discrimination in the workplace and education

Educational Discrimination in the Workplace

• ')" data-event="social share" data-info="Pinterest" aria-label="Share on Pinterest">
• ')" data-event="social share" data-info="Reddit" aria-label="Share on Reddit">
• ')" data-event="social share" data-info="Flipboard" aria-label="Share on Flipboard">

Can I Become a Preschool Teacher With an AA Degree?

Federal law that requires racial equality in the workplace, can an employer find out about your education if you omit it in a background check.

• Requirements for Becoming a Paraprofessional in Texas Schools
• Nonprofit Work Laws on Employee Breaks

When the phrase "workplace discrimination" comes up, it's usually in regard to age, ethnic origin or gender. Educational discrimination in the workplace, however, is often another way for employers to discriminate against some of the same protected classes of workers, either intentionally or unwittingly.

Education Discrimination and Legality

Educational discrimination in hiring or in workplace settings is not illegal, as it does not, within context, run afoul of any federal laws protecting workers from discrimination. That being said, Nolo.com notes that educational discrimination may straddle the line between legal and illegal if the educational requirements of the job make obtaining or doing the job difficult for those protected under other laws.

Educational Requirements and the ADA

If it seems that every job from fast food to finance requires a high school diploma, it's not just your imagination. Employers who require a high school diploma for some positions, however, may unwittingly be discriminating against those with learning disabilities or other problems that have prevented them from graduating from high school. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission notes that employers may have to allow some job candidates with disabilities to prove that they can do a job via means other than earning an educational credential.

Susan was diagnosed with severe dyslexia as a child. Due to frequent moves by her family, she has never been able to truly benefit from special education programs and has difficulties with both reading and writing. Still, she is personable, a hard worker, and is very capable of following verbal instructions. At 16, Susan dropped out of school due to frustration but got a job at a local restaurant working as a cook. She is eager to continue her career in the culinary arts and has tried applying to restaurants in a nearby city, only to be rejected because she doesn't have a high school diploma. This is despite the fact that she has, for two years, worked as a cook.

Educational Requirements and Title VII

There is a growing concern in the human resources world that education discrimination might also equal discrimination against some of those protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Requiring a high school or college diploma from an accredited school, for instance, can eliminate naturalized citizens who received their education in another country. It may also result in discrimination against ethnic groups. U.S. Census Bureau statistics show that while 85 percent of the U.S. population over age 24 has a high school diploma, only 61 percent of Hispanics do. "Requiring a degree does have a disparate impact nationally. That alone isn’t illegal. But it does mean you’ll have to justify the requirement as both job related and consistent with business necessity," writes recruitment website ERE's John Zappe.

Educational Discrimination and ADEA

Certain educational requirements may put employers in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older. During the application process, requiring documents such as transcripts and diplomas means giving employers information about a potential employee's age -- within a few years or so -- that can result in discrimination before a job offer is even made. Furthermore, requiring employees to produce official transcripts, diplomas or certifications may put older workers, whose educational institutions may no longer be active, at a disadvantage.

• Nolo.com: Is it discriminatory to require applicants to have a college degree?
• EEOC.gov: What You Should Know: Questions and Answers about the EEOC and High School Diploma Requirements

A writer and information professional, J.E. Cornett has a Bachelor of Arts in English from Lincoln Memorial University and a Master of Science in library and information science from the University of Kentucky. A former newspaper reporter with two Kentucky Press Association awards to her credit, she has over 10 years experience writing professionally.

Related Articles

Examples of equal opportunities within the workplace, what is legally considered religious harassment in the workplace, minority discrimination in the workplace, restrictions for a woman to become a pastor, ten tips for dealing with workplace problems for educational personnel, comparison of level of education to salary, elements of discrimination in the workplace, difference between suspended & discharge of employment, how to get a job with a degree from an unaccredited school, most popular.

• 1 Examples of Equal Opportunities Within the Workplace
• 2 What Is Legally Considered Religious Harassment in the Workplace?
• 3 Minority Discrimination in the Workplace
• 4 Restrictions for a Woman to Become a Pastor

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• The Attorney General
• Organizational Chart
• Budget & Performance
• Privacy Program
• Press Releases
• Photo Galleries
• Guidance Documents
• Publications
• Information for Victims in Large Cases
• Justice Manual
• Business and Contracts
• Why Justice ?
• DOJ Vacancies
• Legal Careers at DOJ
• Our Offices

MENU Education

• Types of Discrimination
• Guidance and Resources
• What is Seclusion?
• About DOJ’s Efforts to Combat Improper Seclusion
• Family Stories
• Seclusion Enforcement – Recent Investigations
• What can DOJ do?
• How to Report?
• What Can DOJ Do?
• Recent Investigations and Agreements
• How to Report

Types Of Educational Opportunities Discrimination

The Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section enforces several federal civil rights laws which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, language, sex, religion, and disability in schools and institutions of higher education. Below we describe the types of cases we address. 

Race and/or National Origin Discrimination

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the landmark legislation prohibiting discrimination in several areas including housing, employment, and education. The sections of the Act relating to education are Title IV, which authorizes the Attorney General to address certain equal protection violations based on race, color, national origin, sex, and religion in public schools and institutions of higher education; Title VI, prohibiting discrimination by recipients of federal funds on the basis of race, color, and national origin; and Title IX, permitting the United States to intervene in pending suits alleging discrimination. Additionally, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 prohibits, among other conduct, deliberate segregation on the basis of race, color, and national origin.

The Educational Opportunities Section is involved in numerous desegregation lawsuits against public elementary and secondary school districts (as well as one state higher education system) where we seek to ensure that state-sponsored segregation is eradicated. Additionally, each year we are involved in numerous investigations and cases addressing discrimination and harassment on the basis of race and national origin. For examples, view the cases list .

Sex-Based Discrimination

Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorizes the Attorney General to address certain equal protection violations based on sex, among other bases, in public schools and institutions of higher education. Additionally, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities operated by recipients of federal financial assistance. Pursuant to these statutes the Educational Opportunities Section works to ensure that all persons regardless of their sex are provided equal educational opportunities. The Section's work includes addressing sex-based discrimination, including sexual harassment, harassment based on not conforming with gender stereotypes, and unequal athletic participation opportunities for students. For examples, view the cases list .

Religious Discrimination

Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorizes the Attorney General to address certain equal protection violations based on religion, among other bases, in public schools and institutions of higher education. The Educational Opportunities Section works to ensure that all persons regardless of their religion are provided equal educational opportunities. The Section's work includes addressing discrimination and harassment on the basis of religion, and spans all religious affiliations. For examples, view the cases list .

English Language Learner students

The Section is charged with enforcing the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). Section 1703(f) of the EEOA requires state educational agencies (SEAs) and school districts to take action to overcome language barriers that impede English Language Learner (ELL) students from participating equally in state and district educational programs. As part of its efforts to enforce the EEOA, the Section investigates complaints that SEAs or school districts are not providing adequate services to ELL students or are failing to take appropriate action in other ways.

Although section 1703(f) of the EEOA does not require schools to adopt a particular type of language acquisition program, courts generally consider three factors to assess the adequacy of such a program:

• whether the school's program is based upon sound educational theory or principles;
• whether the school's program is reasonably calculated to implement the educational theory effectively; and
• whether, after a period of time sufficient to give the program a legitimate trial, the results of the program show that language barriers are actually being overcome.

Examples of conditions that may violate the EEOA include when a school district or SEA does the following:

• fails to provide a language acquisition program to its ELL students or fails to provide adequate language services to its ELL students;
• fails to provide resources to implement its language acquisition program effectively (e.g., an ESL program lacks ESL teachers or ESL materials);
• fails to take steps to identify students who are not proficient in English;
• exits ELL students before the students acquire English proficiency from ELL services;
• fails to communicate meaningfully with non-English-speaking or limited-English-speaking parents and guardians of ELL students by not providing such parents and guardians with written or oral translations of important notices or documents;
• fails to provide language acquisition assistance to ELL students because they receive special education services, or fails to provide special education services to ELL students when they qualify for special education services;and
• excludes ELL students from gifted and talented programs based on their limited English proficiency.

For examples, view the cases list

Disability Discrimination

The Educational Opportunities Section addresses disability discrimination in several ways, including through its desegregation cases and its English Language Learner (ELL) matters. For example, in the desegregation context, the Section examines if minorities are disproportionately under or over identified. In the ELL context, the Section ensures that dually identified ELL and special education students receive all services to which they are entitled.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted in 1990 to address discrimination against persons with disabilities (see also the ADA homepage ). Title II of the ADA provides that no individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, program, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in public accommodations, such as schools, operated by private entities. The Civil Rights Division has primary responsibility for enforcing Title III as it relates to education and shares responsibility for investigating Title II complaints with the Department of Education.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits the exclusion, the denial of benefits, and discrimination by reason of disability in programs or activities receiving federal funds. OCR has primary responsibility for enforcing Section 504's provisions with respect to its recipients of federal funds.

The Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) requires States and local education agencies to provide a free and appropriate public education to children with disabilities. The Department of Education has primary responsibility for enforcing IDEA. The Civil Rights Division gets involved in 504 cases through referrals from the other federal agencies, complaint investigations or compliance reviews of recipients of DOJ funding, and in 504 and IDEA cases through participation in pending lawsuits. For examples, view the cases list .

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Discrimination, harassment, and retaliation

Federal and state laws protect you from unfair and unwelcome treatment at work. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and states enforce discrimination and harassment laws.

EEOC laws don’t cover all employers. Coverage is often based on the number of employees. Verify if your employer is required to follow the EEOC's rules.

Discrimination at work

Discrimination is when an employer treats an employee or job applicant unfairly because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age (40 or older), disability, or genetic information.

Report workplace discrimination

Report discrimination to the EEOC. Use the EEOC's public portal to follow the complaint process.

Submit an online inquiry.

Schedule an interview with someone from the EEOC.

Submit a charge of discrimination.

Learn more about what to expect when you report discrimination.  

Report discrimination to local government

States and local governments also have anti-discrimination laws. Report discrimination to a local Fair Employment Practices Agency (FEPA). If the discrimination breaks both a state and federal law, the FEPA will also send your complaint to the EEOC.

Use the EEOC's directory of field offices to find the FEPA near you.

Report discrimination in federal employment

Federal employees and job applicants report discrimination to the equal employment office (EEO) at the agency where it happened. Follow the EEO’s complaint process within 45 calendar days.

File a discrimination lawsuit

You can sue an employer for discrimination. If the lawsuit is based on a federal law, you must file a complaint with the EEOC first.

Harassment at work

Workplace harassment is unwelcome conduct based on a person’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, older age, disability, or genetic information.

Harassment includes:

• Offensive jokes, objects, or pictures
• Name calling
• Physical assaults and threats
• Intimidation

Harassment is unlawful when:

• Enduring the conduct is required to continue employment.
• It creates a work environment that is intimidating, hostile, or abusive.

Sexual harassment

Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors. It can also include offensive comments about someone’s sex.

Sexual harassment is unlawful when:

• It is so frequent and severe that it creates a hostile or intimidating work environment.
• It results in an adverse employment decision (ex: the person is demoted, denied promotion, suspended, or fired).

Report harassment

Follow these steps if you experienced harassment at work.

Retaliation

Retaliation happens when an employer treats someone poorly because they engaged in a protected activity. Protected activities include:

• Filing or being a witness in an EEOC charge or investigation
• Talking to a supervisor or manager about discrimination or harassment
• Refusing to follow orders that would result in discrimination
• Resisting sexual advances or intervening to protect others

Common retaliation methods include:

• Denying benefits
• Denying promotions
• Intimidation or threats

Report retaliation

Use the EEOC's public portal to report retaliation related to discrimination or harassment.

LAST UPDATED: December 6, 2023

Have a question?

Ask a real person any government-related question for free. They will get you the answer or let you know where to find it.

• Visit the AAUP Foundation
• Visit the AFT

Secondary menu

Search form.

Member Login Join/Rejoin Renew Membership

• Constitution
• Elected Leaders
• Find a Chapter
• State Conferences
• AAUP/AFT Affiliation
• Biennial Meeting
• Academic Freedom
• Shared Governance
• Chapter Organizing
• Collective Bargaining
• Summer Institute
• Legal Program
• Government Relations
• New Deal for Higher Ed
• For AFT Higher Ed Members
• Political Interference in Higher Ed
• Racial Justice
• Diversity in Higher Ed
• Responding to Financial Crisis
• Privatization and OPMs
• COVID-19 Pandemic
• Contingent Faculty Positions
• Workplace Issues
• Gender and Sexuality in Higher Ed
• Targeted Harassment
• Intellectual Property & Copyright
• Free Speech on Campus
• AAUP Policies & Reports
• Faculty Compensation Survey
• Bulletin of the AAUP
• The Redbook
• Journal of Academic Freedom
• Academe Blog
• AAUP in the News
• AAUP Updates
• Join Our Email List
• Join/Rejoin
• Renew Membership
• Member Benefits
• Cancel Membership
• Start a Chapter
• Support Your Union
• AAUP Shirts and Gear
• Brochures and More
• Resources For All Chapters
• For Union Chapters
• For Advocacy Chapters
• Forming a Union Chapter
• Chapter Responsibilities
• Chapter Profiles
• AAUP At-Large Chapter
• AAUP Local 6741 of the AFT

You are here

On eliminating discrimination and achieving equality in higher education.

