Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    A very powerful and effective program as long as senior management
    is behind it, supporting and promoting it.  And training their direct
    reports so that it "trickles" down.
    
    A fairly useless program if it consists only of putting up the
    obligatory posters and snickering about it.

    The idea of ignoring differences under EEO is that you don't allow
    prejudices about a particular group to influence your hiring or
    promotion. (All ---- are ____-- etc._)
    
    The idea of valuing differences is to celebrate the differences
    between people and not mold others into a rigid classification
    that they do not fit. 
    
    Actually I think there aren't as many fundamental differences
    between people as there are different avenues to walk.
    
    One of the most illuminating experiences to me was an excerise
    in a workshop where people used symbols to express who they
    were and than discussed the symbols with each other. There were
    more common symbols than there were unique ones. And this was in
    a very mixed ethnic,cultrual group.
    

       My understanding of Marge's question -- and it seems to be a
       fundamental issue regarding Valuing Differences -- is the extent
       to which "differences" should be recognized.
       
       To some people, the very name of Valuing Differences gives an
       undue emphasis to the differences among people -- it seems to
       imply that every person should be treated equally, even though the
       person might be black/brown/white/yellow/red/gay/straight/bi/
       Moslem/Christian/Jew/atheist/etc.  In the absence of the VD (as it
       were) program, many of us were taught (and, it is to be hoped,
       have come to believe) that every person should be treated equally,
       and it is neither necessary nor useful to consider the various
       racial, ethnic, religious, or gender-related differences that may
       exist.
       
       --Mr Topaz 

Bonnie (or anyone who knows) -- can you give us an explanation of the
program, perhaps some "official" description of what it's supposed to mean?
There was some discussion of this in the previous version of =wn=, but I
wasn't very satisfied by it. 

I've heard some of the things that go on in some VD programs, but that's how
they achieve the goals, not what the goals are. I'd like to find out what
they're doing before discussing how it's being done. (The programs did sound
interesting, by the way.)
					-- hs

    I think 'valuing differences' is a positive term.  The result of
    valuing an idea that is different can be creative and productive.
    Whereas 'ignoring differences' connotates a negative aspect.
    
    Some of the most creative ideas and artistic works I have seen
    have come from - children!
    
    A quote from a child "Why didn't Rapunzel get out of the tower
    herself?"
    
    To value differences, in my opinion, is to be open to alternative
    concept, to other ideas in addition to our own, rather than ignoring
    them or discrediting them specifically because they are different.

    RE .4
    Marge>:
    
    I think that "ignoring differences" is absolutely impossible - it
    sounds like some kind of mind game.  Try not seeing that the person
    with you is female, or oriental, or whatever.  It's like standing
    in a corner and not thinking about a black bear.
    
    I think that what a good interviewer is actually doing is closer
    to "valuing differences."   Your goal is surely to see what any
    person you are interviewing can give to the job and the group, and
    to see that in spite of the prejudices we have all taken in.
    
    Briana

    Valuing differences, I believe, can be used in both EEO requirements
    and in denoting the "specialness" or "uniqueness" within each of
    us.  Under the EEO requirements, "valuing differences" could be
    interpreted as meaning each of us is different, and I value and
    respect the fact that you are different, but that does not mean
    that you will be treated any differently than anyone else applying
    for this job, rather, it will let you know that you are being equally
    considered.  In a more "each_of_us_is_unique" vein, "valuing
    differences" means that even though you and I may not always agree,
    you have a right to feel the way you do, even as I do, and I respect
    your right to feel or see life as you do without dimishing my right
    to feel or see life as I do.  By each of us respecting the other,
    we can learn to live together with a reasonable degree of harmony.
                                                                      
    Barb

    I don't see the conflict either, but tend to think that "ignore"
    is not the word we want to use.  I think it is possible to recognize
    that people are different in many ways but to not include those
    differences when making decisions such as those under the domain
    of EEO.
    
    For example, I have blue eyes and someone else may have green eyes,
    so we are different.  And it is nice that there is a bit of variety
    in life - it would be boring if everyone had blue eyes - but I would
    certainly hope that a hiring manager would not use the color of
    my eyes as a criterion in deciding whether or not I get the job.
    
    I was going to suggest the word "disregard", but my dictionary
    says that means "to ignore".  Oh well....
    
    					Steve

    It seems to me that EEO comes into play *before* someone is given
    a job offer. VD seems to be more appropriate *after* they are employed
    by DEC. 
    
    Any ideas on this? 
    
    Jenny

    What the term means to me:
    
    (Thoughts)  Gee! That's a classic epicanthic fold.  How would I
    look with one?
    
    Wow!  Melanin really is just in the dermal layer; it doesn't extend
    under the fingernails.  But why is there less of it on the palms
    of the hands?  Does it serve any purpose?  Does she think I look
    funny because the nails and palms of my hands are darker than the
    skin?  Hmmm, and hairy, too.
    
    What would it be like to be colorblind?  Is the grey of green different
    from the grey of red?  Do different colorblind people see different
    greys and color-like things?  I was so pleased to find it has a
    survival value -- but bizarre.  And to think that John can't match
    his pants and socks, but can match up all those little wires in
    a telephone cable.  Amazing.
    
    All these neat differences!  And not one of them makes a da%n bit
    of difference in getting the job done.
    
    							Ann B.

    Well, let me try again.
    
    Ignore- maybe this means rather than let subconsious attitudes
    cause me to make assumptions based on a cultural,sexual,ethnic
    difference I force my rational brain to see facts rather than let
    preconcieved attitudes determine my behavior.
    
