by Victor Mikulin

Created on: June 11, 2009   Last Updated: June 15, 2009

The philosophy and concept in workplace diversity is similar to socialism in that it is a beautiful and just thing in theory, but the reality is that it just doesn't work in the real and practical world. To assume that people of every race, gender, age, and background are capable of the same accomplishments given equal requirements, mandates, constraints and resources is well intended but naive. If one accepts the tenants of natural selection, each individual will bring to any task a mosaic of knowledge, skills, abilities, and pertinent background. Their relative success or failure at that task will be predicated upon those factors, and not their inclusion into one of several sociological or demographic categories.

To attempt to codify employment requirements based upon factors other than those that are specific to the nature and scope of the position is a waste of time, money, and effort. It is by its very nature an arbitrary and prejudicial criterion that should not be considered. The sum total qualifications and background of the individual should be the paramount consideration, irrespective of race, gender, age, ethnicity, or cultural background.

Federal laws that require workplace diversity are part and parcel a derivative of affirmative action. While prejudicial hiring practices are deplorable, attempting to compensate for historical practices that discriminated against racial minorities, women, and either the young or the more mature are well intended but futile. Attempts to legislate morality have never been successful. Despite the fact the federal law mandates workplace diversity, if an individual who is in charge of hiring employees holds a distinct bias; they will find ways to circumvent both the letter and the intent of the law. Conversely, hiring an applicant based upon their inclusion as a member of a demographic group as opposed to their qualifications not only sets them up for failure (potentially reinforcing a negative stereotype), but directly supports de jure and enacts defacto discrimination against people who are outside of the targeted demographic group.

This is not to say that occupations cannot have non-traditional members among their ranks. I personally know a female master diesel mechanic who has to fight misconceptions about her daily. Due to the fact that she is a tall, somewhat willowy, attractive female, customers (especially male customers) assume that she is "window dressing" and could not possibly be a qualified mechanic. I have delighted in watching their reaction to her quoting them "chapter and verse" about their mechanical problems, and am particularly gratified to hear their effuse praises over here knowledge, skills, and abilities after they test drive the vehicle that she has personally diagnosed and repaired.

In that same vein of reflection, having spent over 25 years in the medical field, some of the finest, most compassionate and caring nurses I have known were men. Patients usually assume that those men were physicians and not nurses, based upon historic stereotypes. The assumption being that men lack the capacity for nurturing, and are most comfortable in a more detached clinical role.

Equal opportunity is and should be the law of the land. An individual being qualified for any position has nothing to do with their inclusion in a specific demographic group. Affirmative action has not worked and will not work simply because you can change the laws of the land, but you can't force someone to change what is in their heart or in their mind.

Learn more about this author, Victor Mikulin.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.