On the Discourse of Affirmative Action and Reservation in the United States and India

Abstract

The Problem Discriminatory practices appear to be part of the human condition and these practices negatively impact historically oppressed and marginalized groups. The United States developed the system of Affirmative Action (AA), and India developed the system of Reservation to end discriminatory practices and increase diversity; particularly in the areas of employment and education. The sustainability of both systems is an open question because the dominant discourses about AA and Reservation generally are negative. AA and Reservation are viewed as public goods by some as well as public nuisances; and are criticized as thwarting meritocracy and creating innocent victims. Organizations as microcosms of society experience this controversy which impacts the utility of AA and Reservation, and the implementation of diversity management (DM) programs. In some instances, misunderstanding and opposition to AA, Reservation, and DM programs can be attributed to the human maladies of racism, sexism, and casteism. These conditions require dynamic and complex interventions that go beyond simplistic training and development interventions. The Solution Human resource development (HRD) practitioners should adopt an expansive definition of HRD which include the design and implementation of developmental interventions for an increasingly diverse workforce. Given the growing adoption of HRD practice internationally, we provide two units of discourse about AA and Reservation to demonstrate the importance of dialogue and inclusion when developing DM interventions. Importantly, we illustrate how conversations representing majority and minority perspectives can foster Dialogic HRD (DHRD) practice. The Stakeholders The stakeholders are organizational leaders, policymakers, DM program managers, and HRD practitioners.

A Theoretical Literature Review on the Social Identity Model of Organizational Leadership

“…Social identity theory was identified as one theory that could “explain how individuals identify with groups and organizations and how they become attracted to organizations based on their CSR, CS, and ethical behavior” (Garavan & McGuire, 2010, p. 493; see also Marin & Ruiz, 2007). In viewing globalization and the need to leverage diversity, Haynes and Alagaraja (2016) identified groups as those that naturally form in social systems (e.g., gender, race). In showing that “diversity still exist[s]” (Haynes & Alagaraja, 2016, p. 72) in globalized societies based on group status, they highlighted that some discriminatory practices are based solely on one’s grouping category.…”

“…In viewing globalization and the need to leverage diversity, Haynes and Alagaraja (2016) identified groups as those that naturally form in social systems (e.g., gender, race). In showing that “diversity still exist[s]” (Haynes & Alagaraja, 2016, p. 72) in globalized societies based on group status, they highlighted that some discriminatory practices are based solely on one’s grouping category. Haynes and Alagaraja (2016) identified these discriminatory groups as out-groups , referring to “groups that are marginalized and stigmatized in social contexts” (p. 72; see also Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986) Distinguishing the dominant discourse around diversity by giving voice to out-group members, Haynes and Algaraja (2016) proposed extending HRD’s reach to include diversity HRD ( D HRD).…”

“…In showing that “diversity still exist[s]” (Haynes & Alagaraja, 2016, p. 72) in globalized societies based on group status, they highlighted that some discriminatory practices are based solely on one’s grouping category. Haynes and Alagaraja (2016) identified these discriminatory groups as out-groups , referring to “groups that are marginalized and stigmatized in social contexts” (p. 72; see also Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986) Distinguishing the dominant discourse around diversity by giving voice to out-group members, Haynes and Algaraja (2016) proposed extending HRD’s reach to include diversity HRD ( D HRD). In implementing D HRD, scholars and scholar-practitioners would be able to “examine their mindset/worldview and their willingness to go beyond the traditional diagnostic-based practice of HRD” (p. 83).…”

Caste matters: perceived discrimination among women in rural India

“…Caste relations in India and race relations in the U.S., while not interchangeable, share similarities (Slate 2011; Reddy 2016). Historically, Black Americans and SC are marginalized identities who are subjected to discriminative social norms (Haynes and Alagaraja 2016). While discrimination based on caste is outlawed in India, 93% of people across Northern India, including law makers, reported that they believed atrocities were still committed on SC members (Naval 2004).…”

Exploring the Boundaries of Diversity and Inclusion in Human Resource Development

“…An entire journal issue of Advances in Developing Human Resources was dedicated to examining India and several contested topics associated with gender and diversity (Advances in Developing Human Resources, 2016). These discussions shed light on national perceptions of gender inequality (Batra & Reio, 2016), diversity management (Haynes & Alagaraja, 2015), and the career barriers faced by women in India (Collins & Abichandani, 2016; Sims & Hirudayaraj, 2015). In the context of a caste system and other social and cultural conditions, diversity can be an elaborate construct (Ghosh, 2016).…”