The entire essay is a demonstration of vast racial discrimination against Latinos in the United States. Discrimination is evidenced in media practice, legal perspectives, education history, and politics among other areas of common interests. In the political arena, the research unveils the significance of political interests of Latinos, who together with African-Americans constitute 25% of the American population. In the recent past, scholars have rediscovered interest in racial discrimination, especially in the workplace. Inability to exhaust race-based abuses in the workplace was linked to class relations, and this hid rediscovery of racial discrimination.
Study by Blalock, Kanter, and Pfeffer, as quoted by Stainback, indicate that both in-groups and out-groups are less likely to face discrimination in the workplace than is most coworkers who are of the same race. However, ” Latinos often find themselves in positions where they are supervised by Whites and as such, Whites are more likely to report an experience of racial discrimination when working for a no-White manager” (Stainback, 24). The penetration of racial discrimination in the workplace is a reality. Based on this perception, this research paper seeks to establish how racial discrimination against Latinos in the workplace affects social well-being in the United States. In addition, the paper offers measures that should be undertaken in order to weed out the practice.
Significance of Studying Racial Discrimination in the Workplace
The study into race-based abuses in the workplace is important for the Latino community and the American government at large. To begin with, racial abuse is dangerous to the American economy because it reduces employers-employees loyalty, which in turn increases the number of people seeking employment. “Latinos often gain employment in declining fields of work, which have traditionally relied on poorly educated African Americans and whites” (Sanders, 57).
Studies indicate that awareness of racial discrimination existence in the workplace affects racial composition within an organization. According to Stainback, , “Among Blacks and Latinos, the effects if racial composition on employer loyalty are partially mediated; however, we do not find an association between racial composition and employer loyalty among Whites” (24). Quality of work offered by the out-groups may force them to form social groupings with other minority groups in order to boost their workplace identification to appear proximate to an outstanding social connection of an organization. Maume and Sebastian, as quoted by Stainback, found out that “Whites’ in non-White jobs report significantly lower levels of job satisfaction; however, the effect disappeared once job controls were included” (24).
Racial discrimination in the workplace also leads to bullying, which is an unethical practice at corporate level. Bullying entails ill-treatment and formation of hostile attitude towards other people from different races in the workplace. Some bullying acts range from the most subtle to those that occur by indulging unconscious incivilities or unintentional emotional abuse, based on how the society perceives racial abuses. As Fox and Stallworth, observe, “In the current study, the researchers expand the scope of inquiry by differentiating between “general bullying’ or behaviors that can occur to anyone without reference to race or ethnicity, and “racial/ethnic bullying”, which attacks the target explicitly based on race or ethnicity” (439). Resolving the race impasse would therefore not only resolve the predicament of Latinos in their corporate environment, but also positively influence ethical practices in the workplace and increase performance of the human resource.
A number of studies aim at understanding the dynamism of workplace discrimination against out-groups and in-groups. Fox and Stallworth examined the effect of workplace bullying, which, according to their findings, results in negative emotions and counter productivity. Their research findings show that “The proposition that racial/ethnic minorities would report higher levels of general bullying than whites was supported only for Hispanics/Latinos” (Fox and Stallworth, 453). Both African Americans and Latinos targeted at by general bullying in the workplace respond more actively to racial abuses than Whites.
Despite the existence of bullying in the workplace, many scholars, as showed by Fox and Stallworth, agree that victims of racial abuses do not get justice when litigation efforts are undertaken. This is because victims of workplace bullying feel that their organizations do not take action to deal with such acts. This is partly due to that fact that the perpetrators of the vice are usually supervisors or people with high ranks in the corporate practice. They observe that this predicament is difficult to resolve because “implications for organizations and employers include the troubling linkage between subtle, often unconscious and imperceptible episodes of incivility and a kind of interpersonal racism that escapes the scope of organizational mechanisms of redress, or even the scope of the law” (Fox and Stallworth, 453).
On the other hand, Kmec and Trimble, analyze workplace discrimination by looking into the matter of recruitment of potential workers and determining pay levels. In their data interpretation, the authors observed that Latinos engaged in the public domain, who provided their views on job information, had a positive effect regarding having pay rise packages considered. This is because the hiring staffs do not know their racial identities; hence, racial stereotypes and scrutiny do not matter. However, “The case of an outsider providing job information to an applicant is the only situation in which a contact’s race/ethnicity cannot “interfere’ with the job attainment process” (Kmec, and Trimble, 276). Hence, there is need of finding a relationship between the recruitment contact’s influence, race and employee job level in order to find mechanism that will uncover the ways social strata affect pay in the workplace.