    I don't have a problem with the two concepts. EEO means to me
    (both as a manager and as an employee) that everyone has equal
    opportunity in terms of the workplace. Valuing differances means
    that I don't allow my differences from the other to cause a problem.
    It also means that I try to value those differences. I guess because
    I am different in a lot of situations (being
    female,engineer,handicapped) I am sensitive to other differences.
    
    It also means to me that a little common sense and courtsey is
    used. For example-if someone were a vegitarian I would not take
    them to a restraunt that only served meat. When in a meeting with
    Japanese vendors I use the San because it is their way of showing
    respect just as I would prefer Ms..
    
    I have had my life much enriched my people "different" from me-
    i.e. not WASP and think that I have learned to be more tolerant.
    
    Maaybe this analogy will help- If you go on vacation to a totally
    different enviornment (say Europe for a U.S. person) do you insist
    on American food,lodging-and ask why don't they do things right(like
    in America) or do you accept the fact it is a different country
    and learn and enjoy?
    
    To me there not exclusive but building blocks. Before I can value
    or celebrate differances there must be an opportunity for me to
    be exposed to them. If there were not EEO I probably would not
    be exposed to them.
     

       The issue, I think, is the mindset or approach that one brings to
       the issue. 
       
       'Valuing differences' seems to generate a mindset that says "I
       recognize your ethnic/gender/etc. differences, I repsect those
       differences, and I'll treat you as I treat anyone else." The more
       traditional mindset [at least among those of us with impeccable
       social consciences] says "I'll treat you as I treat anyone alse,
       and any ethnic/gender/etc. differences are so irrelevant and
       inconsequential to the matter at hand that I don't even notice
       them."
       
       The difference is subtle, and it's more a matter of emphasis and
       approach than of significant substance.  But I have yet to hear a
       remotely reasonable explanation of why it is necessary to
       recognize and identify differences (and you must, obviously,
       recognize and identify differences if you are going to value
       them).
       
       --Mr Topaz 

    RE. 19
    
    This is interesting. We just had valuing differences come up in
    blacknotes. And I've tossed it around with my friends. I'd like
    to try to clarify the difference, theoretically:
    
      > 'Valuing differences' seems to generate a mindset that says "I
      > recognize your ethnic/gender/etc. differences, I repsect those
      > differences, and I'll treat you as I treat anyone else." The more 
                     -----------------------------------------
      > traditional mindset [at least among those of us with impeccable
      > social consciences] says "I'll treat you as I treat anyone alse,
      > and any ethnic/gender/etc. differences are so irrelevant and
      > inconsequential to the matter at hand that I don't even notice
      > them."
       
    I'm not sure that I want to be treated like a man. But that doesn't
    mean that I don't want to be paid the same respect and given equal
    opportunity to demonstrate my worth in society. But please, don't
    expect me to use a urinal. I'm not built for it. I definitely do not
    want to be treated as if I were a white person. I'm not. I'm black, and
    very proud of what my ancestors have survived. And it influences my
    perspective on MANY issues. But this in no way makes me deserve
    any less respect, courtesy or opportunity than my white peers. Or
    peers of any race. This insight and different perspective can
    be very valuable and should be recognized in the same way that if you
    average a 37 with a 17 65's, you no longer get 65. Sometimes, coming
    with 65 all the time just means that no one has fresh input. A more
    profound and VERY HYPOTHETICAL example. Say you needed to reach a
    consensus. And 15 people voted yes, one person votes no. A person who
    is used to being the majority may react one way, a person used to being
    a minority, may view it entirely differently. The person who
    understands and knows how to deal with the situation of being a
    minority may have a solution that brings about consensus, whereas a
    person unused to this situation may not.
    
    Therein lies the value of difference. It enriches perspective. This
    is not to recommend that you place on a pedestal the opinions of
    minority voices. But the minority voice needs to be subtly encouraged,
    and shown that a different perspective will not be ignored because
    of where it comes from.
    
    And last of all, if you do not recognize and respect differing values
    among people, you run the greatest risk of offending them. If you do
    not understand differing histories of people, you can easily put your
    foot in your mouth. While ignorance is acceptable, disrespect for
    POTENTIAL differences is not. So many of us in the world have
    nationalistic societies which teach that "we" have it best, "we" are
    the best. When I think of how quickly I have seen classmates scoff at
    the peoples seen in anthropology classes because their customs are
    soooo different, I am saddened. But worse still, I think of my own
    phobias and taboos, and how difficult it is for me to deal the values
    of people from countries that do not have the sexual taboos that many
    Americans and English can't escape from due to the Victorian era.
    And even worse, how often I can't respect a person who chooses a
    more carefree life than mine. Or sometimes, simply a different one. 
    
    Make no mistake, valuing differences is HARDER than treating everyone
    the same. But when you treat people the same, its because you've
    decided that there is one way of treating people that should work
    across the board. And its not true. It is when you value and respect
    differences among people, that you make the greatest cause for harmony
    within the environment. And DEC seems to think its worth the effort...

    re .20:
    
    Ms Foster (sorry, I don't know your first name), Imagine, if you
    will, a very large auditorium. Silence. For just a moment. Then
    the sound of one person quietly applauding. This sound grows as
    more and more people are joining in. Soon you are surrounded by
    an auditorium filled with thunderous applause.
    
    This image is what came to my mind as I read your reply. Well said!
    You said it all better than I could have, although as I read through
    I kept saying to myself "yeah!". So, thank you for saying it better
    than I could have.
    
    -Amy.
    

    In the VD seminar that I attended, we watched a videotape of an
    Oprah Winfrey show on prejudice.  Someone in the audience said that
    she didn't see black or white or female or whatever, she saw a person.
    And the guest said, "Well, either you're stupid or you're blind."
    
    If you treat someone as "just a person," there's a tendency to head
    for the lowest common denominator, which mean ignoring those
    differences.  Black skin doesn't mean anything, but the experience
    of growing up with black skin means something.  The experience of
    being a woman means something.  The experiences create differences.
    If you ignore the cause of those experiences, how do you get to the
    differences those experiences cause?
    
    Of course, these differences are primarily differences in character,
    not ability.  When hiring people, you want to look at abilities.
    However, you also want to look at compatibility.  We're interviewing
    now, and one of our considerations is whether the candidate can
    get along with our group.  We work together, we need compatibility.
    So sometimes the differences do matter, if they're incompatible.

    
    re:.-1
    this approaches what i've been thinking on the subject, namely that
    i was brought up to 'not be prejudiced' and to 'tolerate' those
    of different race, creed or color. i have since come to feel that
    this is not enough. 'tolerate' is too negative a concept. we need
    to 'value' those who are different from ourselves. i'm not quite
    sure how this applies in the nuts-and-bolts of the personnel dept.,
    but i am reasonably sure that a mixed, non-homogeneous, non-homogenized
    work force is a good thing, *for its own sake*.
    

    	When I started at DEC almost 5 years ago, I almost did not get
    the job due to the fact that I had had an operation on my knee.
    I needed a letter from the doctor stating that this was NOT a permanent
    or possibly recurring problem. Isn't this discrimination?
    	18 years ago I was told by the Dept of labor that because I
    was WASP, that I had no leg to stand on in my dispute with a former
    employer. Had I not been WASP, they told me I could win my dispute.
    
    	I have felt discrimination first hand.
    
    = is =
    
    dead is dead
    
    Steve

       A few definitions: (from my Father...)

                   Prejudice: 	a belief that everyone different from
                   		yourself is inferior to yourself

                   Toleration: 	controlled prejudice.

                   Affirmative Action: a form of inverted prejudice.

       and one of my own (this is more a fear than a belief)

                   valuing differences: a self aggrandising form of
                   		toleration. 


                   /. Ian .\

	EEO requires that you judge employees and potential employees
	by their abilities, experience, etc, and not by their
	sexual/racial/ethnic differences. There is no requirement to
	*ignore* those differences.
	
	Valuing differences means to find the value in those
	differences, rather than to judge those differences (or judge
	people by their differences). Value the different perspectives
	that those differences bring.
	
	Mike

    <--(.28)

I consider the idea of Valuing Difference an extraordinary useful 
concept, and I find it becoming a more and more signficant part of my 
personal philosophy.  I don't want to bore anyone with old material,
but I'd like to take the liberty of bringing over a portion of note 
750.35 from Womannotes-V1.  Although the topic under discussion at that 
time was wimmin's separatism, part of that note expresses how I think 
we perceive the idea of difference is general.  With the moderator's 
permission...

Whenever we discuss these kinds of issues, there are always two sides: 
one is the fact of our common humanity and the second is the fact of our 
differences.  Both are quite real and true, and both can be used in a 
way to promote freedom and in a way to promote oppression.

On the common humanity side, certainly recognizing that most of us want 
the same things out of life -- a little love and happiness, some 
meaningful work, the good of our loved ones and a future for our 
children -- can give us the bonds to work together to create an 
environment in which we can all thrive.  Unfortunately, there is a 
sneaky way in which this argument can be used to imply that no one is 
really different from the "norm".  Behavior that doesn't fit is 
invisible, or whenever it rubs up against the "norm", is "abnormal".
The definition of normal here is what is insidious.  Since we have a 
common humanity, it is easy to slip attachments onto this commonality 
and label them as part of it.  

Since it is an undeniable fact that our culture has been dominated by
white men for quite some long time, white male experience has come to be
the terms in which that commonality has been defined.  Many attitudes
and values that are in fact unique to white men have been mislabelled as
"common human".  Other attitudes and values are usually labelled in such
a way to seem inferior varieties of the "common human".  Because 
<white male=common human> in most white men's experience, they haven't
got much of a basis for hearing real difference. Liberal men, in the
interest of trying to communicate with others, will then assume that
there are no real differences,  that essentially everyone one else in
the world is really a virtual white male.  On one hand, this can be seen
as an act of generosity,  but on the other hand, it makes other people
invisible. They are essentially told that all the parts of them that
don't fit the white male paradigm are nonexistent, and when these parts
are of crucial importance to an individual s/he can feel quite
invalidated and ghostlike. The experience is a lot like being told that 
no matter how much you SAY you don't like lime jello, I KNOW that you 
really do, because I like lime jello, and in your heart you are really 
just like me.

I think it is easy to see how "common humanity" can be used on both 
sides of the argument here -- as a way to bridge between individuals, 
and as a way to deny individuals their validity and personal truth.
It therefore matters a lot WHO is talking about "common humanity".  When 
a person of "difference" talks about it, they are generally talking 
about a slightly different intersection of experience than a person of 
the dominant culture.  

The recognition of difference is another two-edged sword.  Because the 
dominant culture identifies itself as "common human", difference has 
traditionally been the basis for marking the less-than-human.  
Difference has automatically meant inferiority, and inferiority has just 
as automatically been the justification for exploitation.  Just as no 
one questions the justification for using "inferior" animals as beasts 
of burden and food, few have questioned the justification of using 
"inferior" humans as forced labor, domestic workers, or sex slaves.  
Upgrading any class of "sub-human" to "common human" has usually 
involved erasing their differences: teaching them to speak English, 
drink tea, wear suits, and so on.  For many persons of a liberal 
persuasion, recognizing differences has meant subscribing to the 
oppression justified by these differences, so in order to justify
equality they attempt to "upgrade" the oppressed to "common human", and
so end up erasing them. 

