INTRODUCTION
“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.” [.]
That statement was made by . on August 28, 1963. Today, four decades later, some might say that discrimination of people in terms of ethnic background, skin color, gender, sexual orientation and other bases is no longer a “normal” practice, but an abnormal, cruel, and illegal act. Some would say that we are now a tolerant society, where perceived differences are mostly set aside. They may have a point considering that there had been a global initiative to review government policies and laws concerning equality and fairness to all men. However, rules and regulations is one thing, implementation and compliance is another. The observing eye of the media and concerned organizations may have eliminated discrimination in public places, but hidden from view, practices that deny respect and fairness to blacks, ethnic minorities, females, gays, lesbians, etc. still abounds. In the work environment, biased treatment of applicants/employees due to their sexual preferences is a major problem. In UK, survey among homosexual men and women showed that 43% had experienced insults shouted in a public place, 32% kept their homosexuality secret from their employers and co-workers, 25% had been physically threatened or attacked, 21% had been harassed at work, 11% had suffered other forms of discrimination or ill treatment, 8% had been refused promotion (2006). Solutions to these issues are being worked on by different concerned organizations, particularly Stonewall.
The objective of this essay is to present the effectiveness of Stonewall’s Diversity Champion initiative in promoting equality of treatment between heterosexual employees and employees with a “different” sexual orientation, i.e. gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender. The critical question that needs to be answered is “To what extent does the experience of Stonewall’s Diversity Champions initiative demonstrate that business-led action to promote diversity is an effective means of reducing disadvantage at work?”. We will include a brief overview of the organization Stonewall and discuss the features of its diversity champion initiative. We will then present some of the companies who participated in the project and study what they think about the program developed by Stonewall as well as its impact on the employment environment of their company.
Overview of Stonewall Organization
Stonewall was founded in 1989 by concerned men and women as a means of continuing their struggle against Section 28 of the Local Government Act, which forbids the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities. The name may be based on the Stonewall rebellion in June 1969, where group of homosexual customers of The Stonewall Inn resisted police arrest and fought back. The major purpose of the UK based organization is to create a professional lobbying group that could help prevent discrimination on lesbians, gay men and bisexuals and push the cause for equality on the mainstream political agenda through winning support from different sectors. The organizations lobbying work remains an important part of their operation but the activities have expanded to include the fields of research, legal test cases of inequality, campaigns, and partnerships with non-parliamentary organizations. These activities involving organizations outside of parliamentary include: 1. advising public bodies like police and local councils on good practice 2. establishment of the Diversity Champion program targeting large companies employing millions of people. Aside from Diversity Champion, Stonewall also run two major projects using massive grants from the Community Fund which are Citizenship 21 in England and Wales, and Beyond Barriers in Scotland. Stonewall was granted charitable status (Charity Registration Number 1101255) on September 23, 2003. Facts from this overview were researched from the organization’s official website (006).
Stonewall’s Diversity Champion program
The diversity champion program was developed by Stonewall in 2001 to respond to the issue of discrimination against GLBT (gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender) in the workplace. It provides a way for employers to work with Stonewall to promote diversity in the work environment. Some of the member companies are Barclays, IBM, Sainsbury’s, Excise, HM Customs, BBC, Newcastle City Council, Lloyds TSB and the Royal Navy. The following benefits of joining the Diversity Champion scheme were mentioned by the organization: opportunities for networking, Seminar program and other events, Dedicated point of contact, Access to Stonewall’s work and advice on initiatives the member might undertake, Use of Stonewall logo, Free and exclusive entry in Stonewall’s Recruitment Guide, Discounted registration and priority booking, Access to benchmarking services, Research and guidance, and Sponsorship and branding opportunities (2006). Generally, the implication is that companies joining the program would enjoy a good public image which would help raise the reputation of their products and services, create a loyal and motivated workforce, and widen its applicants’ base. The organization had also emphasized that joining the program could minimize the possibility of potentially damaging discrimination cases, and save discrimination lawsuit expenses for employers (2004). Membership in the organization’s Diversity Champion program is easy; It requires only one criterion: The company must indicate a clear commitment to improving the working environment for its gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers.
Analysis of members’ opinion and impact on operation
To develop a clear picture of the organization and its Diversity Champion program, it is not enough to know how the company describes itself and its projects; it is also essential that we look at what other external sources have to say. In addition, testimonials of member companies could give us an insights on what companies think or intends, that we may use in evaluation of the effectiveness of business-led (or profit motivated?) action in minimizing work disadvantages. All views were taken from the corporate statements posted at the ‘Testimonials’ section of Stonewall web archive (2006). We are going to quote their statements directly to enable us to facilitate analysis of how they really regard the program.
“We are delighted to work with Stonewall and we believe that the Diversity Champions programme is playing a powerful role in helping to eradicate homophobia”. []. From this statement, it is clear that the two councilors regard Stonewall’s diversity champions program as a solution that solves more than just issues internal to the Manchester City Council. It is apparent that they joined the program for addressing homophobia in the society in general.
“Stonewall’s Diversity Champions programme will help us to raise KPMG’s profile as an employer of choice to the LGB community in order to attract, retain and motivate people of all sexual orientations.” [ Diversity Manager, KPMG]. In contrast with the first statement that we discussed, KPMG’s testimonial implies a slightly self-oriented approach. From words, we get the impression that KPMG’s purpose in membership is simply to improve the reputation of the company to the LGB community.