Published January 2024.

This statement, an expansion and elaboration of the principles of racial and gender equity espoused by the AAUP for more than fifty years, was approved by the Association’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the Committee on Gender and Sexuality in the Academic Profession, the Committee on Historically Black Institutions and Scholars of Color, and their joint Subcommittee on Discrimination in October 2023 and adopted by the Association’s Council in November 2023.

Introduction

A half century ago, in 1973, the AAUP issued Affirmative Action in Higher Education , a major report that began by asserting that “discrimination against women and minorities in higher education is both reprehensible and illegal” and reaffirming “the emphatic condemnation of such practices by the AAUP.” 1  The report declared that “the further improvement of quality in higher education and the elimination of discrimination due to race or sex are not at odds with each other, but at one.” Its authors embraced a vision of affirmative action as “compensation for past failures to reach the actual market of intellectual resources available to higher education” and called for “the revision of standards and practices to assure that institutions are in fact drawing from the largest marketplace of human resources in staffing their faculties.” Three years later the Association issued the brief, but uncompromising, On Discrimination , a statement that announced the Association’s condemnation of all discrimination “including, but not limited to, age, sex, disability, race, religion, national origin, marital status, or sexual orientation.”

While considerable progress has been made in the past fifty years in overcoming discriminatory barriers and opening doors to members of formerly excluded or disfavored groups, the dangerous and ongoing backlash against movements for equality—already recognized by the 1973 affirmative action report as a “politics of reaction” and arguably reaching a fever pitch at the current moment—demands not only rededication to the principles of equal justice espoused by the AAUP a half century ago but also a more expansive and profound understanding of those principles. Today we must acknowledge the complex nature of systemic inequality and the need for institutional change and affirmative measures designed to eliminate discrimination and advance both formal and substantive equality.      

Over the past fifty years the academic community, including at times the AAUP, has too often restricted definitions of discrimination to incidents and practices that were demonstrably illegal and failed adequately to address discriminatory practices and structures that, while perhaps passing legal muster, are inconsistent with the standards of excellence and fairness that must guide colleges and universities. A more capacious conception of discrimination, emphasizing substantive and not simply formal equality, is now both accessible and essential thanks to analyses of systemic discrimination produced over the past decades. 2  Therefore, this statement understands discrimination not just in narrow, legal terms but also as a systemic problem.

In 1973, various legitimate practices subsumed under the rubric of affirmative action were already controversial and under attack as so-called reverse discrimination. At least since the US Supreme Court’s 1978 decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke , the higher education community has countered these attacks by appealing to the need for diversity in student admissions and, if not directly then by implication, in faculty and staff recruitment. There can be little doubt that achieving and maintaining both a diverse student body and a diverse faculty are laudable and wholly appropriate goals. But these goals have led the academic community and the AAUP, at times, to neglect even more fundamental affirmative action goals—not only to remedy past and existing discrimination, but also to achieve, as the 1973 report put it, “the highest aspirations of universities and colleges for excellence and outstanding quality.”                

This statement is issued at a historic moment in which fierce assaults on higher education are threatening the progress made on racial and gender equality and directly challenging the very essence of higher education as essential to the common good. Discriminatory attacks on efforts to advance knowledge about race, gender, class, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability are inseparable from a larger and even more dangerous campaign against core academic values—including shared governance, academic freedom, and tenure—and learning itself.

Yet this statement is not simply a response to the political moment. It reasserts the AAUP’s fundamental and enduring commitment to holding colleges and universities accountable for accomplishing their highest purpose: serving the public interest through teaching, research, and service, thereby enabling an increasingly inclusive democracy to fulfill its role in a complex and interrelated world.

The Responsibility of the Academic Profession regarding Systemic Discrimination 

To fulfill their public mission, colleges and universities and their faculties must be committed not only to eliminating discrimination but to addressing the persistent inequalities created by both past and present discriminatory practices and systems. Given the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision striking down affirmative action programs in college admissions, it is incumbent on higher education institutions to reaffirm their commitment to these goals. 3  This institutional imperative is described in the AAUP’s 1973 report as “more than simply a matter of providing jobs for persons from groups which have in the past been unfairly excluded from an opportunity to compete for them; it is a matter of reorganizing the academic institution to fulfill its basic commitment to those who are seriously concerned to maintain the academic enterprise as a vital social force.”

The 1973 report continues,

The law now requires the elimination of discriminatory practices and equality of access for all persons regardless of race or sex; moral justice requires an end to prejudice and an increase of opportunities for those who have been denied them in the past by prejudice; enlightened self-interest requires that an institution reexamine its priorities where standards of merit are concerned, to revitalize the intellectual life of the community through the utilization of heretofore untapped resources. Most important, insofar as the university aspires to discover, preserve, and transmit knowledge and experience not for one group or selected groups, but for all people, to that extent it must broaden its perception of who shall be responsible for this discovery, preservation, and transmission. In so doing, it broadens the base of intellectual inquiry and lays the foundation of more human social practices.

Broad representation of faculty members—in terms of gender, race, and ethnicity—is essential to fulfill the promise of academic freedom to deepen existing disciplinary approaches and open new disciplinary paths, including the study of inequality and discrimination, methods for dismantling them, and strategies for reform and fundamental change. We now understand that, in order to address systemic and institutional forms of inequality, a more expansive conception of discrimination must emphasize substantive and not merely formal equality.

Antidiscrimination law’s primary model of “formal” equality seeks to expand equality of opportunity by requiring equal treatment of individuals who are “alike” or “similarly situated.” For example, a woman and a man with PhDs in mechanical engineering should receive equal consideration as applicants for a faculty position in the mechanical engineering department. Feminist and critical race scholars maintain that such formal abstractions promote illusions of color-blindness and gender neutrality and tell us little about the lived and material experiences of marginalized groups. 4

Formal equality by itself will not eliminate the conditions of social and economic subordination that maintain systemic racial, gender, and class-based inequality. A “substantive equality” approach, which is concerned primarily with achieving equitable outcomes that address the conditions and experiences of marginalized groups living in a deeply unequal society, is also needed. Requiring equal treatment, while necessary and essential, cannot by itself eliminate conditions of social and economic subordination that perpetuate racial, gender, and other status-based inequalities created by past discriminatory practices and maintained by inherited systems and structures.

 Even were these problems not the fault of anyone living—which is highly unlikely—that would not make them less real. Not only does the formal equality paradigm severely constrict legal intervention, but it also fails to allow for an adequate consideration of context, that is, the specific conditions under which both individual and collective experiences of discrimination and status-based oppression occur. That history and context must be considered in addressing material and cultural inequality and must guide our understanding of discrimination. 5

Affirmative Action

Affirmative action in student admissions has been one focus of the attack on racial and gender diversity. As noted above, in 2023 the US Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious student admissions policies employed by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This decision overturned more than forty years of Supreme Court precedent permitting colleges and universities to adopt student admissions programs that consider an applicant’s race as part of a holistic evaluation process. 6

Even after the Supreme Court’s decision in the Harvard and UNC cases, however, colleges and universities can and should continue efforts to achieve diversity in the student body, which even the court’s conservative majority agreed are “commendable goals.” These efforts include recruiting student applicants from diverse socioeconomic and regional backgrounds and first-generation college applicants, as well as engaging in a holistic admissions review that considers all aspects of applicants’ background, experience, and accomplishments without using racial classifications. Colleges and universities should also increase student financial assistance and create an inclusive and supportive climate for all admitted students. 

We thus reaffirm the following description of affirmative action in the AAUP’s 1973 report: “What is sought in the idea of affirmative action is essentially the revision of standards and practices to ensure that institutions are in fact drawing from the largest marketplace of human resources in staffing their faculties and a critical review of appointment and advancement criteria to ensure that they do not inadvertently foreclose consideration of the best-qualified persons by untested presuppositions which operate to exclude women and minorities.”

Unconscious Bias

It should go without saying that overt and intentional barriers based on discriminatory criteria in recruiting, evaluating, and promoting faculty members and in all other employment decisions must be eliminated. But intentional discrimination is only one aspect of racial and gender exclusion. Bias and stereotyping often function at an unconscious level, where they play a powerful role in such decisions. Thus, to exercise discretion fairly in employment decisions, it is essential that faculty members, as well as administrators and governing boards, be educated about the nature of unconscious bias and how it may affect judgments of merit in all aspects of professional and social relations. 7  Unconscious bias may influence a wide range of judgments, such as evaluations of a candidate’s or colleague’s academic rigor, potential to achieve “excellence” and professional distinction, ability to be “objective” in their work, the level of their contributions as a coauthor, and so on. Unconscious bias may also be expressed in personal assessments, such as descriptions of a candidate or colleague as overly aggressive or outspoken, difficult to work with, unreasonable, unsociable, or lacking in “collegiality.” Scholars with a disability may be unfairly judged based on unfounded but common assumptions about the limits that a given condition may impose.

Education and training for faculty members and administrators about the nature of discrimination and unconscious bias should be governed, supervised, and led by elected faculty governance bodies as part of their primary responsibilities in hiring, promotion, and peer review. This work should be remunerated and count toward professional milestones, such as promotion and tenure. Further, it is incumbent on faculty members to raise issues of bias for discussion when they observe them in recruitment or promotion-review processes.

Academic departments and programs should seek scholars with new perspectives or work in emerging disciplinary fields to maintain the intellectual vitality of academic programs and create opportunities to increase faculty diversity. Administrations should provide adequate resources and support for gender, race, and ethnic studies programs not only because these have become indispensable disciplines in contemporary scholarship, but also because, along with the recruitment of a diverse faculty in all disciplines, the expertise of faculty members who specialize in these fields can play a central part in ensuring the education of faculty members and administrators. Shared governance should also be fully engaged in the appointment of administrators to ensure that they are fully committed to achieving substantive equality throughout the institution.

Tenure and Contingency

Progress toward substantive equality also requires colleges and universities to address systemic employment inequalities created since the 1980s with the shift to a largely contingent academic workforce. Some scholars have suggested that it is no coincidence that the casualization of the professoriate developed just as women and scholars of color began to enter the profession in greater numbers and to challenge notions of universality, neutrality, and objectivity that are too often employed as weapons of privilege. Even as disciplines such as racial and gender studies have expanded and there has been an increase—however inadequate—in appointments of women and faculty members of color, the scope of tenure protections has severely contracted, with a disproportionate impact on these same scholars. 

Today, over two-thirds (68 percent) of instructional faculty members hold contingent appointments that are ineligible for tenure. By contrast, in the mid-1980s, about 53 percent of the faculty members were tenured or on the tenure track. 8  Insecure employment, declining salaries, and increased workloads, as well as the consequent erosion of academic freedom and shared governance, have made the academic profession increasingly unattractive to talented individuals. The casualization of academic labor combined with persistent legacies of past discrimination and the deleterious effects of present-day bias make it hardly surprising that members of previously excluded groups may be reluctant to choose an academic career. Moreover, they are more likely to find themselves in positions of economic precarity due to burdensome student-loan debts. 9

If, as the 1973 report declared and this statement reaffirms, “further improvement of quality in higher education and the elimination of discrimination due to race or sex are not at odds with each other, but at one,” then progress toward substantive equality is tightly bound to extending institutional structures and employment conditions in which fundamental principles of academic freedom are protected by the employment security of tenure and due process. Shared governance and collective bargaining can contribute to institutionalizing these protections in university policy, strengthened by provisions that address gender and racial equity in employment conditions.

Criteria, Standards, and Procedures

Eliminating barriers and enhancing fairness and inclusiveness in faculty recruitment and promotion demand regular and periodic review of criteria and standards. “Where a long period of time has passed since any serious study has been made to review the effects and the assumptions of stated or unstated standards of appointment and advancement (or where no study was ever made, but the standards were simply adopted on the strength of common custom and plausible hypothesis), it would be reasonable in any case to expect a conscientious faculty to reconsider the matter from time to time,” the 1973 report declared. The report continued,

When the use of certain unexamined standards tends to operate to the overwhelming disadvantage of persons of a particular sex or race who have already been placed at a great disadvantage by other social forces (not exclusive of past practices within higher education itself), it is even more reasonable to expect that an institution of higher learning would especially consider its standards in light of that fact as well: to determine whether it is inadvertently depriving itself of a larger field of potential scholars and teachers than simple economy requires, even while compounding the effects of prior discrimination generally. We cannot assume uncritically that present criteria of merit and procedures for their application have yielded the excellence intended; to the extent that the use of certain standards has resulted in the exclusion of women and minorities from professional positions in higher education, or their inclusion only in token proportions to their availability, the academy has denied itself access to the critical mass of intellectual vitality represented by these groups. We believe that such criteria must thus be considered deficient on the very grounds of excellence itself.

A half century’s progress notwithstanding, the need remains for ongoing review of the validity of criteria and standards defining merit. Many examples exist of standards that unfavorably narrow the field of eligible candidates in ways that may have a disproportionately negative impact based on gender, race, class, or disability. These include recruiting and hiring candidates from an overly limited range of universities and assessing the merit of publications based on an overreliance on rigid standards and “objective” metrics such as citation counts. Assumptions embedded in these criteria will continue to exclude a significant number of excellent candidates and may have a disproportionately negative impact based on gender, race, class, or disability. As the 1973 report further observed, “The very criteria by which professional recognition is accorded have necessarily tended to reflect the prejudices and assumptions of those who set them, and professional recognition and advancement have generally been accorded those who most closely resemble the norm of those who have in the past succeeded in the academy.”