The existence of stereotypes is seen as serving the interests of
oppressors, since it marks out and categorizes the "inferior" 
characteristics of the typed class.  Any acknowledgement that 
stereotypes may have some basis in a statistical distribution of 
cultural characteristics is seen as participating in the oppressive ways
these stereotypes are intended to be used.  A stereotype, when used to 
mask out the reality of any given individual, is of course an oppressive 
thing.  (About as oppressive as being told you're really the same as 
as a white male when  you aren't one -- both deny your own reality).
There is a big difference, though, between using a stereotype to oppress, 
and recognizing a cultural commonality, the bonds of experience that tie
a particular group together.  You will often find members of an 
oppressed group poking gentle fun at their own stereotypes and using 
them as a bonding experience, when the same kind of "humor" from an 
outside group who is not participating in the bond is offensive.

A "different" group suffers from much assault on its "differences" by 
the mainstream culture.  These assaults come from those who emphasize the 
differences with the intent of using them to prove inferiority and 
justify exploitation, and the well-meaning who wish to promote equality 
through erasing the differences.  Both have the same assumption, though: 
difference is bad.  This assault has a number of predictable effects. 
Because the differences do exist in the different group's experience, 
they end up believing in their own inferiority.  Some choose to leave 
their differences behind and emulate their "superiors", in the interests 
of acquiring "equality".  This kind of reaction may involve  a real 
denial of the group and particularly vicious put-downs of its 
traditional behavior.  Others may choose to attack the root assumption 
that difference is bad, and choose to validate their culture, bonding 
around it and even flaunting its particular characteristics in the face 
of the mainstream culture.

It is this latter behavior that constitutes such a threat to the mainstream 
culture.  As long as the quest for equality does not deny the assumption 
that <common human = dominant culture>, and difference is bad, the 
dominant culture is not threatened.  As soon as the idea of EQUALITY 	
WITH DIFFERENCE surfaces, there is a deep threat to the culture.  White 
men are suddenly dethroned as the human norm and the central definition 
of human experience.  I think this is a far more deep threat than 
admitting a few grey flannel women to the boardroom or Oxford-educated 
blacks to the government.

Accepting equality with difference (Valuing Differences) means 
acknowledging that "different" groups have a basis for deep 
dissatisfaction and anger toward the dominant culture.  Members of the 
dominant culture must face the ways in which they have been complicit in 
exploitation, and this naturally makes them quite uncomfortable.  It 
is very hard for white people to hear the anger and pain of people 
of color, men to hear the anger of women, and so on.  This anger is a 
necessary part of every oppressed group accepting its own worth.  You 
cannot recover from abuse without the healthy rage of one who knows
s/he didn't DESERVE to be exploited and abused. It is natural for
the targets of that rage to want to gloss over it, say yeah, yeah, that's
the past, let's move into an "equal" future.  Unfortunately, an equality
that cannot hear the truth of everyone's life is no real equality -- it
is an equality of grey paint for everyone.  

	re .30: Let me see if I fully understand your point. Boiling
	it down then, basically differences are measured using white
	men as the standard, and being different has negative
	connotations. Pretending "we're all the same underneath" and
	should be treated identically (which is not the same thing as
	being treated equally) is just a more insidious form of
	prejudice, because it puts pressure on those who are
	"different" to be more like "everyone else". This is the
	problem with "color-blind" approaches to equal opportunity.
	What we need (and what Valuing Differences mean) is to accept
	those differences as being as valid as our own - to not so
	much treat everyone "equally" (which tends to be interpreted
	as "identically"), but to treat the differences of each
	individual with respect. I pretty much agree with this, but
	have one question (probably just a semantic quibble)...

> Many attitudes
>and values that are in fact unique to white men have been mislabelled as
>"common human". 

	Can you be specific? What values and attitudes are unique to
	white men? I don't believe values and attitudes can be unique
	to any particular group - a particular one may be common among
	individuals in a specific group and rare among individuals in
	other groups, but there are always exceptions. I don't know
	what values and attitudes you had in mind, but maybe many or
	all of them are characteristic of the dominant group in a
	particular culture rather than "white men".
	
	Mike

    Mike,
    
    ~A good, close shave is a good thing, because it is a sign of
    scrupulous personal care.~  I understand that the U.S. Army is
    big on this one for its male personnel.  For men of predominantly
    African ancestry, however, it is a path to misery.  *Their*
    beard hairs are so curly that close shaving permits the hairs
    to grow back into the skin, producing infections.
    
    ~This book contains a scientific, fully tested regimen of diet
    and exercise which will enable you to reach and maintain your
    ideal weight...~  Most tests of *anything* in which large groups
    of people are used as guinea pigs, have been made using men.
    Women have different metabolisms from men, and what is safe for
    one may well be dangerous for the other.
    
    						Ann B.

	Well, I agree that those are good examples of assumptions that
	can be made when one doesn't understand the differences among
	people (and may be the result of not valuing those
	differences). But they're not examples of attitudes unique to
	white men. Regarding the first, there are many women who think
	a good close shave is nice, and many white men who don't
	necessarily consider a good close shave a good thing (I'm one
	of them:-). Regarding the second, that's just a matter of poor
	sampling.
	
	Mike

    Mike,
    
    You asked for examples.  I gave you an example of behavior which
    is unhealthy for non-white men BUT WHICH IS *ENFORCED BY THE ARMY*
    AS IF IT WERE HEALTHY BEHAVIOR BECAUSE IT IS NOT UNHEALTHY FOR
    *WHITE* MEN.
    
    I gave you an example of advice which can be unhealthy for non-men
    BUT WHICH HAS BEEN *ENFORCED BY DOCTORS* AS IF IT WERE HEALTH-GIVING
    ADVICE BECAUSE IT IS NOT UNHEALTHY FOR *MEN*.
    