“Barnardo’s have gained a number of benefits as members of Stonewall’s Diversity Champions programme. Now LGB staff are telling us that they selected Barnardo’s as their employer of choice because we are members of the programme, and in an environment where quality recruits are hard to come by that gives us a competitive advantage.” , UK Director, Corporate Resources & Lead Director LGB Issues, Barnardo’s]. Here we see another example of commercially driven motivation in joining Stonewall’s diversity program. The testimonial does not show what good the program had done for the LGB workforce, it simply points out the “competitive advantage” that a company could gain as a member. Take note of the reported employees’ reason for selecting the company: just because the company is a member. It also indicates difficulty of getting “quality recruits” as another driving force for participating in the program. This testimonial looks more like an advertisement rather than an appreciation of the program’s contribution to workplace ambience improvement for LGB employees.
“Joining the Diversity Champions programme endorsed what we were trying to achieve, gave the work credibility from an early stage, and provided us with specialist information and resources that we would otherwise not have been able to access. I can honestly say that the money was very well spent – worth every penny!” [Strategy Officer-Equalities, Cambridge City Council]. The term “worth every penny” emphasize the business aspect of the initiative, which gives a little tarnish to the otherwise noble cause. Sigrid Fisher’s admittance that without Stonewall, they would not have access to to resources and information, highlights the limitation of a business-led solution in the overall improvement of working condition. Furthermore, the testimony mentioned the existence of an ongoing effort of the company towards diversity even before they joined Stonewall’s program. This is similar to the next testimony.
“Membership of Stonewall’s Diversity Champions programme has given the work that we are taking forward credibility from an early stage and provided the OFT with specialist advice and resources, not available elsewhere.” [Diversity Coordinator, Office of Fair Trading]. Notice the similarity between this statement and the one made by ? They are both praising the program for providing resources not available elsewhere. The statements are really very similar in all aspects, almost like they were pre-arranged, to force readers into thinking that the diversity champions program is the only choice because of the theme “we have it, others don’t”. It is also worth noting that these two members regard the “credibility” given to them highly. The analysis of these statements brings us back to reviewing some of the offered benefits of joining the diversity champions program.
The essence of membership in Diversity Champions Program
There has been some concern in the effectiveness of the program with regards to member’s intentions. The issues arise from the advantages that are being offered to prospective members. Most of the benefits listed are geared toward enhancing member’s image, providing exclusive services, and widening the member’s market in both customers and applicants. Some sectors point out that shadow of a doubt exists regarding the purity/sincerity of companies enlisting in the program. Since companies who want to sign up were not required to present an established accomplishment in LGBT employees treatment either before or after registering, there were opinions that some employer might participate in the initiative for appearances only, without concrete effort in actually improving their system. Jude Jackson, secretary of the LGBT group in the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), argue that LGBT staff employed in the government departments that enlisted in the diversity champions program did not experience any ‘substantial benefits’ as a result of membership (Labour Research 2004: 15-16). There were resources, information, seminars, and trainings provided to employers as a privileged member, but none for employees. Of course, Stonewall have a lot of free documents, guide and seminars for employees too, in fact it is available to anyone interested, but these resources are not in relation to Diversity Champions membership. These latter resources are available whether your employer is a Diversity Champion or not. So what immediate good does Diversity Champion give to an employee? The answer is unclear, or the answer depends on the type of employer you have.
Then there were cases that a joining member had already initiated a diversity movement with respect to sexual orientation prior to membership in the program. For example, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) joined the Diversity Champions program in July 2004, but before doing so, it had already reviewed and revised its policies to make sure that its employment system meets the requirements of the law on discrimination with respect to sexual orientation. Rules like allowing unmarried heterosexual couples and same sex partners to enjoy the privileges previously enjoyed by married partners only, was established even without the intervention of Stonewall (2004:). Another example is Barclays, who in early 2002, launched the Spectrum network for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender) employees and also those who show interest in sexual orientation issues (2002), a program not influenced by membership with Diversity Champions. It seems that again, the company thinks that membership with the program would give credibility to their efforts.
The British Royal Navy also joined Stonewall’s Diversity Champions program on Feb 2005 (2006) , but not before the Armed Forces had introduced a new general code of sexual conduct and lifted the ban on homosexual members of the Armed Forces. The policy change and the lifting of the ban was basically due to the efforts of Stonewall, through providing legal assistance to some Armed Forces members who were treated unfairly due to sexual orientation. Stonewall even went to Strasbourg and European Court of Human Rights to secure victory in the legal battle. Obviously, much of the success and achievements of the organization came from initiatives that were not business-led concepts.
CONCLUSION
The aim of the organization Stonewall as a whole is honorable and admirable, and it had accomplished much in its drive to improve the way LGBT community are being treated in the public, school, and workplace. They should have kept their usual principle of helping, because its new “fund-raising” activity Diversity Champions program seems to be a means that does not justify the ends. Even though there are remarkable results and improvements, these can also be achieved by ways other than offering to build a company’s image without requiring any significant effort. The aim of the program is to improve the working environment for LGBT employees but it’s looking more like the focus is on improving the marketing environment of the company. In addition, what this program do is create a “false demand”, in the sense that the features, benefits, and operation process of the program gives idea to companies that no sexual orientation diversity drive is effective and credible without membership to the program. The Diversity Champions Program never reported an instance when a company’s membership was revoked because of non-compliance to Stonewall’s suggestion or training. No background check, or random operation check is being done anyway. Most of the members to the program were companies who were previously engaged (and making progress) in their own sexual orientation diversity drive prior to membership. There is no known program wherein members are guaranteed to enjoy prestige as black-friendly or Jew-friendly company. Why should solution for sexual orientation be different from any other discrimination issues?
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment