Diversity and the professions. When talking about mass communication professions, this seems like a no-brainer. The answer is in the question. How can you communicate with massive amounts of people when you exclude a whole race from both ends of the chain? Often a race will be affected by a passive aggressive sort of racism or blatant prejudice, which excludes them from being covered in a story, broadcast or advertising campaign. And is it possible that the reason for this could be traced back to the racial breakdown of the people producing the content in question?
I think the fact that races are not represented in the offices of the companies producing the content is a major factor in the problem. I am not saying that someone from one race cannot begin to understand the culture of another race. Like we discussed in class today when talking about Latino representation in the media, I think it is human nature for someone to feel more comfortable with someone that looks like them and can speak their language. Therefore, why not have that person on your staff if your target audience includes this race. A former coworker and friend of mine, who was a reporter at KOCO at the time, said that he wished he had majored in a different area, like Spanish, and minored in journalism while he was at the University of Oklahoma. No doubt that reporters have to know a little about a lot, but his reasoning was that he could be a specialist in an area other than journalism like almost every other reporter. And I think a diverse workplace provides that specialist that could report the negative stories and search for those positive stories that might be harder to find for someone not as familiar with the culture. Like Mr. Chavez said when he visited our class last week, if we were creating an advertising agency, he would open a bilingual agency. He says it is just good business sense in this market. When you consider that there are close to 200,000 Latinos in the Oklahoma City metro area, it is hard to argue. Why would you want to ignore this growing area of the market?
The National Football League has been a forward thinker in the area of diversity in the workplace. In 2003, they introduced the Rooney Rule, which mandated teams interview at least one minority candidate when a head coaching position was open. When approximately two-thirds of the players are “other” or not white, this makes good sense to me. And seems not to create as much controversy as affirmative action. The NFL has recently expanded the Rooney Rule to the front office as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/15/AR2009061502806.html
Of course there is an opposing side to the Rooney Rule too, saying that it is reverse racism.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmVjOWQ3MDkyZTliYWE0MzA5MmQzNmI4ZjNmOTg2N2U=
But I think the majority of people agree that this rule is a positive step forward and I believe that this could easily be used in many areas outside of the sporting world. Is there a perfect solution out there? In the words of Joe Hight from the Oklahoman, “No.” But there are new ideas that need to be looked at.
How is that working out? Have those interviews been successful in opening and leveling the playing field? What is reverse discrimination,by the way?
ReplyDeleteThe NFL is much better than college football. I know that you have heard the term "reverse racism". Does it exist? Or better yet , can it exist? I don't know. But I know you have heard this code word before. See link for example
ReplyDeleteIt All Comes Down To Power
ReplyDeleteAttempts to “level the playing field” through quotas and affirmative action, in my opinion, have failed to really change the thing that created jingoistic workplaces to begin with; who controls the power. Sure there are more people of color coaching professional football teams than ever before, and there are more people of color in management of companies than ever before; but has the situation really change? How many owners of professional teams of any sport in America are people of color? Not many and I can only think of one, Michael Jordan and the Washington Wizards. Whites are controlling 95% of the wealth produced in America today. Until the percentage of wealth in out nation is balanced between all racial groups, America will remain divided, and diversity will continue to be an afterthought. Although this is not likely to happen overnight, it can happen. Wealthy people of color, and whites concerned with the lack of diversity in the American workplace can begin or continue to promoted companies that are owned and operated by people of color. People of color can join together and promote elected officials that reflect their racial heritage. I know this may sound as if I am promoting a concept that will divided our nation even more, and initially it would do exactly that, but that 95% is large gap to overcome and an extreme action will be necessary. Those of white privilege, who control that 95%, are not likely to give it up easily.
Something to think about. When we were assisting the Iraqis in coming up with a representative government, we insisted that the three groups (Sunni, Shia, and Kurds) all share some of the executive power. Each group is “equally” represented among the president, two vice presidents, the prime minister, two deputy prime ministers, and the Council of Ministers. Imagine if we had that system in America today with these positions filled by the races that make up our nation. How differently would our government operate? In this case it seems we said to the Iraqi’s “Do as we say, not as we do.”