Closer evaluation of seemingly objective metrics in evaluating research or teaching reveals the power of the status quo and the influence of unconscious bias in shaping judgments about a candidate’s merits. Overemphasis on high citation counts and publication in “top journals” has been shown to undervalue much excellent scholarship, particularly for faculty members whose research challenges mainstream positions or pushes the boundaries of their disciplines. Similarly, undue reliance on narrow or rigid criteria of teaching excellence unjustifiably penalizes faculty members who present critical alternatives to the status quo or experiment with creative innovations. Furthermore, as multiple studies have documented, metrics such as student evaluations of teaching are often colored by unconscious gender and racial bias. 10

Best practices to enhance fairness and inclusiveness in hiring and promotion should also be applied to other employment conditions, including salary increases, sabbatical leaves, and other benefits. Reinstituting tenure-track positions as the norm would be beneficial to recruiting and retaining faculty members. Additionally, promotion processes should be reviewed to make them fairer and more open by providing greater clarity about criteria, standards, and procedures; ensuring protection of academic freedom in evaluations; providing full written reports explaining recommendations and decisions for or against promotion; and adopting full and fair appeals processes from negative decisions. The faculty should lead this review and revision process as part of its primary responsibilities in college and university governance.

Increasing diversity depends on retention of faculty members in a welcoming and supportive environment. This goal is generally framed as extrinsic to the primary purpose of higher education, which is the production and dissemination of knowledge for the common good. However, when colleges and universities recognize that scholarship produced by faculty members from previously excluded groups is not supplemental but fundamental to knowledge production itself, the expertise and experience of these faculty members will be appropriately valued.

The AAUP’s 1973 report Affirmative Action in Higher Education offered a vision of a remedy for discrimination that

assumes that institutions of higher education are what they claim they are—and that all of us as teachers and professors are also what we say we are; that we mean to be fair, that our concern with excellence is not a subterfuge, that we are concerned to be just in the civil rights of all persons in the conduct of our profession. If the assumption is a false one, then it will quickly appear that affirmative action plans can go the way of other proposals which are intellectually sound but which so frequently fail in their assumptions about the nature of people. For without doubt, the temptation will appear to the indifferent and the cynical to distinguish between the appearance and the substance of such a plan and to opt for the appearance alone. . . . We do not doubt in this respect that institutions of higher learning will thus reveal more about themselves in the manner in which they respond to the call for affirmative action, however, than what their response may reveal about the consistency of such plans with excellence and fairness in higher education. 

Much has transpired since these words were written. We surely would be mistaken to think that conditions and challenges have not changed. Yet these words retain their relevance today. If colleges and universities are to be true to the principles they espouse, then they must be judged in part on how they rise to the challenges posed by the persistence of systemic discrimination and by movements for greater equality. In a sense, the academic community for decades and in a continually shifting environment has been taking a test; our performance thus far may reveal more about who we really are than many may find comfortable. The grades are not yet in—and the test will almost certainly become even more difficult in the near and, potentially, far future. We must take the opportunity now to recommit to ensuring that when the grades do come in, we can be proud of them.

1. Marx W. Wartofsky, Ivar E. Berg Jr., Mary F. Berry, Butler A. Jones, Beatrice G. Konheim, Margaret L. Rumbarger, and William W. Van Alstyne, “Affirmative Action in Higher Education: A Report by the Council Commission on Discrimination,” AAUP Bulletin 59, no. 2 (June 1973): 178–83. 

2. For a fairly comprehensive overview of studies on systemic racism, see Mahzarin R. Banaji, Susan T. Fiske, and Douglass S. Massey, “Systemic Racism: Individuals and Interactions, Institutions and Society,” Cognitive Research 6, 82 (2021): https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00349-3 .

3. The court issued its decision on June 29, in which it reviewed the student admissions programs of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina: Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harv. Coll. , 143 S. Ct. 2141 (2023).

4. See Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, Racism Without Racists , 6th ed. (New York: Rowan & Littlefield, 2021); Martha Albertson Fineman, The Autonomy Myth: A Theory of Dependency (New York: The New Press, 2004); Charles R. Lawrence III, “Foreword: Multiculturalism and the Jurisprudence of Transformation,” Stanford Law Review 47, no. 5 (1995): 819–47, https://doi.org/10.2307/1229175 .

5. Faculty members who have the expertise and experience to contextualize inequality at their institutions are often overlooked or ignored. Instead, these efforts are delegated to administrators in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices and others too focused on immediate results. These administrators, in turn, are often under the direct supervision of other administrative officers like presidents and provosts, who may conclude that enough progress has been made merely by having created these positions. DEI officials do not have academic freedom, which limits their ability to fundamentally challenge institutional culture, nor do they have the authority to effect these changes even if they were so inclined. Unsurprisingly, turnover among these officials is high.

6. The court’s decision did not address employment issues. As the chair of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has stated, “It remains lawful for employers to implement diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programs that seek to ensure workers of all backgrounds are afforded equal opportunity in the workplace.” This is consistent with the 1973 report’s endorsement of “special efforts to attract persons to improve the overall diversity of a faculty, and to broaden it specifically from its unisex or unirace sameness” as “a variety of affirmative action which deserves encouragement.”

7. See Best Practices for Conducting Faculty Searches , Office of the Senior Vice Provost, Harvard University, 2016, https://faculty.harvard.edu/files/fdd/files/best_practices_for_conducting_faculty_searches_v1.2.pdf .  

8. Glenn Colby, “Data Snapshot: Tenure and Contingency in US Higher Education,” Academe, Spring 2023, https://www.aaup.org/article/data-snapshot-tenure-and-contingency-us-higher-education . The inclusion of graduate student employees would most likely inflate the current percentage of instructional faculty members holding contingent appointments that are ineligible for tenure to 75 percent.

9. White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans, “Fact Sheet: Black College Graduates and the Student Debt Gap,” accessed October 12, 2023,  https://sites.ed.gov/whblackinitiative/files/2016/11/Black-College-Graduates-and-the-Student-Debt-Gap.pdf .

10. For a meta-analysis of many of these studies, see Rebecca J. Kreitzer and Jennie Sweet-Cushman, “Evaluating Student Evaluations of Teaching: A Review of Measurement and Equity Bias in SETs and Recommendations for Ethical Reform,” Journal of Academic Ethics 20, no. 1 (February 2022): 73–84.

Report Category:

• Committee Reports
• Discrimination
• Academic Freedom and Tenure Investigative Reports
• College and University Governance Reports
• Standing Committee and Subcommittee Reports
• Research Reports
• Audit Reports
• View All Reports
• Back to Reports and Publications

American Association of University Professors 555 New Jersey Ave NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202-737-5900

[email protected], privacy policy & terms of use.

A future we can all live with: How education can address and eradicate racism

by  Cecilia Barbieri & Martha K. Ferede

Today, against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic that has exposed stark socio-economic inequalities and exacerbated hate speech, the world is also witnessing a global uprising against systemic, institutionalized and structural racism and discrimination.

Prejudice is a burden that confuses the past, threatens the future, and renders the present inaccessible

These words spoken by Maya Angelou more than 30 years ago echo the injustices of the past, add gravitas to our turbulent present and show clearly that prejudice runs counter to what is needed, at the core, for us to become global citizens who promote and develop just and peaceful futures.

Today, against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic that has exposed stark socio-economic inequalities and exacerbated hate speech, the world is also witnessing a global uprising against systemic, institutionalized and structural racism and discrimination. Protests are unfolding in nearly every continent – from North and South America to Europe and Australia. This is not only about yet one more senseless killing of an unarmed African-American man. It is about the senseless killing of millions over many centuries, the unequal and unjust treatment, the different forms of violence, the economic and social inequality, the lack of opportunity, the racial profiling, the marginalization, the micro-agressions and the countless daily indignities. 

Systemic racism and discrimination are rooted in the structure of society itself, in governments, the workplace, courts, police and education institutions. Racism can be explicit but often exists in implicit, subtle and insidious forms that can be hard to pin down. 

Global data on education points to the malignancy of racism:  

School disciplinary policies disproportionately impact Black students . In some settings, starting as early as preschool, Black children are 3.6 times more likely to receive out-of-school suspensions than White children, increasing to 4 times as likely in grades K-12. Black students are also more than twice as likely to face school-related arrests and be referred to law enforcement ( US Department Office for Civil Rights, 2016 ;  Fabello et al., 2011 ). 

Teachers’ expectations differ by students’ race . Many studies have found a correlation between teachers’ expectations and students’ educational outcomes including academic achievement and completion of higher education ( Boser et al., 2014 ). However, teachers’ expectations differ by students’ race, economic status and national origin. For instance, Eastern European students have experienced various forms of racism and low expectations in the UK school system ( Tereschenko et al., 2018 ).

Students from ethnic and racial minority groups are more likely to be labelled ‘at risk’ . For example, in Quebec, Canada, students with Caribbean backgrounds are three times more likely to be identified as SHSMLD (students with handicaps, social maladjustments, or learning difficulties) and placed in separate classes for “at-risk” students ( Maynard, 2017 ).

Education attendance and attainment correlate with race . According to the  2020 Global Education Monitoring Report , although there have been advances towards increasing access in recent decades,  enduring racial inequality remains in educational attendance and attainment in Latin American countries. For example, compared to their non-Afrodescendant peers, attendance rates are lower for Afrodescendants aged 12-17 ( ECLAC, 2019 ). Based on World Bank data ( 2018 ), Afrodescendants in Uruguay and Peru are also reported as less likely to complete secondary school than non-Afrodescendants. 

Racial discrimination takes place among students . In Australia, a study of primary and secondary Anglo-Celtic/European, East or Southeast Asian, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island, Middle Eastern, Pacific Islander and African students’ backgrounds, found that one in three reported being the victim of racial discrimination by their peers ( Priest et al., 2019 ).

The returns to education differ by race .  In post-Apartheid South Africa, although opportunities for education have improved, there has been a divergence in the valuation of that education. In 2004, differences in the returns to education accounted for about 40% of the White-African wage differential ( Keswell, 2010 ). By 2018, the average Black South African earned five times less than the average White South-African ( Syed & Ozbilgin, 2019 ).

Racism is a violation of the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights  (1948) and it goes against UNESCO’s  Convention Against Discrimination in Education  (1960), the  International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination  (1965), the  International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights  (1966) and the  Convention on the Rights of the Child  (1989).

Systemic racism and discrimination are rooted in the structure of society itself, in governments, workplaces, courts, police and education institutions.

Education systems and educational institutions have an important role and responsibility in addressing and eliminating racism through: 

Supporting schools to implement education policies that support racially integrated schools . Such schools have been found to promote greater social cohesion and cross-race relationships ( Eaton & Chirichigno, 2011 ).  

Training and recruiting teachers that reflect the diversity of students . Studies show that when teachers reflect the student body, there are improved learning outcomes, higher expectations and fewer disciplinary actions ( Egamit et al. 2015 ). 

Examining the curriculum from multiple vantage points . First, schools should give history, social memory and human rights – as well as indigenous forms of knowledge – a place at the core of teaching.  This helps us to fully understand the past and its relation to the present and to break the perpetuation of stereotypes. Second, educators should reexamine and revise curriculum, and textbooks in particular, to eliminate racist depictions, misrepresentation, and historical exclusions. 

Addressing implicit bias .  All actors in education institutions from policy-makers, leaders, teachers, staff and students should receive training to become aware of their implicit bias – their unconscious bias and beliefs. Reflective teaching, fair discipline policies based on data and use of external feedback are some strategies schools can use to reduce implicit bias ( Staats, 2015 ). 

The injustice of systemic racism is a significant barrier to the type of education that is needed for preferred alternative futures for all - for a world where people are able to live together peacefully as global citizens in strong and just societies that value diversity. As educators, citizens and as a global community, we have much work to do to ensure that the solutions proposed to defeat systemic racism do not remain mired in the system that is being critiqued, so that the roots of oppression and inequality can be removed. 

And for that, a frank and bold approach is needed as affirmed in the recent message from the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, “The position of the United Nations on racism is crystal clear: this scourge violates the United Nations Charter and debases our core values. Every day, in our work across the world, we strive to do our part to promote inclusion, justice, dignity and combat racism in all its manifestations.” 

It is time for essential conversations and inspired and informed action. 

Our future depends on it. 

The ideas expressed here are those of the authors; they are not necessarily the official position of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization.

Cecilia Barbieri is the Chief of Section of Global Citizenship and Peace Education at UNESCO, coming from the UNESCO Regional Bureau for Education in Latin America and the Caribbean, where she was in charge of the Education 2030 Section. She has worked as an Education Specialist with UNESCO since 1999, mainly in Africa and Asia.

Martha K. Ferede is a Project Officer in the section of Global Citizenship and Peace Education at UNESCO. She is a former school teacher, researcher at Harvard University and lecturer at Sciences-po.

Futures of Education

Find out more about our work on the Futures of Education

Related items

• Future of education

More on this subject

Other recent idea

What is discrimination in the workplace? And what to do about it!

Workplace discrimination affects people of all ages, races, genders, and backgrounds..

Discrimination in the workplace can happen in any industry or profession and can take many forms. Sometimes, it’s overt, like when a job applicant is denied a job because of race or gender. Other times, it’s more subtle, like when a certain co-worker is interrupted or talked over in meetings.