    This is what you asked for.  Why did you quibble and dodge?
    
    							Ann B.

    
    re:.30
    thanks for taking the trouble to re-enter this; it had a great effect
    on me the first time i read it and it is still powerful the second
    time around!
    

    
    During my time in service I observed that black personnel
    could get exemptions from shaving.
    
    I would also point out that most pictures of black men
    in African settings in National Geographic feature them
    clean shaven. 
    
    Shaving appears to have been a part of at least some African
    cultures since before they ever contacted white men.

    
    re:.36
    so what? the point is what is defined as 'normal'. you describe
    the black personnel as getting 'exemptions', that is, 'released
    from some obligation...where others are not so released' (Websters
    New World), thus 'not-normal' in our society (what happens/happened
    in africa is irrelevent). this is oppression.
    

    Suppose that you, a white man, are *not* considered the norm.
    Rather than give examples of the ideal "valuing differences"
    culture, let's reverse it and see how it feels...

    o You have an absolute passion for long-distance swimming.
      Recently you've noticed a rather pleasantly surprising
      trend that popular books on the subject often have a
      special chapter on the special needs of men participating
      in this sport, how to deal with the effects of having less
      insulating body fat, less stamina, etc.

    o The kind of hair care and skin care products appropriate
      for you are no longer being sold solely in specialty stores
      and through catalogs--now you can get them at your local
      drugstore!  For example, stronger sunblocks to protect your
      skin, depilatories to remove your excessive body hair,
      styling gels intended for fine hair, are all becoming
      readily available. 

    o Most communities these days include at least one white
      family.

    o People are beginning to recognize and discuss men's special
      needs:  they tend to need more protein in their diet,
      because of having more muscle mass.  They require special
      vitamins, since it is unhealthy for men to ingest as much
      iron.

    o Liberated researchers are doing studies to discover why
      boys generally do less well on standardized tests.  They
      are concluding that it is *not* due to innate differences
      between the sexes, but rather because boys get less
      training in verbal and written skills.  This lack of
      training probably goes a long way to explain why men are
      less often in positions of power requiring excellent
      communication skills, such as politics, corporate
      presidents, and the legal and medical professions.

    o You are interested in a particular line of work, such as
      policework.  You aren't discriminated against, of course,
      but uniforms for people over 6 feet and 180 pounds must be
      specially ordered.

    Do you feel equal?

    -- Linda

    
    re .37
    
    Persons with beards cannot wear gas masks. They will 
    fail to seal, thus afford no protection.
    
    Unprotected persons cannot perform their duties under
    such circumstances.
    
    For this reason I think the specific issue of beards is
    a red herring.
    
    For related reasons, fire departments hire large humans which
    meet stated physical requirements. Women can and do meet those
    requirements. 
    
    I don't see how pointing this out makes me blind (unless its
    a genetic disorder common only in White Men)...

shaving is not healthy for *anyone*, white male or otherwise...

JMB

    
    Much of this topic seems to surface its discussion upon valuing the
    differences of people from another race, creed or color.  What about
    those with handicaps?
    
    Speaking for myself (an epileptic), valuing differences means alot
    to me.  
    
    I'm tired of reassuring people that I'm not some kind of "freak"
    that's going to have a "fit".  I'm a normal, healthy intelligent
    human being just like anyone else.  The problem is, people in today's
    society are too busy to _listen_ and _learn_.  Many are frightened 
    because they still believe all epileptics have convulsive seizures 
    (not true) and might swallow their tongues (also not true).  Epilepsy 
    is a seizure disorder, a handicap, and nothing more.
    
    I don't want to turn this reply into a soapbox, everyone, so I'll
    end this reply by asking that you treat me for the human being in
    me, not the handicap. 
   

    Beckie

    Re 30, .35
    
    Ditto!

re .39

    Mike, I think you got part of my point, despite my having
    phrased it somewhat badly.  What I should have asked was
    something more like "do you feel like your differences are
    being valued?" 

    If I were on the receiving end of those statements, I would
    *not* feel treated fairly, and I was interested to hear you
    say that you would.  It's the implications:  those statements
    are phrased in such a way that there is an implied "norm"
    that is assumed to be right and good without examination.
    Paraphrasing my own words:  "depilatories remove excessive
    body hair" implies that Caucasian body hair (who've got more
    of it than most) is bad, and the lesser body hair of whoever
    is the norm is good. "Boys do badly on standardized tests"
    implies that girls are getting the *right* scores; is anyone
    in this hypothetical culture wondering why girls are assumed
    to be the norm in comparisons in school?

    What I was striving for was the feeling I get when I hear
    that old punch line "studies show that women really *are* as
    smart as men!"  So much of what we say and do quietly erases
    the existence of many people except *in comparison* to white
    men.  It seems so normal to hear "say, did you know Jack got
    married couple months ago?...yeah, to that black woman he was
    dating" the salient fact about the woman being the way she
    differed most from the norm.  And even here I betray
    assumptions:  I have assumed that Jack is white, without even
    thinking twice about it, because white male *is* the norm, at
    a very deep level for most of us.  I read a story recently
    where one of the characters was referred to as "the Captain",
    and I flinched everytime someone used a feminine pronoun for
    her.  I thought I'd gotten over that; I can handle "she" and
    "doctor", or "she" and "lawyer" without a thought, but
    apparently there are some titles for which I still, at a gut
    level, assume male.  This is even more ironic since her title
    was (translated) actually something like "the Captain of the
    Prostitutes," and I *still* flinched at "Captain" and "her"! 

