[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 172 (Thursday, November 2, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S16633]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              CULTURAL DIVERSITY VERSUS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

 Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, it has come to my attention that a 
recently published book, ``Managing Plurality: Beyond Diversity to 
Effective Organizational Changes,'' by the past president of the 
American Psychological Association, Dr. Donald E. Fox, and his 
colleague, Dr. J. Renae Norton, sensitively explores issues relating to 
diversity in the labor force and affirmative action. I agree with their 
contention that affirmative action is not really the problem; but, 
rather it is the manner in which it is implemented and managed that 
seems to cause the most difficulties.
  I have observed over the last 3 or 4 years that criticisms of 
affirmative action programs have increased and some people are even 
calling for their complete elimination. Historically, affirmative 
action has been particularly beneficial in bringing women and 
minorities into the work place. Today affirmative action is needed more 
than ever to insure that all individuals have equal access to 
opportunities for advancement and positions of more responsibility.
  We would all readily admit that when affirmative action is 
implemented as a numbers game that merely counts how many women or 
minorities are employed, it works against the needs of business as well 
as the people it was designed to help. However, our society is changing 
so rapidly that a diverse work force is becoming the rule rather than 
the exception. For example, it is estimated that in the very near 
future, 85 percent of the new jobs in the labor force will be filled by 
women, minorities, and immigrants. Organizations that are looking to 
their future will have to evaluate the impact that diversity in our 
society will have on the marketing of their products or services. What 
better way for an organization to ensure innovation than through the 
cultivation of a diverse work force. For example, in my own State of 
Hawaii, cultural diversity is the rule, not the exception. This 
diversity is not only accepted, but sought after by organizations 
seeking to compete in the international market.
  Projections show that as the labor pool becomes more diverse, the 
number of people with technical skills will shrink. It would, 
therefore, seem logical that the contributions of every employee should 
be maximized. Organizations would benefit from recruiting and retaining 
the best and the brightest employees that are in the available labor 
pool. It should then be easy to see that diversity is not something 
that organizations create, but something that occurs naturally in every 
organization.
  Frequently, when organizations introduce programs to manage or value 
diversity, the programs have a tendency to promote group differences 
rather than exploring the mutual interests of the individuals within 
the organization. Although I am not a psychologist, in my judgment, it 
would seem that an organization would do substantially better if they 
would encourage individuals to maintain their cultural differences and 
individuality while participating in and contributing to the goals of 
their organization, and thus hopefully creating a pluralistic work 
environment. If the organization uses its diversity to its benefit by 
managing plurality, it can focus on common goals and experiences rather 
than on the differences among groups, and at the same time address 
bottom-line business issues. The experience of the military over the 
past 40 years has, I believe, demonstrated the value of cultural 
diversity--especially as the military deploys into nations throughout 
the world on various missions. So, simply stated, it makes eminent 
sense to me that with proper management, diversity is an asset to the 
organization and affirmative action is a part of the solution, not the 
problem.

                          ____________________