Discrimination can negatively impact people’s lives no matter what form it takes. It can make earning a job, promotion, or fair wage harder. It can also lead to feelings of isolation, stress, and anxiety.

That’s why addressing workplace discrimination is so important . We can do this by understanding the different forms of discrimination, speaking up when we see it happening, and creating policies and initiatives promoting workplace equality.

When we create inclusive workplaces, everyone benefits. Employees feel more respected, valued, and empowered. They’re also more likely to be happy, productive, and engaged in their work. In this article, we’ll discuss ways to become a more inclusive leader and develop a workplace where everyone can succeed.

What are the types of workplace discrimination?

What are laws that protect against workplace discrimination, how workplace discrimination impacts business, how to address and prevent workplace discrimination.

• How to empower a discrimination-free workplace?

Workplace discrimination is a persistent problem that undermines equality and fairness within an organization. Understanding and addressing different types of discrimination at work is crucial for fostering an inclusive, supportive work environment. This also prevents discrimination complaints and helps a business avoid violating discrimination laws. 

Workplace discrimination typically appears as unfair treatment, employment practices, or bias directed at people based on personal characteristics, such as:

• Race or national origin : This type of workplace discrimination involves unfair treatment, harassment, or denial of employment opportunities based on someone’s racial or ethnic background. 
• Age: Age discrimination involves employment decisions and behaviors based on a person’s age rather than their merit or qualifications.
• Gender: Gender discrimination is the unequal treatment or consideration of someone based on their gender identity. This can manifest as unequal pay, stereotyping, or sexual harassment. It can affect workers of any gender, including people who identify as transgender or those who fall outside of the gender binary, and is an especially common problem for women in the workplace.
• Sexual orientation : Workplace discrimination can also involve treating employees differently based on their sexual orientation. This can include prejudiced behavior like harassment, unfair termination, denial of benefits, or creating a hostile work environment for people in the LGBTQ+ community. 
• Disability: Disability discrimination occurs when a workplace treats people with physical or mental disabilities unfairly. It can involve denying reasonable accommodations, refusing employment, offering unequal pay, or excluding them from certain job opportunities. 
• Religious beliefs: Religion-based workplace discrimination occurs when a business treats someone differently than their coworkers because of their religion. This can include harassment or hostility, being denied a job or promotion, or getting fired because of their religious beliefs.

In the United States, federal laws are in place to safeguard workers with certain protected characteristics from discriminatory practices. These legal protections include:

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 : Title VII prohibits workplace discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It covers various aspects of employment, including hiring, firing, promotions, and terms of employment. 
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990: The ADA protects people with disabilities from employment discrimination and mandates that employers provide them with reasonable accommodations so they can do their job. The Department of Labor also lists other laws that protect people with disabilities. 
• Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( ADEA ): Enacted in 1967, the ADEA prohibits employers from discriminating against people aged 40 or older, safeguarding them from unfair treatment in hiring processes, promotions and benefits decisions, and layoffs. This promotes age diversity in workplaces, combats ageism, and ensures older employees have equal opportunities to contribute and thrive at work.
• The Equal Pay Act of 1963: This law prohibits employers from paying men and women different wages for equal work. 
• ​​The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008: This recent law prohibits workplace discrimination based on genetic information. It was prompted by increased access to genetic testing and prevents employers from requiring or requesting genetic information from job applicants or employees.

State laws can also offer protections depending on where you work or employ people. 

Discriminatory practices have far-reaching impacts on individual employees, teams, and organizations. Effects can be emotional and psychological, hampering team dynamics and stifling innovation and creativity. Organizations that exclude or discriminate against people from diverse backgrounds and protected classes miss out on valuable perspectives and experiences that contribute to growth.

Ensuring a work environment has reasonable accommodations and fair employment and hiring practices is key to avoiding a discrimination claim or complaint to human resources. This starts with leadership – and here are some ways to do it.

Implement diversity and inclusion initiatives

This involves taking action and adopting strategies to create a workplace culture that values and embraces diversity, fosters inclusion, and ensures equal opportunities for all employees. Below are some good starting points.

• Diversity training programs : These educate employees about the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). They can include workshops, seminars, or online courses that provide insights into unconscious biases, cultural competency, and promoting inclusive behaviors.
• Employee resource groups (ERGs): ERGs are voluntary, employee-led groups that provide a platform for networking, support, and advocacy for underrepresented communities within an organization.
• Awareness campaigns and celebrations: Leadership can organize awareness campaigns and celebrations around diversity-related events, such as Black History Month, Pride Month, or International Women’s Day. These initiatives help raise awareness, celebrate diversity, and promote understanding and inclusion among employees.

Establish anti-discrimination policies and practices

Start by ensuring an accessible, comprehensive discrimination complaint process and establishing a prompt and thorough investigation process to address these complaints. Encourage employees to report discrimination incidents promptly and provide them with resources to contact relevant authorities, such as the federal government’s U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or state human rights commissions.

Ensure your practices comply with federal, state, and local laws and regulations concerning discrimination and harassment.

Take complaints seriously

Taking discrimination complaints seriously is important for creating a safe and inclusive work environment. It involves active listening, empathy, and prompt response to ensure individuals feel supported and reassured. You must protect those reporting discrimination by respecting their confidentiality and privacy. Conduct thorough investigations involving trained, impartial investigators who can document findings and collect evidence. Take all appropriate actions and clearly communicate with the parties involved to demonstrate the organization’s commitment to addressing discrimination and supporting affected individuals.

Foster a safe, inclusive work environment

The following tips can help you create the safe, inclusive work environment your team needs to thrive.

• Promote a culture of respect: Set clear expectations that all employees should be treated with respect and dignity regardless of their background or identity. Encourage open and honest communication, mutual understanding, and empathy among team members.
• Establish clear anti-discrimination policies: Develop comprehensive anti-discrimination policies that explicitly state the organization’s commitment to maintaining a discrimination-free workplace. Clearly define prohibited behaviors, provide examples, and outline the consequences for violations. Communicate these policies effectively to all employees.
• Encourage reporting and support systems: Provide a safe and confidential reporting path for employees to report discrimination, harassment, or misconduct. Ensure those who come forward are protected from retaliation and provide appropriate support, such as counseling or employee assistance programs.
• Celebrate diversity: Recognize and celebrate your workforce’s diverse backgrounds, cultures, and identities. Organize events or activities that promote understanding, respect, and appreciation for diversity, such as cultural celebrations or diversity-themed workshops. 

Continuously educate and evolve: Stay informed about the latest research, best practices, and legal requirements related to diversity and inclusion. You can also require anti-discrimination training to prevent these problems at their source and continuously educate employees about creating and maintaining a safe and inclusive work environment.

Empowering a discrimination-free workplace

Creating and maintaining a discrimination-free work environment requires a collective commitment to fostering respect, embracing diversity and inclusion, and implementing effective policies and practices. This benefits workers and contributes to increased productivity, innovation, and overall organizational success. 

Find leadership resources to help you foster safe, inclusive, and productive workplaces at IMD . Our world-class executive education programs are designed to prepare leaders for advanced management positions where they can create organizational change for a better world.

Subscribe for more great management content 💌

Subscribe now for exclusive content from imd.

In a business environment filled with uncertainties, how can business leaders steer their organizations toward sustainable success while navigating through the maze of potential risks? One example of effective risk management in action is the case of Johnson & Johnson during the Tylenol crisis in 1982. Faced with the crisis where cyanide-laced Tylenol capsules resulted […]

Achieving and sustaining organizational excellence takes more than routine task management. It requires a strategic approach that aligns employee goals with those of the business and engages employees to work towards them.  That’s where performance management comes in. Beyond routine check-ins, this transformative process empowers employees, enhances their contributions, and propels organizations toward greater success. In […]

Crisis situations can happen to any business, no matter how prepared they are. As a leader, it’s your responsibility to lead the charge in handling a crisis – but you don’t have to do it alone. In this article, you’ll learn the most effective crisis management strategies and how to implement them so your business […]

Biases are stereotypes about certain groups of people based on traits like race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, or weight. Conscious bias, or explicit bias, occurs when someone purposefully stereotypes another individual on the basis of belonging to such a group. Unconscious bias occurs when an individual perpetuates such stereotypes without conscious awareness.  Even though it […]

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in the Workplace

A majority of u.s. workers say focusing on dei at work is a good thing, but relatively small shares place great importance on diversity in their own workplace, table of contents.

• The value of DEI efforts at work
• The importance of a diverse workforce
• DEI measures and their impact
• How gender, race and ethnicity impact success in the workplace
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Pew Research Center conducted this study to better understand how adults in the United States think about diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the workplace. This analysis is based on survey responses from 4,744 U.S. adults who are working part time or full time, are not self-employed, have only one job or have multiple jobs but consider one their primary job, and whose company or organization has 10 or more people. The data was collected as part of a larger survey of workers conducted Feb. 6-12, 2023. Everyone who took part is a member of Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Read more about the questions used for this report and the report’s methodology .

References to workers or employed adults include those who are employed part time or full time, are not self-employed, have only one job or have multiple jobs but consider one their primary job, and whose company or organization has 10 or more people.

References to White, Black and Asian adults include those who are not Hispanic and identify as only one race. Hispanics are of any race.

References to college graduates or people with a college degree comprise those with a bachelor’s degree or more. “Some college” includes those with an associate degree and those who attended college but did not obtain a degree.

References to disabled workers include those who say a disability or handicap keeps them from fully participating in work, school, housework or other activities.

All references to party affiliation include those who lean toward that party. Republicans include those who identify as Republicans and those who say they lean toward the Republican Party. Democrats include those who identify as Democrats and those who say they lean toward the Democratic Party.

Workplace diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, or DEI, are increasingly becoming part of national political debates . For a majority of employed U.S. adults (56%), focusing on increasing DEI at work is a good thing, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. But opinions about DEI vary considerably along demographic and political lines.

Most workers have some experience with DEI measures at their workplace. About six-in-ten (61%) say their company or organization has policies that ensure fairness in hiring, pay or promotions, and 52% say they have trainings or meetings on DEI at work. Smaller shares say their workplace has a staff member who promotes DEI (33%), that their workplace offers salary transparency (30%), and that it has affinity groups or employee resource groups based on a shared identity (26%). Majorities of those who have access to these measures say each has had a positive impact where they work.

Related : How Americans View Their Jobs

This nationally representative survey of 5,902 U.S. workers, including 4,744 who are not self-employed, was conducted Feb. 6-12, 2023, using the Center’s American Trends Panel . 1 The survey comes at a time when DEI efforts are facing some backlash and many major companies are laying off their DEI professionals .

Some key findings from the survey:

• Relatively small shares of workers place a lot of importance on diversity at their workplace. About three-in-ten say it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere with a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities (32%) or ages (28%). Roughly a quarter say the same about having a workplace with about an equal mix of men and women (26%) and 18% say this about a mix of employees of different sexual orientations.
• More than half of workers (54%) say their company or organization pays about the right amount of attention to increasing DEI. Smaller shares say their company or organization pays too much (14%) or too little attention (15%), and 17% say they’re not sure. Black workers are more likely than those in other racial and ethnic groups to say their employer pays too little attention to increasing DEI. They’re also among the most likely to say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing (78% of Black workers say this), while White workers are the least likely to express this view (47%).
• Women are more likely than men to value DEI at work. About six-in-ten women (61%) say focusing on increasing DEI at work is a good thing, compared with half of men. And larger shares of women than men say it’s extremely or very important to them to work at a place that is diverse when it comes to gender, race and ethnicity, age, and sexual orientation.
• There are wide partisan differences in views of workplace DEI. Most Democratic and Democratic-leaning workers (78%) say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing, compared with 30% of Republicans and Republican leaners. Democrats are also far more likely than Republicans to value different aspects of diversity. And by wide margins, higher shares of Democrats than Republicans say the policies and resources related to DEI available at their workplace have had a positive impact.
• Half of workers say it’s extremely or very important to them to work somewhere that is accessible for people with physical disabilities. About three-in-ten workers (29%) say this is somewhat important to them, and 21% say it’s not too or not at all important. A majority of workers (76% among those who do not work fully remotely) say their workplace is at least somewhat accessible for people with physical disabilities.
• Many say being a man or being White is an advantage where they work. The survey asked respondents whether a person’s gender, race or ethnicity makes it easier or harder to be successful where they work. Shares ranging from 45% to 57% say these traits make it neither easier nor harder. But far more say being a man and being White makes it easier than say it makes it harder for someone to be successful. Conversely, by double-digit margins, more say being a woman, being Black or being Hispanic makes it harder than say it makes it easier to be successful where they work.

A majority of workers (56%) say focusing on increasing diversity, equity and inclusion at work is mainly a good thing; 28% say it is neither good nor bad, and 16% say it is a bad thing. Views on this vary along key demographic and partisan lines.

Half or more of both men and women say focusing on increasing DEI at work is a good thing, but women are more likely than men to offer this view (61% vs. 50%). In turn, men are more than twice as likely as women to say it is a bad thing (23% vs. 9%).

About two-thirds or more of Black (78%), Asian (72%) and Hispanic (65%) workers say that focusing on DEI at work is a good thing. Among White workers, however, fewer than half (47%) say it’s a good thing; in fact, 21% say it’s a bad thing. But there are wide partisan, gender and age gaps among White workers, with majorities of White Democrats, women and those under age 30 saying focusing on DEI at work is a good thing.