    I'm afraid this is about to go down a rat-hole.  To try and
    bring it back on track:  I think what "valuing differences"
    means to me is that the little give-aways in one's everyday
    language don't assume the identity of the "norm", and talk
    about valuing differences in relation to that "norm."  But it
    will take us a while to get there...

    -- Linda

	re .34: Ann, is it really necessary to YELL? I agree with the
	fundamental points of .30, as I said in my original reply I
	was just concerned with the phrase "unique to white men". I
	still don't see any examples of attitudes that are *unique* to
	white men. I see plenty of examples of the dominant group in
	our society (which happens to be white men) judging all by
	standards that are generally applicable to white men. 
	
	What I really meant to get at, I suppose, is that I think that
	the problem of prejudice is not inherent to white men in
	particular. All "groups", however you define them (by sex,
	race, or whatever) tend to have an "us vs. them" attitude, and
	the group that happens to have the most power in a society (in
	our society, obviously white men) is going to tend to judge
	all members of the society by the standards which apply to
	them. It's not that white men specifically need to learn to
	"value differences", but that *all people* must learn to value
	the differences in *each individual person*.
	
	Hope I made myself clear this time,
	
	Mike

    Valuing Differences means to me that whatever somesones difference
    from me is, I value them as a fellow human being.  It's so simple,
    huh???
    
    I have taken the Leadership Program here in Westfield (DEC) and
    have seen such an improvement between the relationship of other
    co-workers who have attended the same seminars.  It showed me that
    all racism, bigotry, etc. must stop within myself if we are ever
    going to value someone's differences.  I am a Lesbian and my co-workers
    and most of the population in Westfield know this and nobody really
    cares.  I have at times felt cheated out of something because it
    feels so natural.  There are still some people (non-Leadership
    Participants) who will go up to someone and say, "Hey, did you hear
    the one about the Pollack?  With my own ears i have heard the response,
    "No, and I don't want to."  I think that this is excellant and we
    are well on our way to valuing differences.
    
    I, myself, have no children, but, whenever nephews, nieces, neighbors
    kids, any kids, are at my house, the words that spill from their
    mouths reminds me of my own orientation as a child.  The usual
    colluding of ethnic jokes.  My reply to everyone is, "If we are
    going to value differences in others, we must start with the children
    before they get spoiled by societies labels.  Adults at this point
    are having a real hard time changing the stereotype mind sets we
    all have.  If we start out clean, it has to be done early in life.
    
    I give my vote for the Leadership Programs and would encourage everyone
    to undergo some sort of awareness.  You'd be surprised at how much
    you learn, no matter how liberal we are, that we are not so liberal.
    
    To Better Days w/Happy Endings, Nancy

    To me Valuing Differences is learning about *ME*!!
    After taking the first few classes I realized that this whole course
    revolved how I perceive myself in relation to others. It was very
    enlightening to me that after starting a sub-group to deal only
    with womens issues that some of the areas that I thought I needed
    a bit of help turned out to be exactly opposite. For example the
    first class was devoted to working vs. non-working women. Up until
    this time I felt I had a real problem with non-working mothers.
    It turned out that it wasnt the fact of working vs. non-working
    - I was having trouble with non-disciplined mothers. Totally separate
    from the original topic!! It was very strange to uncover that about
    myself.
    Any other interesting surprises about yourself been uncovered???
    
    							Judy
    

    I got this write-up via e-mail from my manager, and found it really
    interesting... 				-Jody
*******************************************************************************
 
 
         Arizona Affirmative Action Association 14th Annual Conference
                             Phoenix, Arizona  
                               May 19, l989
 
         MULTICULTURAL WORKFORCE:  ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
 
                   Robert Hayles
                   Manager, Valuing Differences
                   Sales, Services, Marketing & International
                   Digital Equipment Corporation
 
 
                             INTRODUCTION
 
     I am honored by the opportunity to speak with you today on a topic
of great personal and professional interest.  I'll share a little
information about myself that goes beyond the biosketch, provide some
definitions, offer some free (hopefully worth the price) advice on
diversity, delineate some costs and benefits, provide a few concrete
examples, and then quietly take my seat.
 
     Before I came to Digital (or before my real life began), I ran the
Department of Navy's technology base programs.  That was about a billion
dollars annually (with 35,000 people) of research and development (R&D)
conducted in industry, university, and Federal laboratories.  The job meant
working well with Congress, Congressional staff, political appointees,
corporate R&D executives, university research administrators, 
budgeteers, senior military officers, laboratory directors, scientists,
purchasing professionals, women, men, Hispanics, engineers, and on and
on.  The skills which enabled me to administer a coordinated program
of that magnitude and diversity were "valuing differences" skills.  It
is those skills which sustained both organizational excellence and
my own outstanding performance.  The only difference between that job
and my current one with Digital as a Valuing Differences Manager is
the fact that I no longer review scientific programs in the physical
sciences.  My job is still to lead the organization towards profitability
and productivity by getting people and organizations to be synergistic
by leveraging diversity and valuing differences.
 
      Let's put some of the above into context by defining some key 
terms. I wouldn't dare to offer anything more than brief definitions of
equal opportunity or affirmative action to this group.  I'll start
with people of color and build towards valuing differences.
 
                          DEFINITIONS
 
People of Color -  Positive inclusionary way to encompass all 
non-Whites.  It parallels "White" as a positive way to refer to
others.  The phrase is generally understood internationally and is
frequently used in languages other than English (e.g., French - gens
de couleur).  It includes all racial groups that are not White and
is more accurate than 'minority' (given that people of color make up
over 80% of the world's population).
 
