US Inc shows the affirmative way to corporate India
Why was Corporate America supporting Michigan's policy which considered race as a criteria in granting admissions? Get the true picture.
By TNN |
NEW DELHI: In 2000, General Motors and a group of Fortune 500 companies raised more than a few eyebrows when they filed a ‘friend of the court’ brief in support of an affirmative action policy of the University of Michigan in the district court of that state.
Two white applicants, who had been denied admission, had challenged the university’s policy of considering race as a criteria in granting admissions and called it discrimination. In their brief, the corporates said they hired from the University of Michigan or similar institutions and had a big presence in the district.
They justified their support for the University’s policy by invoking the belief in the need for racial and ethnic diversity in institutions of higher education, so that they, in turn, could have a diverse workforce. The case went up to the US Supreme Court and in a landmark judgement in 2003, the court struck down the university’s points-based system of granting weightage to an applicant’s race but upheld the principle of affirmative action by allowing another policy where race was a factor in admission process, but not given points.
So why was the cream of Corporate America rooting for an admission policy the George Bush government called “fundamentally flawed” and which that country’s highest court, in part, struck down as unconstitutional? Was it because this is what a ‘responsible’ corporate entity in the United States would do? Or does the answer lie in the fact that the corporates stood to lose a well-oiled system through which they funded scholarships, gave financial assistance and provided internships to students of minority groups, many of whom they would hire at a future date.
For those who rubbished their claims as corporate-speak , there was always the question: why would money go where it saw no profit? Kellogg, one of the Fortune 500 to submit the brief, said the diversity of its workforce was a vital ingredient in its success. Procter and Gamble also said its diverse workforce had been the key to its achievements as a Fortune 500 company.
Two white applicants, who had been denied admission, had challenged the university’s policy of considering race as a criteria in granting admissions and called it discrimination. In their brief, the corporates said they hired from the University of Michigan or similar institutions and had a big presence in the district.
They justified their support for the University’s policy by invoking the belief in the need for racial and ethnic diversity in institutions of higher education, so that they, in turn, could have a diverse workforce. The case went up to the US Supreme Court and in a landmark judgement in 2003, the court struck down the university’s points-based system of granting weightage to an applicant’s race but upheld the principle of affirmative action by allowing another policy where race was a factor in admission process, but not given points.
So why was the cream of Corporate America rooting for an admission policy the George Bush government called “fundamentally flawed” and which that country’s highest court, in part, struck down as unconstitutional? Was it because this is what a ‘responsible’ corporate entity in the United States would do? Or does the answer lie in the fact that the corporates stood to lose a well-oiled system through which they funded scholarships, gave financial assistance and provided internships to students of minority groups, many of whom they would hire at a future date.
For those who rubbished their claims as corporate-speak , there was always the question: why would money go where it saw no profit? Kellogg, one of the Fortune 500 to submit the brief, said the diversity of its workforce was a vital ingredient in its success. Procter and Gamble also said its diverse workforce had been the key to its achievements as a Fortune 500 company.
Those opposing the University of Michigan’s policy would probably have still argued that the need for being seen as ‘politically correct’ was driving the corporates to support a policy that was clearly discriminatory. So where does the truth lie between these two sets of arguments? Perhaps this is a question that many in corporate India are asking themselves now, but not openly.
With industry chambers declaring that their guidelines for voluntary affirmative action policies will be out in a few days, there seem to be very few voices asking the politically incorrect question about the effect of putting caste over merit. There can be no doubt about the need for diversity in the workplace. A system which trains recruits from disadvantaged groups before hiring them makes solid sense in comparison to having a mandatory job quota.
But the fear of legally binding job quotas and the need to be seen fulfiling ‘social responsibility’ goals should not lead to tokenism. For this is what governments help in encouraging in their bid to fulfil political ends.
Download
The Economic Times Business News App for the Latest News in Business, Sensex, Stock Market Updates & More.
The Economic Times Business News App for the Latest News in Business, Sensex, Stock Market Updates & More.
Download
The Economic Times News App for Quarterly Results, Latest News in ITR, Business, Share Market, Live Sensex News & More.
The Economic Times News App for Quarterly Results, Latest News in ITR, Business, Share Market, Live Sensex News & More.
ADVERTISEMENT