Workers under 30 are the most likely age group to say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing. About two-thirds (68%) of workers ages 18 to 29 say this, compared with 56% of workers 30 to 49, 46% of those 50 to 64, and 52% of those 65 and older.

Views also differ by educational attainment, with 68% of workers with a postgraduate degree saying focusing on DEI at work is a good thing, compared with 59% of those with a bachelor’s degree only and 50% of those with some college or less education.

Democratic and Democratic-leaning workers are much more likely to say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing (78%) than to say it is a bad thing (4%) or that it is neither good nor bad (18%). Views among Republican and Republican-leaning workers are more mixed: Some 30% say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing, while the same share (30%) say it’s a bad thing, and 39% say it’s neither good nor bad.

A majority of workers say their employer pays the right amount of attention to DEI

When it comes to the focus of their own employer, 54% of workers say their company or organization pays about the right amount of attention to increasing diversity, equity and inclusion. The remainder are divided between saying their employer pays too much (14%) or too little attention (15%), or that they’re not sure (17%).

Women are more likely than men to say their employer pays too little attention to increasing DEI (17% vs. 12%). In turn, men are more likely than women to say too much attention is paid to this where they work (18% vs. 10%).

Black workers (28%) are the most likely to say their company or organization pays too little attention to increasing DEI, compared with smaller shares of White (11%), Hispanic (19%) and Asian (17%) workers who say the same.

Views on this question also differ by party. While half or more of both Republican and Democratic workers say their company or organization pays the right amount of attention to DEI, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say their employer pays too little attention to it (21% vs. 7%). In turn, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say their employer pays too much attention to DEI (24% vs. 6%).

While a majority of workers say focusing on increasing diversity, equity and inclusion at work is a good thing, relatively small shares place great importance on working at a place that is diverse when it comes to gender, race and ethnicity, age, and sexual orientation. About three-in-ten workers say it’s extremely or very important to them to work somewhere with a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities (32%) and ages (28%), while 26% say the same about having about an equal mix of men and women. And 18% say this about having a mix of employees of different sexual orientations at their workplace.

Women are more likely than men to say it’s extremely or very important to them to work at a place that is diverse across all measures asked about in the survey. For example, there are 11 percentage point differences in the shares of women compared with men saying it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere that has a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities (37% vs. 26%) and about an equal mix of men and women (31% vs. 20%).

Black workers are among the most likely to value racial, ethnic and age diversity in the workplace. Some 53% of Black workers say it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere with a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities, compared with 39% of Hispanic workers and 25% of White workers who say the same; 43% of Asian workers say this is important to them. (There is no statistically significant difference between the share of Asian workers and the shares of Black and Hispanic workers who hold this view.) And while 42% of Black workers highly value working somewhere with a mix of employees of different ages, smaller shares of Hispanic (33%), Asian (30%) and White (24%) workers say the same.

When it comes to diversity of sexual orientation, 28% of Black workers and 22% of Hispanic workers say it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere that is diverse in this way; 15% each among White and Asian workers say the same.

Workers under age 50 are more likely than those 50 and older to say racial and ethnic diversity in their workplace is extremely or very important to them (35% vs. 26%). Workers younger than 50 are also more likely to say having about an equal mix of men and women is important to them, with workers ages 18 t0 29 the most likely to say this (34% vs. 26% of workers 30 to 49, and 20% each among those 50 to 64 and 65 and older).

There are also differences by educational attainment, with larger shares of workers with a postgraduate degree than those with less education saying it’s extremely or very important to them that their workplace is diverse across all measures asked about in the survey. For example, 44% of workers with a postgraduate degree say having a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities is extremely or very important to them, compared with 34% of those with a bachelor’s degree only and 27% of those with some college or less.

Democratic workers are much more likely than Republican workers to say working somewhere that is diverse when it comes to gender, race and ethnicity, age, and sexual orientation is extremely or very important to them. In fact, about half of Democrats (49%) place great importance on having a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities where they work, compared with 13% of Republicans. And there are differences of at least 20 points between the shares of Democrats and Republicans saying it’s extremely or very important to them to work somewhere that has about an equal mix of men and women (39% of Democrats say this vs. 12% of Republicans) and a mix of employees of different ages (39% vs. 17%) and sexual orientations (27% vs. 7%).

Overall, a majority of workers say their workplace has a mix of employees of different ages (58% say this describes their current workplace extremely or very well). Smaller shares say their workplace has about an equal mix of men and women (38%) and a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities (46%) and sexual orientations (28%). These assessments do not vary much across demographic groups.

Half of workers place great importance on working at a place that is accessible for people with physical disabilities

Half of workers say it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere that is accessible for people with physical disabilities; 29% say it is somewhat important and 21% say it is not too or not at all important to them.

Highly valuing an accessible workplace varies by gender, race and ethnicity, and party, but there is no significant difference in responses between those who do and don’t report having a disability.

About six-in-ten women (58%) say it is extremely or very important to them that their workplace is accessible, compared with 41% of men.

Black workers are more likely than workers of other racial and ethnic groups to place great importance on their workplace being accessible: 62% of Black workers say this is extremely or very important, compared with 51% of Hispanic, 48% of White and 43% of Asian workers.

A majority of Democrats (59%) say it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere that is accessible for people with physical disabilities; 40% of Republican say the same. Some 27% of Republicans say this is not too or not at all important to them, compared with 15% of Democrats.

There is no statistically significant difference in the shares of workers who have a disability and those who do not saying it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere that is accessible for people with physical disabilities. But workers who do not have a disability are more likely than those who do to say this is not too or not at all important to them (21% vs. 15%).

Among those who don’t work fully remotely, about three-quarters of workers (76%) say their workplace is at least somewhat accessible for people with physical disabilities, with 51% saying it is extremely or very accessible. Some 17% say their workplace is not too or not at all accessible, and 8% are not sure.

When asked whether the company or organization they work for has a series of measures that are typically associated with diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, a majority of workers say their employer has policies that ensure everyone is treated fairly in hiring, pay or promotions (61%), and 52% say there are trainings or meetings on DEI where they work.

Smaller shares say their workplace has a staff member whose main job is to promote DEI at work (33%), a way for employees to see the salary range for all positions (30%), and groups created by employees sometimes known as affinity groups or employee resource groups (ERGs) based on shared identities such as gender, race or being a parent (26%).

Responses do not vary much by most demographic characteristics. However, workers with at least a bachelor’s degree are consistently more likely than those with less education to say each of these five measures is available where they work.

Workers tend to see positive impact from policies and resources associated with DEI where they work

Among those whose workplace offers each policy or resource, a majority of workers say each measure has had a somewhat or very positive impact where they work. About a third or fewer workers say each resource has had neither a positive nor negative impact, and about one-in-ten or fewer say each of these has had a somewhat or very negative impact.

Democrats and Republicans are about equally likely to say their workplace has these measures in place, but Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say the impact of each has been positive by margins ranging from 10 to 32 points (among those who say their workplace has these measures). For example, 66% of Democrats who say their workplace has a way for employees to see the salary range for all positions say this has had a somewhat or very positive impact, compared with 56% of Republicans who say this. And while about three-quarters of Democrats (74%) say having a staff member whose main job is to promote DEI at work has had a positive impact, fewer than half of Republicans (42%) say the same.

Women are more likely than men to say each of these policies and resources has had a very or somewhat positive impact where they work. This is mainly driven by gender differences among Republicans: There are double-digit differences in the shares of Republican women and Republican men who say many of these resources have had a positive impact. For example, 58% of Republican women say having a staff member whose main job is to promote DEI at work has had at least a somewhat positive impact where they work, compared with 31% of Republican men who hold this view. The same share of Republican women (58%) say having affinity groups or ERGs has had a positive impact, compared with 38% of Republican men who say the same.

Among Democrats, majorities of both men and women offer positive assessments of these resources in their workplace, but Democratic women are more likely than Democratic men to say having trainings or meetings on DEI at work have had a positive impact (72% vs. 65%).

While there are differences by race, ethnicity and age on overall attitudes about DEI in the workplace, there are no consistent differences along these dimensions in how workers with access to these policies and resources at their workplace assess their impact.

About half of workers who have participated in DEI trainings in the last year say they’ve been helpful

Out of all workers, about four-in-ten (38%) have participated in a DEI training in the last year. A similar share (40%) did not participate or say their workplace does not offer these trainings, and 21% are not sure if their employer offers these trainings.

Looking only at those whose company or organization has trainings or meetings on DEI, about three-quarters (73%) say they have participated in such trainings in the past year. And assessments of these trainings tend to be positive, with 53% of workers who’ve participated saying they were very or somewhat helpful. About a third (34%) give a more neutral assessment, saying the trainings were neither helpful nor unhelpful, and 13% say they were very or somewhat unhelpful.

While men and women are about equally likely to have participated in trainings on DEI in the past year, women are more likely than men to say the trainings have been at least somewhat helpful (60% vs. 46%).

Republicans and Democrats are also equally likely to say they’ve participated in these trainings in the past year, but Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say the trainings have been helpful (66% vs. 36%). About one-in-five Republicans say they’ve been unhelpful (19%), compared with 9% of Democrats.

While both Democratic men and women offer similar assessments of the DEI trainings they’ve participated in, there are gender differences among Republican workers. Republican women are more likely than Republican men to say the trainings they’ve participated in have been helpful (47% vs. 28%). Conversely, 22% of Republican men, compared with 14% of Republican women, say the trainings have been unhelpful.

Few workers are members of affinity groups or ERGs at work

While 26% of workers say there are affinity groups or employee resource groups (ERGs) where they work, members of these groups account for a very small share of workers overall. Just 6% of workers say they are members of an affinity group or ERG, with 58% of workers saying these groups are either not available at their workplace or that they aren’t a member. Another 37% say they are not sure if their workplace offers these groups.

Among workers who say there are affinity groups or ERGs at their workplace, 22% say they are personally a member. Women are more likely than men to be members of these groups (28% vs. 16%). And 28% of non-White workers say they are a member of an affinity group or ERG, compared with 18% of White workers. 2

When asked about the impact a person’s gender, race or ethnicity has on their ability to succeed at work, workers tend to say these characteristics neither make it easier nor harder to be successful at their workplace.

Still, when it comes to gender, workers are more likely to say being a man makes it easier to be successful where they work than to say it makes it harder (36% vs. 6%). In contrast, a larger share says being a woman makes it harder to be successful than say it makes it easier (28% vs. 11%).

Men and women have different views on the impact gender has on a person’s ability to succeed where they work. Some 44% of women say being a man makes it at least a little easier to be successful, including 24% who say it makes it a lot easier. This compares with 29% of men who say being a man makes it at least a little easier to be successful.

Similarly, 34% of women say being a woman makes it harder to be successful where they work, compared with 21% of men.

Women under age 50 are especially likely – more so than women ages 50 and older or men in either age group – to say being a man makes it easier to be successful where they work and that being a woman makes it harder. For example, 38% of women ages 18 to 49 say being a woman makes it harder to be successful where they work. This compares with 29% of women 50 and older, 25% of men younger than 50, and an even smaller share of men 50 and older (13%).

When it comes to views about how race or ethnicity affects people’s ability to succeed at work, 51% of Black workers say being Black makes it harder to be successful where they work. This is significantly higher than the shares of Asian (41%), Hispanic (23%) and White (18%) workers who say the same about the impact of being Black.

Similarly, about four-in-ten Asian workers (39%) say being Asian makes it harder to be successful in their workplace, a higher share than workers of other racial and ethnic groups who say the same about being Asian.

Hispanic, Black and Asian workers are about equally likely to say being Hispanic makes it harder to be successful where they work. A smaller share of White workers say the same about being Hispanic.

When asked about the impact of being White in their workplace, workers across racial and ethnic groups are more likely to say it makes it easier than to say it makes it harder to be successful. This is especially the case among Black and Asian workers. About half of Black (52%) and Asian (51%) workers say being White makes it easier to be successful where they work, compared with 37% of Hispanic and 24% of White workers who say the same about being White.

Previously released findings from this survey found that Black workers are more likely than White, Hispanic and Asian workers to report that they have experienced discrimination or have been treated unfairly by an employer in hiring, pay or promotions because of their race or ethnicity at some point in their careers (though not necessarily where they currently work). Women are also more likely than men to say they’ve experienced such discrimination because of their gender.

There are large partisan gaps in views of whether gender, race or ethnicity make it easier or harder to be successful at work. Some 47% of Democratic workers say being a man makes it at least somewhat easier to be successful at their workplace, compared with 25% of Republican workers. Democrats are also more likely than Republicans to say being a woman makes it harder to succeed (37% vs. 17%).

Democratic and Republican women are more likely than their male counterparts to say being a woman makes it harder – and being a man makes it easier – to be successful where they work. The differences between Republican women and Republican men are particularly striking. About a quarter of Republican women (26%) say being a woman makes it harder to be successful, compared with 10% of Republican men. And while 36% of Republican women say being a man makes it easier to be successful where they work, just 16% of Republican men say the same.

Democratic workers are more than three times as likely as Republican workers to say being White makes it easier to succeed where they work (48% vs. 13%), and they are also more likely than Republicans to say being Black, Hispanic or Asian makes it harder. About four-in-ten Democrats (39%) say being Black makes it harder for someone to succeed at their workplace, compared with just 9% of Republicans. Similarly, 30% of Democrats say being Hispanic makes it harder to succeed, compared with 8% of Republicans. And while smaller shares in both parties say being Asian makes it harder to succeed, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say this (16% vs. 6%). These partisan differences remain when looking only at Democrats and Republicans who are White.