Pluralism -  View espousing that the most healthy, productive,
synergistic way to educate, work and live is more analagous to a salad 
than a stew.  Different cultures and ways are to be respected and 
preserved.  Pluralism most frequently refers to ethnic and religious
differences within the U.S. but is appropriately used in other contexts
with reference to differences other than ethnicity. 
 
Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) -  Primarily a U.S. term 
describing activities required by legislation and Executive Orders 
aimed at providing 'equal opportunity' for designated protected 
classes.  Most laws address Native Americans, Asians, Blacks, disabled, 
Hispanics, those over forty years old, veterans, and women.  Some  
municipalities have extended coverage to prevent discrimination based on
sexual orientation.  EEO deals with discrimination complaints, compliance,
and programs to prevent or cease discrimination.  EEO addresses current
problems, is corrective and frequently done in an adversarial manner.  A
more international vocabulary for this concept might refer to fairness,
absence of bias, legal rights, etc.
 
Employment Equity -  A more generic term used internationally to
describe efforts to mandate fair treatment of all people in the workplace,
especially those who have a history of being victims of discrimination or
blocked from employment opportunities.
 
Affirmative Action (AA) -  Term used in the U.S. and to some extent 
in Canada  referring to pro-active efforts to achieve a diverse workforce.
AA, like EEO, focuses on protected classes designated by law.  It seeks 
to remedy past discrimination and prevent future EEO complaints.  AA 
usually includes goals (not quotas) and timetables for increased 
participation of previously underrepresented groups.  Groups designated 
as protected classes change over time.  For example, the strong 
representation of some Asian Americans in higher education was used 
to exclude them from many educational AA programs.  AA usually includes
hiring, development, promotion and prevention of adverse impacts during 
downsizings.  
 
Diversity -  Used in education, training and development contexts 
and includes the following differences:  gender, age, ethnicity,
race, religion, physical/mental disability, military/veteran
status, immigrant status, lifestyle, and sometimes sexual 
orientation.
 
Difference -  Means not the same.  It denotes neither a negative
nor a positive meaning but typically connotes a negative (less than)
evaluation.
 
Valuing Diversity -  This term and the phrase 'valuing diversity training'
have been trademark registered by Copeland Griggs Productions (San
Francisco, California). It refers exclusively to programs associated with   
the Copeland Griggs Valuing Diversity product.  The focal product is 
a film series titled "valuing Diversity" which addresses the following
U.S. groups:  American Indians, Asians, Blacks, mentally and physically 
disabled, Hispanics, immigrants, men, religious groups, Whites, Women, 
and younger/older workers.  I believe that the term is really generic
and that a legal challenge would find the trademark without merit.
 
Valuing Differences - Use of this term originated in Digital
Equipment Corporation (Maynard, Massachusetts).  It refers to systemic, 
organizational, and personal development work (not a program) done to   
support long-term productivity and profitability. This goal is sought via
ALL employees, clients, customers, and investors feeling valued (not
just tolerated or even respected).  EVERYONE is different and therefore
included in this work.  It specifically goes beyond the protected classes
and diversity to include things like functional differences (engineering 
with manufacturing),  thinking style differences, sexual orientation,
differently abled (less perjorative vocabulary), and on and on and on.  
This worldwide effort recognizes differences, takes them into account, 
and views them as assets.
  
 
                        ADVICE ON DIVERSITY
 
     Whenever someone seeks my advice about this work I think about
an experience I had about a dozen years ago that remains clearly
engraved in memory.  I was managing a research program on organizational
effectiveness when a military officer came in for advice on
setting up an EEO/AA training program addressing primarily laws,
policies, and regulations.  He came in with a notepad and an attitude
of great respect for science and research on such matters.  The
conversation was still informal on my part.  He asked about the 
components of an effective program.  I indicated that effective
work in this area should address the cognitive, affective,
and behavioral domains (head, heart and hand).  I also noted the
need to accomodate a range of learning styles through use of
reading, audio-visuals, experience, deductive guidance, inductive
presentations, etc.  We chatted about trainer competencies.
I added "having a personal passion for the work" to the list of
of standard facilitation/instructional skills.  He thanked me and
left seemingly satisfied.  A few months later he called to say that
he had "designed the program precisely to my specifications."  I
was thankful that it was a telephone conversation and he could
not see my lips saying "oh expletive deleted."  
 
     Actually he was calling to allow me to dig myself an even
deeper hole.  He had hired a team of men and women from several 
ethnic groups to deliver the training and wanted to know how to 
pair them to conduct the training.  I was fortunate enough to talk
him into an experiment involving pre- and post-testing of 
participant knowledge while varying the training delivery teams
by homogeneity/heterogeneity of ethnicity and gender.  We did a 
nice balanced experiemental design.  Briefly, the statistical results
indicated that trainer teams diverse by gender and/or ethnicity
produced significantly higher post-test learning scores than 
homogeneous trainer teams.  For the statisticians in the audience
the significance level for ethnicity, gender, and both combined
exceeded the .001 level.  In plain English, that means the difference
was real and worth acting on.  The officer naturally used those results
to establish the policy that all future training teams would be 
heterogeneous.  This is still true in that organization.
            
     In addition to having skilled trainers with passion addressing
the head, heart and hand, the issue of costs and benefits for doing
this work must be addressed. 
 
                            COSTS
 
     What are the costs of integrating persons from diverse cultures
into organizatons?  Typically some sort of affirmative action is
required to get more members of underrepresented groups into the
organization -- with all the associated special advertising,
targeted recruitment, and outreach.  Once new persons are acquired,
training and support programs for EVERYONE are needed to help
all members to work together.  Everything from sharing of formal
and informal rules, to language training, to communication skill
building, and more are required.  Accommodations to different
needs, preferences and orientations regarding attire, language,
food, holidays, and the like must be addressed.  In the U.S.
alone there are over 70 designated days of religious observance
in each calendar year.  If the environment is an educational one,
variation in learning styles must be respected.  Wherever there is
diversity there is potential for social stress which requires both
time and energy for processing.   While I've only taken a minute
to express a few costs.  Dealing with them does require human and
fiscal resources.
 