Sanchez and Viscarra add to the study of workplace discrimination against Latinos by challenging the notion that Latinos would be unwilling to relocate to other places in case of job placement. Specifically, the researchers found out that personal consideration in career affects inferences on racism and relocation intents. In essence, ethnic connotations seem to play an important part in determining which factors constitute racial discrimination in the workplace. Hence, Sanchez and Viscarra, conclude, “organizations interested in diversifying their workforce may encounter additional obstacles when attempting to recruit Hispanics residing in areas heavily populated by their respective ethnic subgroup” (56). They suggest that organizations should look into ways of fostering cultural diversity through creation of positive work climates. Snachez and Viscarra, opine that lost social cohesion could be compensated for by instituting in-house racial support systems that would attract the Hispanic workforce.
Addressing Racial Discrimination in the Workplace
Sanchez and Viscarra’s suggestion of looking into ways of blending our cultural perception is critical in addressing race-based abuses in the workplace. This research, therefore, appraises how racial abuses in the workplace or any other social set-up can be addressed by understanding cognitive behavior of human beings. There is a need of changing human perception by altering the psychological mindsets that are usually stereotypical and follow a traditional order. In the U.S., as noted by Frazier and Tettey-Fio, there is racial distinction, “us and them’, in the provision of a number of benefits in economic, political, and social amenities. In Canada, racial abuses are also common. Benefits are given to some groups in favor of others who must struggle to earn a leaving.
The theory of authoritarianism is significant since it explains why personally based ideals are based on extreme hatred in an attempt to bring emotional connections to racism. This is in line with the observation made by Sanchez and Viscarra,. The emotional connection explains why racist abuses come from an individual who finds pleasure in oppressing others. Consequently, the cognitive tradition sees racism as a product of mindset that manipulates how human beings perceive the world. According to Fox et al., perceptions arise from categorizations of cultural patterns in terms of what people see, feel, touch, and believe in like color (white or black), religion (Christian or Muslim), and political identity (Republican or Democrat) among others. Categorization is rooted in social construction in terms of how people function in the society, which in essence, means human perception, as discussed above.
Similarly, cognitive account of racism arose from analysis of the social history that gave rise to racial discrimination and economic inequality. For instance, the American racism of the South before the1950s was based on segregation, where children of the Blacks were not allowed to go to school with the Whites children, even if they came from same neighborhood. Cognitive theory holds that it is possible to change mindset by changing social practices.
According to Fox et al., ways of people’s interaction depend on categorization as a product of mental creations and perfections of what constituted cultural tenets of individuals. Realignment of such perceptions could be possible, if individuals changed how they associated with one another. Therefore, cognitive theory would achieve desegregation and bring Blacks and Whites together. However, this theory is impractical since it naturalizes racism as a cognitive process that emerges from social categories and stereotypes. In fact, as noted by Carmines and Sniderman, modern-day scholars of racism observe that there was a decline of racist remarks in the post WW2 era in the United States. However, the emergence of Black Power Movement in mid 1960s brought back race-based conflicts in cities. Other psychological researchers on racism, who note that there is lack of fluid connection between cognitive abilities and historical events, echo inappropriateness of cognitive psychology. This, in turn, may interrupt effective understanding and incorporation of terms used in a more complex political speech from the perspective of the modern view of racist remarks and their symbolism.
Most scholarly studies on psychology of racism focus on it as an individual engagement with regard to prejudice and discrimination. Traditionally racism has been interpreted in the context of individualism; namely, how it affects the life of a person.
As a result, racism has been recognized as a social issue with serious drawbacks. However, our research proves that systematic study of how race affects the society will never yield meaningful results if race is conceptualized within such a category. According to Fox et al., this limits understanding because “its starting point is typically an individualized understanding of racism as product of individual belief or cognition” (197).
The evidence can be taken from the discussion that adoption of critical psychology is the most relevant for researches on racism. This is because racism can be better understood by looking at intergroup relations as the main contributors to definition of racism. Also, their role in development of future strategies in curbing the social issues should not be overlooked. Finally, it is worth mentioning that the modern American society is bonded in the politics of symbolic racism as manifested in different campaign mechanisms, used by politicians back in 2008.
The findings of previous research on this topic affirm that Latinos are among out-groups that face racial discrimination in the workplace. Because this vice dramatically affects the society, ways out of this situation are to be worked out. This research paper offered solutions to addressing racial discrimination against Latinos in the workplace by looking into new avenues. Hopefully, this will bring long-term positive consequences regarding the resolution of the impasse.