• For details, see the  Methodology  section of the report. The analysis in this report is based on U.S. workers who are employed full time or part time, who are not self-employed, and who have only one job or have multiple jobs but consider one their primary job (99% of workers who are not self-employed have one job or a primary job). Additionally, the analysis is restricted to workers at companies or organizations with at least 10 employees as certain federal requirements such as non-discrimination mandates apply to larger workplaces. ↩
• Non-White adults include Black, Hispanic, Asian and other races besides White, as well as people who identify as more than one race. The sample sizes among Black, Hispanic and Asian workers who have affinity groups or ERGs at work are too small to analyze separately. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Asian Americans
• Black Americans
• Business & Workplace
• Discrimination & Prejudice
• Economics, Work & Gender
• Economy & Work
• Gender & Work
• Happiness & Life Satisfaction
• Hispanics/Latinos
• Partisanship & Issues
• Race & Ethnicity
• Racial Bias & Discrimination
• Sexual Misconduct & Harassment

Is College Worth It?

Half of latinas say hispanic women’s situation has improved in the past decade and expect more gains, a majority of latinas feel pressure to support their families or to succeed at work, a look at small businesses in the u.s., majorities of adults see decline of union membership as bad for the u.s. and working people, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

• [email protected]

Proving Discrimination

Discrimination may occur in many different forms and in various ways. You might have a “gut feeling” that you were discriminated against. But how can you tell if you have a valid case?

Anti-discrimination laws make it illegal for an employer to take adverse employment action against you if you are a member of a protected class, or category of persons. Not all types of discrimination are protected under the federal anti-discrimination laws. Some states may have additional categories they include as protected categories under the law. While federal law aims to protect employees against discrimination, it is often very difficult to prove that discrimination occurred Also, while the federal laws protect you against workplace discrimination, it is often very difficult to prove that discrimination occurred.

There are several questions that you can ask yourself to help determine whether you were discriminated against and whether you will be able to prove that the discrimination occurred.

Discrimination is unfair and unjust treatment toward someone based on a protected class, including but not limited to race, sexual orientation, and disability . The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission  (EEOC) protects specific classes of people, known as protected classes, from employment discrimination when it involves: unfair treatment;  harassment ; denial of a reasonable workplace change needed because of belief or disability; improper questions or disclosure of genetic or  medical information ; and  retaliation  for filing a complaint.

Not all types of discrimination are protected under the federal laws. The federal anti-discrimination laws only protect you if you fall into a protected class or category. The protected classes differ under the various federal laws and are summarized below.

Title  VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964  (Title VII) makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. Title VII also makes it illegal to discriminate against women because of pregnancy, childbirth, or medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth.

The  Age Discrimination in Employment Act  (ADEA) makes it illegal to discriminate against someone because of age. This law protects people who are 40 or older.

The  Americans with Disabilities Act  (ADA) and the  Rehabilitation Act of 1973  make it illegal to discriminate against a person with a disability.

Some state and local laws also make it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of gender identity, immigration status, language, family responsibilities, sexual orientation, and/or genetic information. See what categories your state protects against in our  Filing a Discrimination Claim  page.

If you believe you have been discriminated against based on your status as a member of a protected class or category, you may bring a claim for:

Discriminatory Intent/Treatment A discriminatory intent, or discriminatory treatment claim is when an employee is treated worse by an employer because of his or her status as a member of protected class or category.

Disparate Impact A disparate impact claim is a type of discrimination based on the effect of an employment policy, rule or practice is discriminatory —even if it was not intended to be discriminatory. The anti-discrimination laws make it illegal for a rule or practice to be more harmful to members of a protected class. For example, a strength requirement might screen out a greater number of female applicants for a job while requiring all applicants to receive a certain score on a standardized test to be eligible for a promotion could adversely affect minority candidates.

Retaliation Retaliation happens when, as a result for filing a discrimination complaint, an employer treats the employee poorly or adversely as punishment for filing the original complaint. See the  Retaliation Page  for more information about retaliation claims.

There are two types of evidence that can be used to prove discrimination: direct and circumstantial.

Direct Evidence Direct evidence is the best way to show that you experienced discrimination. Direct evidence of discrimination includes statements by managers or supervisors that directly relate the adverse action taken against you to your protected class status.

For example, if your employer tells you that you are being let go because you are near retirement age and the company wants to go with a younger image, you have direct evidence that your protected class status was the cause of your termination. This evidence can be in the form of verbal comments or statements written in letters, memos, or notes.

Circumstantial Evidence (Indirect Evidence) Circumstantial evidence can include anything other than direct statements from your employer that allow for the assumption of discrimination. The likelihood of obtaining direct evidence of discrimination is extremely slim. Supervisors and other company personnel are too sophisticated and too well-trained by their own attorneys to openly express their biases and prejudices. In almost every case, an employee must rely on circumstantial evidence to create a presumption of discrimination.

Evidence and Job Transfers

A Supreme Court Case ruled that job transfers related to discrimination that result in some harm—rather than a significant injury—may be challenged under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the Supreme Court, “Although an employee must show some harm from a forced transfer to prevail in a Title VII suit, she need not show that the injury satisfies a significance test,” the court stated. “Title VII’s text nowhere establishes that high bar.” See the case for more information.

According to the “McDonnell-Douglas Test,” named for a famous Supreme Court decision, an employee must first make out at least a “prima facie case” to raise a presumption of discrimination. To make out a prima facie case of discrimination, an employee must be able to answer “yes” to the following four questions:

• Are you a member of a protected class? For example, if you are claiming age discrimination, are you over 40? If you are claiming disability discrimination, are you disabled?
• Were you qualified for your position? For example, if your job required you to be a licensed technician, were you licensed?
• Did your employer take adverse action against you? Adverse action includes hiring, promoting, terminating, compensating and other terms and conditions of employment.
• Were you replaced by a person who is not in your protected class (or, in the case of age discrimination, someone substantially younger than you)? For example, if you are disabled, were you replaced by someone who is not disabled?

If you can show at least these things, the law will presume, that since you were qualified for your job and then discharged in favor of someone not in your protected class, that your protected class status was the reason for the adverse action.

The “circumstantial evidence” test is flexible. A person claiming discrimination who does not have direct evidence of discrimination must produce enough circumstantial evidence of discrimination to allow a jury to find that the employer acted discriminatorily. The law recognizes that persons can be discriminated against even if they were not replaced by someone outside of the protected class, for example during a reduction in force.

An employee may have sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove discrimination if they are able to answer “yes” to several of the following questions:

• Were you treated differently by someone with the same experience, qualifications, and/or education, who is not in your protected class?
• Did managers or supervisors regularly make rude or derogatory comments directed at your status as a member of a protected class or at all members of your class and related to work? For example, “Women don’t belong on a construction site” or “Older employees are set in their ways and make terrible managers.”
• Are the circumstances of your treatment so unusual, shocking, unjust, or severe as to suggest discrimination?
• Does your employer have a history of showing bias toward persons in your protected class?
• Are there noticeably few employees of your protected class at your workplace?
• Have you noticed that other employees of your protected class seem to be singled out for adverse treatment or are put in lower ranking positions?
• Have you heard other employees in your protected class complain about discrimination, particularly by the supervisor or manager who took the adverse action against you?
• Are there statistics that show favoritism towards or bias against any group?
• Did your employer violate well-established company policy in the way it treated you?
• Did your employer retain less qualified, non-protected employees in the same job?

If you answered, “Yes” to the four questions in the McDonnell-Douglas Test and to several of the questions above, you may be successful in claiming that your protected class status caused the adverse employment action.

No single piece of evidence is usually enough to prove discrimination. On the other hand, there is no “magic” amount or type of evidence that you must have to prove discrimination.

Once you establish a presumption of discrimination, consider the reason that your company gave for terminating you.

In court, an employer has the opportunity to offer a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its conduct. The law only requires the employer to give a reason for its conduct, it does not have to prove that it is the true reason. The court will decide if the non-discriminatory reason is valid or  pretextual , meaning that the employer’s given reason for termination is not the actual reason but is intended to cover up the employer’s discriminatory conduct.

A company can almost always come up with some reason for the action that it took. Once an employer offers this reason you will have to offer additional evidence of discrimination. If the employer cannot offer a legitimate reason for your termination, you may you have proven a case of discrimination. However, don’t count on this happening. You may think, “My employer can never come up with a good reason for firing me!” Recall, however, that your employer doesn’t need a “good” reason, just any reason besides your protected status. The vast majority of employers can do this.

Assuming that your employer can offer any explanation at all for terminating your employment, you must next consider whether you can prove that the reason is just a pretext, a cover-up for discrimination. You may be able to prove that the employer’s stated reason is just a cover-up or pretext for discrimination if you can prove any of the following:

• The stated reason is factually untrue
• The stated reason is insufficient to have actually motivated your discharge
• The stated reason is so inaccurate that it could not have been a reasonable justification for termination
• Your protected status is more likely to have motivated your employer than the stated reason
• Powerful direct or circumstantial evidence of discrimination

In order to successfully challenge your employer’s denial, the law requires you to prove that your employer’s stated reason is false AND that your protected status played a role in your termination.

Proving a disparate impact case is similar to proving a discriminatory intent case. First, you must use circumstantial evidence to create an assumption that the employer’s seemingly neutral policy, rule, or practice had a discriminatory effect on a protected class or category. Next, your employer then has the opportunity to show that the policy, rule or practice was a job-related business necessity. This means that the policy was necessary or fundamental to the functioning of the business. If your employer is able to show that the policy, rule, or practice was a business necessity, then you may still be successful with your claim if you are able to prove that your employer refused to adopt an alternative policy, rule, or practice with a less discriminatory effect.

• Back Pay : Back pay is lost earnings resulting from the discrimination from the date of the discriminatory act to the date of a judgment.
• Front Pay : Front Pay is lost future earnings resulting from the discrimination.
• Lost Benefits : Lost benefits may include health care coverage, dental insurance, pension or 401k plans, stock options, and profit sharing.
• Emotional Distress Damages:  Emotional distress damages, which are also called pain and suffering, are mental or emotional injuries as a result of the discrimination.
• Punitive Damages : Punitive damages are intended to punish the employer for particularly egregious conduct.
• Attorneys’ Fees : In addition to the damages you can recover for your injuries, you can also win an award of attorneys fees, expert witness fees, and court costs.

This selection was originally excerpted from Job Rights and Survival Strategies by Paul H. Tobias and Susan Sauter.

Copyright © 2024 Workplace Fairness, All rights reserved.

• Terms of use
• Privacy Policy
• Links Policy
• Accessibility

Madeline Messa

Madeline Messa is a 3L at Syracuse University College of Law. She graduated from Penn State with a degree in journalism. With her legal research and writing for Workplace Fairness, she strives to equip people with the information they need to be their own best advocate.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Research: How Bias Against Women Persists in Female-Dominated Workplaces

• Amber L. Stephenson,
• Leanne M. Dzubinski

A look inside the ongoing barriers women face in law, health care, faith-based nonprofits, and higher education.

New research examines gender bias within four industries with more female than male workers — law, higher education, faith-based nonprofits, and health care. Having balanced or even greater numbers of women in an organization is not, by itself, changing women’s experiences of bias. Bias is built into the system and continues to operate even when more women than men are present. Leaders can use these findings to create gender-equitable practices and environments which reduce bias. First, replace competition with cooperation. Second, measure success by goals, not by time spent in the office or online. Third, implement equitable reward structures, and provide remote and flexible work with autonomy. Finally, increase transparency in decision making.

It’s been thought that once industries achieve gender balance, bias will decrease and gender gaps will close. Sometimes called the “ add women and stir ” approach, people tend to think that having more women present is all that’s needed to promote change. But simply adding women into a workplace does not change the organizational structures and systems that benefit men more than women . Our new research (to be published in a forthcoming issue of Personnel Review ) shows gender bias is still prevalent in gender-balanced and female-dominated industries.

• Amy Diehl , PhD is chief information officer at Wilson College and a gender equity researcher and speaker. She is coauthor of Glass Walls: Shattering the Six Gender Bias Barriers Still Holding Women Back at Work (Rowman & Littlefield). Find her on LinkedIn at Amy-Diehl , Twitter @amydiehl , and visit her website at amy-diehl.com
• AS Amber L. Stephenson , PhD is an associate professor of management and director of healthcare management programs in the David D. Reh School of Business at Clarkson University. Her research focuses on the healthcare workforce, how professional identity influences attitudes and behaviors, and how women leaders experience gender bias.
• LD Leanne M. Dzubinski , PhD is acting dean of the Cook School of Intercultural Studies and associate professor of intercultural education at Biola University, and a prominent researcher on women in leadership. She is coauthor of Glass Walls: Shattering the Six Gender Bias Barriers Still Holding Women Back at Work (Rowman & Littlefield).

Partner Center

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Higher Education: Opportunities Exist to Improve Federal Oversight of Alleged Employment Discrimination at Colleges and Universities

Colleges are subject to federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, but some faculty still experience discrimination.