     One other cost deserves special mention -- The cost to the
organization of dealing with its external environment.  This might
include the seemingly trivial such as facilitating the provision of
ethnic hair care when you need to attract people from a variety of
ethnic groups to an area whose hair-care professionals are not
proficient at grooming "different" hair (like mine).  It's embarrassing
to have to go to work after an inexperienced barber has cut
your hair.  We must also include the more obviously significant
matters which reflect whether or not members of different ethnic
groups are welcome.  For example, how do you attract African
Americans to places that do not celebrate Martin Luther King Junior's
birthday?  How do you attract Hispanics to areas that make no
mention of Cinco De Mayo, Three Kings Day, Epiphany, etc.?
How do you attract Native Americans into areas where Native seems 
to mean primative and Indian is always juxtaposed to Cowboy?  If 
the environment outside of the organization is hostile, successful 
retention requires that we address both the internal and external 
environments.
 
     Still on the costs side, I'd like to at least mention a few
costs of not doing this work.  I don't need to spend more than
a minute reminding this audience that discrimination suits are expensive.
They are frequently expensive enough to drive the stock price of a
Fortune 100 company down.  Recent settlements include $300 million 
from State Farm Insurance and over $40 million from General Motors
in class action suits.  Single cases average over $75 thousand in 
costs.   Simple failure to value people who look different
(like Steve Wazniak's "hippie" appearance) is costly.  Steve made
millions for Apple because his previous employer could not get past
his appearance and value his ideas.  Once he felt valued he even
managed to wear a suit and tie when it served the company's external
image needs.
 
                          BENEFITS                        
 
     This part is easy.  I'll briefly share five references that
reflect a valuing differences mindset by providing both anecdotal
and empirical evidence that DIFFERENCES ARE ASSETS.  Then I'll share
an example or two of how this work means dollars to business and
survival for the academic and public sectors.
 
1.   "Social Science and School Desegregation:  Did We Mislead the
Supreme Court?" Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 5,
No. 4, pages 420 - 437, l979,  by Stuart Cook ---  Stuart provides
cogent references demonstrating that children who go to school in
integrated settings acquire greater social skills and achieve more
personal growth than those in segregated settings.
 
2.  Cultural Democracy, Bicognitive Development and Education.  New
York:  Academic Press, l974, by Manuel Ramirez III and Alfredo
Castenada.  ---  Manuel and Alfredo described several years of 
research supporting the conclusion that people who can function
in two or more cultures and think in two different styles are
better at leading problem resolution in multicultural groups.
Many Hispanics have such abilities and demonstrated them in
Manuel and Alfredo's laboratory.
 
     Remember that part of our work is to get differences VALUED 
AS ASSETS, not just tolerated or respected.
 
3.  "Homogeneity and Heterogeneity of Group Membership,"  in C.G. 
McClintock (Ed.), Experimental Social Psychology, New York:  Holt, 
Rinehart and Winston, l972,  by Robert Ziller  ---  He reviewed the 
literature on small group performance and concluded that on 
simple/mundane tasks groups homogeneous in terms of race, gender, 
personality, etc. perform as well or sometimes better than 
homogeneous groups. On complex tasks requiring creativity, innovation, 
and problem solving, heterogeneous groups significantly outperform 
homegeneous groups in terms of both quality and quantity.
 
4.  International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, Boston,
Massachusetts:  Kent Publishing Company, 1986. by Nancy Adler  ---
Nancy presents theoretical and anecdotal evidence showing that 
leading-edge products are more and more frequently emerging from
partnerships across national and functional boundaries.  She
also details some of the "why" and "how" of superior heterogeneous
group performance.
 
5.  The Change Masters:  Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the
American Corporation.  Simon and Schuster, l983,  by Rosabeth Moss
Kanter ---  She describes an empirical study showing a significant
corrrelation between doing this work (innovative human resources
activities) and long term (25 year) profitability.
 
     Need I say more?  Well I could give a couple of examples.  
 
When most people of color or women and many people in general evaluate 
a prospective employER they search for information on what their
personal work climate will be.  If it is negative, their salary
requirements increase.  Bottom line --  organizations with good
reputations for how they treat their people have lower salary
costs.  
 
When a major Fortune 100 company was attacked by the press
for doing "racist genetic testing" by providing free sickle cell
anemia screening, it was an ethnic employee group that rescued
that organization from bad public relations (which helped preserve
market share for that company, particularly in American ethnic
communities).
 
     That last point reminded me about the influence seemingly 
small numbers of people of color have.  How much money do the top
25 African American exceutives in the United States manage?
Would anyone believe over $10 billion ?  How about $20 billion?
Since no one is willing to go higher,  I'll have to go ahead and
give you the actual researched number.  It is ONE TRILLION dollars.
That's why it's important for all organizations to be sensitive
and inclusive with respect to public relations, marketing,
advertising, recruitment, and so on images.  When you add women,
Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals,
people with disabilities, immigrants, and so on, you can imagine 
how rapidly the influence figure grows.
 
                        CLOSING
 
    While I've talked a lot about the business reasons for doing this
work, it's important to balance those considerations with the fact
that valuing differences is also the RIGHT THING TO DO.  While 
demographic changes, lawsuits, boycotts, labor shortages and the like
make this work painfully necessary, we must also speak of the
goodness (e.g., quality of work life, ethics, personal growth) and 
profitability/productivity gains that stem from it.
    
      Thank you!
   --------