other demographic factors. Irrespective of the etiology of the differences, diversity initiatives can operate as a means of establishing equality. This is most evident in the case of women within the workforce where it has become evident that women are entering the workforce at a greater rate than their male counterparts. In so doing, there is a need to make accommodations for women as a means of impacting equality. These accommodations may include provisions which facilitate the flexibility necessary for women to be gainfully employed while simultaneously fulfilling their familial obligations. Through the diversity initiatives within the workforce, one can clearly see that diversity and equality are not irreconcilable. There is a definite bridge between the two-one that can be exploited for the benefit of all involved. References Barnartt, S.N. & Scotch, R.K. 2001, Disability Protests: Contentious Politics 1970-1999. Gallaudet University Press, Washington, D.C. Brisenden, S. 1986, 'Independent Living and the Medical Model of Disability', Disability, Handicap & Society, vol. 1, no. 2, pp173-178. Broad, K. & Jenness, V. 1997, Hate Crimes: New Social Movements and the Politics of Violence. Aldine de Gruyter, New York. Brown H & Smith H. 1992, Normalisation: A Reader for the Nineties. Routledge, London. Colgan, F. & Ledwith, S. (eds) 2002, Gender, Diversity, and Trade Unions: International Perspectives, Routledge, London. Fleischer, D.Z. & Zames, F. 2001, The Disability Rights Movement: From Charity to Confrontation. Temple University Press, Pennsylvania. Hall, M. P. 1963, The Social Services of Modern England. Routledge & K. Paul, London. Jandeska, K.E. & Kraimer, M.L. 2005, 'Women's Perceptions of Organizational Culture, Work Attitudes and Role-Modeling Behaviors', Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 461- 473. Kirton, M.J. 2003, Adoption-Innovation: In the Context of Diversity and Change, Routledge, New York. Lieberman, Robert C. 2002, 'Ideas, Institutions, and Political Order: Explaining Political Change'. American Political Science Review, vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 697-712. Longmore, P. K. & Umansky, L. (Eds) 2001, The New Disability History: American Perspectives. New York University Press, New York. Manev, I.M. & Stevenson, W.B. 2001, 'Nationality, Cultural Distance, and Expatriate Status: Effects on the Managerial Network in a Multinational Enterprise'. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 285-299. Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. 1994, The politics of problem definition: Shaping the policy agenda. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, KS. Scotch, R. K. 2001, From Good Will to Civil Rights: Transforming Federal Disability Policy. (2d ed). Temple University Press, Philadelphia. Shapiro, Joseph P. 1993, No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. Times Books, New York. Tregaskis, C. 2004, Constructions of Disability: Researching the Interface between Disabled and Non-Disabled People. Routledge, New York. Trent, J. W. 1994, Inventing the Feeble Mind: A History of Mental Retardation in the United States. University of California Press, Berkeley. Ward, M.J. & Meyer, R.N. 1999, 'Self-Determination for People with Developmental Disabilities and Autism: Two Self-Advocates' Perspectives', Focus on Autism &Other Developmental Disabilities vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 133-139. Read More