In this testimony we report that faculty and other employees filed about 20,000 complaints alleging employment discrimination at colleges from fiscal years 2011 through 2021. Faculty can file complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Department of Education—which refers almost all of them to EEOC. However:

Education takes longer than the required 30 days to refer most complaints

EEOC can't confirm it received all of Education's referrals

Our prior recommendations address these issues.

What GAO Found

From fiscal years 2011 through 2021, about 20,000 complaints alleging employment discrimination at an institution of higher education were filed by faculty or other employees, according to GAO's analysis of complaint data from the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Allegations of discrimination included complaints based on race, sex, disability, national origin, color, and religion. OCR received 1,944 complaints from fiscal years 2011 through 2022. OCR investigates complaints that meet its criteria, but refers the majority of its employment-related complaints to EEOC for investigation consideration. EEOC investigated 18,559 complaints of employment discrimination against higher education institutions from faculty or other employees from fiscal years 2011 through 2021.

Education and EEOC have processes in place to respond to employment discrimination complaints and coordinate referrals, but GAO found that the referral process was often delayed and sometimes resulted in missing records. In fiscal year 2022, Education processed and referred to EEOC 99 complaints alleging employment discrimination at colleges and universities. GAO found that Education referred the complaints in 71 days on average, although Education policy calls for doing so within 30 days. However, Education does not track the timing of these referrals. Without doing so, Education is missing opportunities to identify and learn from its field offices that are processing timely referrals. Lessons learned could be applied agency-wide to reduce delays. This is important because individuals with delayed complaints may experience adverse effects, such as continued discrimination or less pay.

In fiscal year 2021, EEOC processed 1,342 complaints alleging employment discrimination at colleges or universities based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or disability, some of which were referred by Education. However, EEOC does not have a protocol to consistently track and account for the complaint referrals, which can sometimes result in missing referrals. EEOC acknowledged that it could not locate all OCR referrals. For example, one recent referral from OCR was not initially recorded by EEOC until the individual who filed the complaint followed up. Without a protocol to ensure that EEOC receives and processes all Education complaint referrals, some may be missed or resolution may be delayed.

Why GAO Did This Study

Colleges and universities employ thousands of faculty and staff across the country. These institutions are subject to federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. However, some faculty and other employees have reported experiencing discrimination.

This testimony is based on relevant aspects of GAO's March 2024 report, entitled Higher Education: Employment Discrimination Case Referrals between Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Could Be Improved ( GAO-24-105516 ). This testimony addresses the roles of Education's OCR and EEOC and how they process complaints of employment discrimination at higher education institutions.

GAO analyzed Education complaint data from fiscal years 2011–2022, and EEOC complaint data from fiscal years 2011–2021 (each data set was the most recent available). GAO also reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and policies, and interviewed agency officials.

Recommendations

GAO made two recommendations in its March 2024 report. GAO recommended that Education track the timing of employment discrimination complaint referrals to EEOC. Education agreed. GAO also recommended that EEOC develop a protocol to ensure it receives and processes all complaint referrals from Education. EEOC neither agreed nor disagreed, but acknowledged the importance of processing all referrals and is taking action to address this recommendation.

Full Report

Gao contacts.

Melissa Emrey-Arras Director [email protected] (617) 788-0534

Office of Public Affairs

Sarah Kaczmarek Acting Managing Director [email protected] (202) 512-4800

• About About IWF The Women of IWF Champion Women Board of Directors Join Our Team Fellowship Program Affiliated Websites Code of Ethics Shop Media Requests Member Login
• Policy Center Center for Economic Opportunity Center for Energy and Conservation Education Freedom Center Independent Women's Law Center
• Programs She Thinks Podcast High Noon Podcast Bespoke Podcast At The Bar Students Over Systems Event
• Real Stories Women's Prisons Stories Sorority Stories Identity Crisis Stories Female Athlete Stories Dissident Stories Stand With Women Stories ESA Stories Kids First Stories Healthcare Price Transparency Stories Chasing Work Stories
• Economy Government Spending Jobs Mobility Regulations Socialism Taxes
• Culture Community Family Feminism Media & Entertainment Personal Freedom Political Correctness Sex & Gender
• Health Costs & Accessiblity Drugs Health Care Wellness
• Environment Conservation Progress
• Innovation Agriculture Tech
• Education Higher Ed K-12 School Choice Title-IX Transparency Divisive Ideology
• Law 1st Amendment Administrative State Civil Justice Reform Criminal Justice Reform Electoral College Judiciary Sex Discrimination
• Security Foreign Affairs United Nations Immigration National Defense Safety International Women’s Rights
• Work Career Advice Child Care ERA Gender Quotas Harassment Paid Leave Wage Gap

Independent Women’s Forum’s Inez Stepman Testifies Before Congress On Ending Illegal Racial Discrimination and Protecting Men and Women in U.S. Employment Practices

Stepman’s full testimony can be found HERE .

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) today announced that Inez Stepman, senior policy and legal analyst at IWF, will testify before the House Oversight Committee on Title VII employment issues and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) oversight.

The hearing, entitled, “Standing up for the Rule of Law: Ending Illegal Racial Discrimination and Protecting Men and Women in U.S. Employment Practices” examines the three major factors that contributed to the subversion of Title VII’s goal of a “colorblind workplace” according to Stepman.

In her testimony, Stepman writes, in part, that “unintended consequences of changes to the Civil Rights Act in 1991, combined with politically selective under-and over-enforcement of Title VII by the EEOC and bureaucratic redefinitions of the basic words of Title VII itself, have created the legal conditions in which the admirable moral imperative of the civil rights era has been inverted and undermined.”

Stepman highlights three policies previously implemented with the goal of ending discrimination in the workplace, which have instead imposed adverse effects on employment practices and perpetuated division, including:

• “The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which is tasked with being the first line of enforcement of Title VII, both over-and under-enforcing its mandates;
• The EEOC’s decision to follow the Biden administration’s Department of Education in its condemnable Title IX redefinition of the word ‘sex’ to include gender identity, which in the Title VII context destroys women’s rights to have single-sex spaces that protect their privacy and safety in the workplace;
• Revisions in the 1990s and some Supreme Court precedents, which have lent themselves to interpretations of the Civil Rights Act that have created perverse incentives in enforcement, and undermined the law’s most fundamental protections against race and sex discrimination.”

Stepman concludes her testimony with the reminder that, “American workers want to be judged by their employers on the basis of the quality of their credentials and work, not their skin color, sex organs, or other protected characteristics.” She argues that “returning Title VII to its worthy, original, and textual purpose” will establish this goal by reigning in “out-of-control interpretations contrary to the plain text of the law.”

WHAT: U.S. House Oversight Committee hearing, “Standing up for the Rule of Law: Ending Illegal Racial Discrimination and Protecting Men and Women in U.S. Employment Practices”

WHEN: Thursday, June 27, 2024 at 10 a.m. ET

WHERE: 2154 Rayburn

Media inquiries: [email protected]

Stepman’s full testimony will be available HERE after the hearing.

www.iwf.org

Independent Women’s Forum is dedicated to developing and advancing policies that aren’t just well intended but actually enhance people’s freedom, choices, and opportunities. 

Independent Women’s Forum’s Center for Economic Opportunity (CEO) aims to educate the public about how government policies impact people’s opportunities for economic development and upward mobility.

Stay Connected

Stay up-to-date with everything IWF! Sign up for our newsletter:

Related Stories

Hearing | ending illegal racial discrimination and protecting men and women in u.s. employment practices, independent women’s forum comments on upholding civil service protections and merit system principles, inez feltscher stepman: policy focus: taxing universities, our bodies, our sports coalition rallies in nation’s capital to “take back title ix”, press team | $(document).ready( function() { // or shorthand of $( function () { $.each($(".latest-author"), function(index, value ) { if($( this ).text().indexof("’") >= 0){ $author_name = $( this ).text(); $new_text = $author_name.replace("’", "'"); $( this ).text($new_text); } }); }); press release, media advisory: riley gaines, female athletes to hold “take back title ix” rally in nashville for final stop in landmark tour to save women’s sports, independent women’s forum joins speaker johnson on capitol hill for panel discussion on protecting title ix and women’s sports, media advisory: riley gaines, paula scanlan, female athletes hold rally in virginia beach to “take back title ix”, sign up for updates.

• Cell (optional)
• Become a Mobile Insider. Text WOMAN to 40442 to opt in. Sign up for recurring informational messages from IWF. Msg&data rates may apply. Terms & Privacy Policy.
• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Kimberly Hewitt reappointed vice president for institutional equity amid challenges to DEI in higher education

Kimberly Hewitt was reappointed to a second five-year term as vice president for institutional equity and chief diversity officer, according to an announcement from President Vincent Price last week.

Hewitt has led the Office of Institutional Equity , which “works to promote equal opportunity and campus diversity,” since August 2019. The office also “monitors compliance with University policies and federal, state and local laws concerning nondiscrimination, equal opportunity and affirmative action.”

Hewitt’s reappointment followed a regular review of her tenure by an eight-person committee of senior faculty and campus leaders chaired by Abbas Benmamoun, vice provost for faculty advancement.

“I am excited to work and be a part of a community that remains dedicated to creating equitable systems and accessible opportunities for all,” Hewitt wrote in a June 23 email to The Chronicle.

Hewitt’s responsibilities include overseeing the development of educational material for students, addressing misconduct and discrimination concerns and supporting equitable and diverse hiring, advancement and retention practices throughout the University.

“Kim is an outstanding leader who fosters excellence by advancing equity and inclusion and supporting all members of the Duke community in reaching their full potential,” Price said .

In her first term, she revamped OIE’s organizational structure and led policy changes to improve the efficiency of responses to discrimination and harassment complaints, including the institution of a new OIE Liaison program.

Hewitt also spearheaded the development of the Campus Culture Survey , a university-wide effort to gauge progress toward creating a “welcoming, supportive and equitable campus environment.” First administered in 2021, the 2024 version raised concerns from students and faculty about the survey’s methodology and efficacy.

Hewitt co-chairs the Racial Equity Advisory Council , where she helped introduce the Duke Annual Report on Racial Equity in June 2022. The report provided recommendations for “integrating racial equity in operations and efforts across the [University] enterprise” through campus climate and assessment, infrastructure and policies, communications, and education.

“Colleagues throughout the University rely on Kim for her wise counsel and her thoughtful and effective approaches to institutional equity, and I am delighted that she will continue to serve the University in this capacity,” Price said .

Before coming to Duke, Hewitt was the vice provost for institutional equity at Johns Hopkins University from 2017 to 2019. She previously served as director of the Office for Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action and deputy chief of staff for the Office for Equity and Diversity at the University of Minnesota.

Hewitt holds a bachelor’s degree from Stanford University and a Doctor of Law from the University of Minnesota Law School. She has 14 years of experience practicing employment, labor and education law.

DEI at Duke

Hewitt will continue her work to promote diversity, equity and inclusion efforts at Duke amid a changing higher education landscape.

DEI initiatives have been under attack around the country in recent years as conservative activists and Republican politicians have moved to abolish related offices and programs at public colleges and universities.

Notably, the Supreme Court’s June 2023 ruling overturning race-based affirmative action has revolutionized college admissions — and placed other diversity initiatives in jeopardy.

In the wake of the ruling, Duke discontinued its Reginaldo Howard Memorial Scholars Program in April, which covered full tuition, room and board costs for “top applicants of African descent.” The scholarship has been replaced by the Reginaldo Howard Leadership Program , which is open to all undergraduate students regardless of race.

Current Reggie Scholars expressed frustration at a lack of communication from the University amid the program’s end.

Some of Duke’s graduate and professional schools have also faced challenges in response to the ruling. Duke Law School made changes to its application process for the 2023-24 admissions cycle, replacing a diversity statement with one to two short essays responding to a range of prompts. The School of Medicine released a statement in March denying allegations that admissions standards had been lowered to prioritize DEI goals in new student recruitment.

The University received pushback last year for alleged discrimination on a number of subjects outside of race-based concerns.

‘I can do this job’: President Joe Biden hosts campaign rally in Raleigh after poor showing in first presidential debate

Duke men's basketball's cooper flagg chosen for usa select team, nc general assembly implements mask ban, other controversial laws with veto overrides.

In September, a legal activist filed a federal complaint against the University’s Alice M. Baldwin Scholars program, arguing that the program for female-identifying students engaged in “reverse discrimination” in violation of Title IX provisions.

The same month, a New York Times article named Duke among some of the “ least economically diverse ” institutions of higher education, noting that the University fell substantially behind top-ranked peer institutions.

Price responded to the piece and maintained that while there was room to improve, work was already underway to advance socioeconomic diversity and the article painted Duke “in a rather harsh light.” However, first-generation and low-income students and alumni drew on personal experiences to express support for the article’s claims.

The University faced further backlash surrounding its decision to change the timeline for releasing merit scholarship decisions. In January, the Office of University Scholars and Fellows informed current merit scholars that the University would move to a post-matriculation model of selection — notifying students after the deadline to enroll had already passed.

In response to concerns raised about the financial burden the new timeline could place on families, OUSF moved the notification date for finalists up to April 29 — two days before the enrollment deadline. However, finalists would not be informed whether they actually received a scholarship until mid-June, eliciting further frustration .

The future of DEI in higher education

The University of North Carolina system recently removed a key DEI policy following an April vote of the Board of Governors’ University Governance committee. The move set up the elimination of several DEI-related administrative positions and offices at public universities across the state.

While the policy change does not affect Duke as a private institution, students expressed concerns that the move represents a growing trend throughout higher education which could soon impact the University.

In observation of Juneteenth, Price released a statement last week reaffirming Duke's “ongoing commitment to racial and social equity.”

“In this moment when efforts to advance diversity, equity and inclusion nationally are being questioned — and in some cases curtailed — let me be clear in reaffirming Duke University’s unwavering commitment to attaining true excellence in our core missions of education, research and clinical service by advancing racial and social equity and living up to our values by being a welcoming and inclusive community that supports all people in reaching their full potential,” he wrote.

The University president listed a number of recent advances made in DEI goals, which he referred to as “significant gains,” while still acknowledging that Duke has “a long way to go as a campus, university and society.”

“Leading the Office for Institutional Equity is a responsibility I deeply value,” Hewitt wrote in the June 23 email. “While there is still much work to be done, I am proud of what we have achieved so far and look forward to working with the entire community to continue moving forward together.”

Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox

Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.

Zoe Kolenovsky is a Trinity junior and news editor of The Chronicle's 120th volume.

Share and discuss “Kimberly Hewitt reappointed vice president for institutional equity amid challenges to DEI in higher education” on social media.

 facebook  twitter

Duke men's lacrosse 2024 season review

Duke withdraws rezoning plan for 3 of original 10 parcels near east campus following years of community pushback, the chronicle's 2024 nba mock draft, "fallout" and the video game adaptation gold rush, unmasking indoctrination: the zionist agenda behind duke's “antisemitism 101 training”, duke men's basketball guard jared mccain drafted with the 16th pick to the philadelphia 76ers.

More From Forbes

4 ways to tackle gender discrimination in the workplace.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Post written by Dr Francesca Manzi , Assistant Professor of Management in the Department of Management at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Dr Manzi’s research focuses on the ways in which gender-based beliefs shape perceptions, evaluations, and decision making in modern organisations.

Dr Manzi’s research focuses on the ways in which gender-based beliefs shape perceptions, ... [+] evaluations, and decision making in modern organisations.

Societal roles for men and women have become far less rigid over the last few decades. In the US, women now hold 40% of all management positions and the average number of hours that fathers spend on childcare per week has risen from 2.5 to 8 hours in the past 40 years.

Despite these advances, gender discrimination in the workplace persists, especially in ‘traditionally masculine’ jobs like finance, tech, and engineering. High-level leadership positions continue to be predominately occupied by men, with women holding less than a third of corporate board seats and only 8.2% of CEO positions in the S&P 500 companies. At the current rate, the UN estimates that it may take over 200 years to achieve full gender equality and another 140 years to reach gender parity in leadership.

Importantly, however, some organisations are demonstrating that gender-based discrimination can be reduced through concrete structural changes that target gender stereotypes. In a recent paper with colleagues at New York University and Louisiana State University, we synthesised decades of research to explain why, when, and how gender stereotypes lead to discrimination and present several data-driven strategies for preventing it. Below, I outline four key takeaways for organisations.

No tokenism here: Create a critical mass of women

It is well-known than an effective way to overcome gender stereotypes in the workplace is by increasing representation of women. However, although having more women in leadership is important, true gender equality can only be achieved by moving away from tokenism. This is because research shows that gender stereotypes are especially salient when women are a minority. For example, when there is only one woman in the board of directors, people often attribute what she does (or does not do) to the fact that she is a woman .

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

Similarly, gender stereotypes are also particularly difficult to challenge when women and men are concentrated in different types of jobs - for example, men in financial departments and women in human resources. To create true and lasting change, we must ensure that there is a critical mass of women across departments and teams. The insurance giant Progressive seems to be doing just this by prioritising (and disclosing) the representation of women not only in leadership (where representation is around 50%) but across the whole organisation (women constitute about 60% of total employees). The strategy seems to be working: Progressive currently holds the 1st place in Forbes list of America’s best employers for diversity.

Women in leadership are important, true gender equality can only be achieved by moving away from ... [+] tokenism. UNESCO For Women in Science Awards Ceremony (Photo by Bertrand Rindoff Petroff/Getty Images for Fondation L'Oreal)

Gender-neutralise your language

Although gender-inclusive job titles, such as ‘Chair’ rather than ‘Chairman’, are becoming more common, some job titles continue to be gendered, such as ‘fireman’ and ‘hostess’”). Research shows that gender discrimination can be averted with something as simple as altering a job title. In 2016, Yale University swapped the title of a leadership role from “master” to “head of college”. This seemingly minor change in language led to a reduction in gender bias favouring men for the position.

Importantly, however, even when a position is not explicitly gendered, job advertisements and job descriptions often use terms that tend to be associated with one gender more than the other. For example, jobs that have been historically dominated by men are often described using words such as “competitive” and “ambitious”, while those that have been traditionally dominated by women are described using words like “collaborative” and “committed”.

Reducing such gendered language holds promise of increasing gender equality. The e-commerce platform Etsy has been exceptionally successful in increasing and retaining its female software engineers - with nearly double the numbers of their industry peers. Among the strategies that Etsy has employed to boost female representation is the use of gender-neutral language in their job postings.

Redefine Organisational Norms

Another way to reduce gender discrimination is by redefining organisational norms. More than a decade ago, Google decided to do something about the disparity between promotion rates in men and women by instituting a policy mandating self-nominations as a prerequisite for advancement. The policy led to more women being promoted. Why was this strategy successful? Research shows that people are more accepting of self-promoting and ambitious behaviour from men, but tend to view it negatively from women. By making self-nominations required for all employees seeking a promotion, Google essentially made it acceptable for both women and men to actively seek promotion opportunities.

Organisational norms around parental leave are also highly gendered. Although the number of companies in the US offering paid leave for women is declining , some companies appear to be moving in the right direction by granting paid time off work not only to new mothers, but also to new fathers. Cisco offers 65 days of leave to both mothers and fathers, while Deloitte grants new mothers 120 days and new fathers 80 days of paid leave. Just as self-nomination requirements can shift norms about who should, and who should not, display ambition or assertiveness at work, officially providing paid leave to both mothers and fathers can shift expectations about who should, and who should not take parental leave.

Organisational norms surrounding have become highly gendered, companies seem to be moving in the ... [+] right direction by granting paid time off work not only to new mothers, but also to new fathers.

That is, because stereotypes depict men as ‘breadwinners’ and women as ‘caregivers’, men are often penalised for seeking time off for family responsibilities, as this study has shown. However, policies that allow for both maternity and paternity leave signal that both parents can take leave. In addition, when companies make these policies official for women and men alike, the ‘maybe-baby’ effect – when employers make assumptions about women going off on parental leave in the near future - is less likely.

Companies may further reduce gender stereotyping by avoiding gendered language altogether. Meta, for example, describes maternity and paternity leave policies as ‘parental leave’.

Increase transparency and accountability

Since 2017, CEOs of large companies such as Target, Sodexo, Pfizer, Phillips and Visa have pledged to advance women into leadership through the non-profit Catalyst . Catalyst’s aim is to “help build workplaces that work for women”.

Pledges can be effective at deterring discrimination for several reasons. Research shows that public commitment works because people like to be - and appear - consistent with what they have already done or said. But perhaps more importantly, pledges such as these often involve an increased level of accountability. When those with responsibility for hiring candidates have to justify their decisions to others, they are more likely to engage in more deliberate and deeper information-processing. As a result, they are less likely to use gender stereotypes to make decisions. The data so far suggests that actively committing to gender equality through programs like Catalyst’s has led to a greater retention of female employees, including those from minority ethnic groups, as well as a rise in women taking on senior positions.

Although achieving full gender equality will take some time, organisations have the power to make significant progress towards preventing gender-based discrimination. We now have several decades of research showing what works and why. By leveraging already existing data, organisations can (and should) be at the forefront of positive change.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

• Meet the Ranking Member
• Jurisdiction
• Internships and Fellowships
• Education and Opportunity for Every Student
• Putting Workers First
• Affordable Health Care for All
• Holding Government Accountable
• All Committee Activity
• Full Committee Hearings
• Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee
• Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee
• Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee
• Workforce Protections Subcommittee
• Legislation
• Committee Reports
• Fact Sheets
• Combating The Coronavirus
• Press Releases
• Mailing List

• Facebook Link
• Twitter Link
• Youtube Link
• Flickr Link
• Instagram Link
• Committee Activity

“Combating Workplace Antisemitism in Postsecondary Education: Protecting Employees from Discrimination”

Subcommittee: Workforce Protections Subcommittee Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 Time: 10:00 AM

Member Statements

• Download Statement
• Download Testimony
• Privacy Policy
• Majority Website

Workplaces that work for women

• Become a Supporter
• Our History
• Board of Directors
• Catalyst Staff
• Our Global Reach
• Board Directors Advisory Committee
• Catalyst CEO Champions For Change
• Expert Community
• Employee Resource Groups (ERGs)
• Measuring for Change
• Catalyst Partners
• Microlearning
• Learning Solutions
• Virtual Events
• Join Catalyst
• Attend enERGize
• The Ripple Effect Starts Here: 2024 Catalyst Awards
• Catalyst Honours
• More Solutions
• Infographics
• Ask Catalyst Express
• Stats & Data
• Flip the Script
• Research Series
• Explore All Research
• Frontline Employees Initiative
• Remote Work
• Implicit Bias
• Future of Work
• Race, Ethnicity, and Culture
• Engaging Men
• Gender Pay Gap
• More Topics

Content Type

• Biographies
• Spotlight Stories
• Media Releases

Research Type

• Infographic
• Session Recording
• Topic Overview
• Trend Brief
• Webinar Recording
• Advancing Your Own Career
• Allyship and Advocacy
• Artificial Intelligence
• Board Diversity
• Business Case
• Emotional Tax
• Employee Resource Groups
• Flexible Work
• Gender Bias
• Generations
• Inclusive Communications
• Inclusive Leadership
• Intersectionality
• Measurement
• Organizational Culture Change
• Recruitment and Retention
• Sexual Harassment
• Sponsorship and Mentoring
• Transgender
• Women of Color
• Working Parents
• Chinese (Simplified)
• Chinese (Traditional)
• Portuguese (Brazil)
• Latin America
• Middle East
• United States

How to Build Genuine LGBTQ+ Allyship in Your Company

Catalyst webinar participants shared ways senior leaders can build a culture where everyone is included..

Despite visible support during Pride month, many organizations struggle to maintain meaningful allyship efforts year-round. Research from the Center for American Progress in 2022 shows that half of LGBTQ+ employees have encountered discrimination or harassment in the last year because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or intersex status. Catalyst research demonstrates that when employees experience equity and inclusion at work, they are more likely to stay.

The Catalyst webinar “ Active Allyship: Strengthening LGBTQ+ Inclusion in Your Company ” kicked off with an overview of EY’s recent LGBTQ+ Workplace Barometer Report , which surveyed over 500 corporate members and showed that younger generations of LGBTQ+ employees, particularly members of Gen Z, expect inclusion at work, and that when employees experience inclusion, they are more likely to stay.

Moderated by Josh Smalley Baldasare , Director, Content Creation, Global Marketing and Communications, Catalyst (he/him), the panel featured insights from industry leaders in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The panelists included Bobby Gale, Director, Analytical and Data Platforms, Loblaw Companies Ltd. (they/them); Chris Crespo, Director–DEI, EY (she/they); Ella Slade, Diversity & Inclusion Lead (LGBT+ Inclusion) Learning & Performance UK, Vodafone (they/them); Japneet Kaur, Senior Manager–Diversity, Equity & Inclusion, TD Bank Financial Group (she/her); Kimberley Messer, VP, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, IGM Financial (she/her); and Leah Brome, Director, Inclusion, Diversity, & Equity, Global, Kyndryl (she/her).

Here are the top five recommendations they shared for organizational leaders to build allyship in their workplace culture so that LGBTQ+ employees experience inclusion:

• Identify and address discrimination. Implement global non-discrimination policies, establish confidential grievance procedures like Vodafone’s “Speak Up” process, and use employee engagement surveys and exit interviews to uncover—and then address—discrimination effectively.
• Provide educational opportunities. Offer trainings on topics such as gender identity and maintain ongoing awareness efforts to counter increasing anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric.
• Move from performative to genuine allyship. Engage with LGBTQ+ employees to ensure initiatives are driven by actual needs. Offer comprehensive mental health resources and gender-affirming healthcare to fully support the LGBTQ+ community.
• Speak up publicly and inclusively. Make public statements on diversity and inclusion and integrate inclusive language in communications. CEOs should engage directly with employees to foster a culture of genuine allyship.
• Enable managers and ERGs to be effective allies. Provide managers opportunities to learn more about inclusion in teams and collaborate with ERGs.

Additional Takeaways

• Avoid making heteronormative assumptions, asking intrusive questions about queer identities, or giving backhanded compliments that perpetuate harmful stereotypes.
• Respect people’s pronouns and encourage allies to educate themselves and do their own research without burdening marginalized groups.
• Understand that being part of the LGBTQ+ community does not mean you automatically know everything about the experiences of all its members.
• Stay humble and committed to continuous learning and growth within the community. Be open and curious about others’ experiences and perspectives.

Creating a culture of genuine allyship requires continual effort and inclusive policies that support LGBTQ+ employees year-round. By prioritizing authenticity and understanding the profound impact of allyship, organizations can create environments where all employees thrive, contributing to a more equitable workplace for everyone.

Not yet a Catalyst Supporter? Join our community.