A Brief History of the US Workforce and the Origins of Underrepresentation: Part II
This is #IncreaseDiversity, a weekly newsletter series + Increase Diversity Toolbox sharing best practices for employers who want to learn how to… well, increase diversity. To see previous editions, visit JenniferTardy.com. | IG: @IncreaseDiversity | Increase Diversity - YouTube
JTC News + Events
QUALIFIED DIVERSITY RECRUITER (QDR) “WELCOME TO 2024” SALE | Now until Feb. 1st, receive 50% off ALL 2024 QDR Cohort Seats. REGISTER NOW
INCREASE DIVERSITY™ ROADMAP | The ID Roadmap is a training and consulting program designed to guide workplaces like yours to create a diverse and inclusive environment through diversity recruiting and retention programs. CLICK HERE
INCREASE DIVERSITY™ SUMMIT REPLAY | Our enlightening conference, held on September 14th, 2023, paves the way for a workplace founded on principles of fairness, equality, and authentic understanding. Now, you can experience it on demand. CLICK HERE
NEW + FREE PLATINUM CHECKLIST | We have a NEW, FREE, downloadable CHECKLIST for leaders called Platinum Checklist 2.0: 5 Steps to Increasing Diversity Without Harm. CLICK HERE
In last week’s newsletter, I gave a brief overview of how the workforce in the US has changed over time. Today, I will build on that foundation to ask what factors may have contributed to the historical underrepresentation of certain groups, particularly women and African Americans.
Therefore, if you missed the previous article in this series, I would encourage you to read it first.
I think it is important to begin by explaining when the ideas of workplace underrepresentation and historically underrepresented groups first appeared. Both concepts originated with President Lyndon Johnson’s Executive Order 11246 in 1965, which also established the Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCC) to monitor compliance with the new antidiscrimination legislation that had been introduced by the Civil Rights Act a year earlier.
We saw last time how this resulted in most employers having adopted equal opportunity initiatives by the time affirmative action programs were rolled back in the 1980s. The legacy of the civil rights movement was certainly not forgotten, however, as MLK Day was first observed as a federal holiday in 1986.
At that time, scholars had still largely neglected to ask why affirmative action programs were needed or examine the origins of the underrepresentation they were intended to address. Writing in 1993, David Roediger (a Professor of History at the University of Illinois) pointedly observed, “The tardiness of US labor historians in making the study of slavery and race central to their work is as ironic as it is regrettable,” emphasizing that it had only recently come into focus at that time, perhaps as a result of the beginnings of the modern DEI movement.
The growth of scholarly research on US labor history from that point forward, combined with the increasing adoption of DEI programs throughout the business world, perhaps worked together to catapult the history of slavery and its enduring influence on African Americans into the public arena.
Building on those relatively recent developments, I would like to briefly review some important aspects of the story here, as they can give us considerable insight into the multiple factors that contributed to underrepresentation.
African Americans and Underrepresentation: 1865–1930
Writing in 1996, Martha West, then a Professor of Law at UC Davis, neatly summarized both the origins and persistence of African American underrepresentation as a direct legacy of slavery. In recognizing “the continuing impact of our unarticulated notions of racial superiority,” she asserted that “our society is still permeated with such beliefs and with instinctive reactions stemming from years of racial segregation,” and pointedly observed that “the belief system that supported slavery… did not end with slavery.”
Further reflecting on its enduring legacy, scholars from Texas State University more recently concluded, “We are forced to contend with the reality that enslaver-capitalists and their organizations were deeply committed to the mis-development of their enslaved labor force.”
In other words, the actions of these enslavers were “intended to prepare Black people for subordinate positions at work and in society.” Those attitudes persisted after abolition, and for example, they were reflected in Whites’ efforts to obstruct African Americans’ attempts to gain education.
The history of the education system following the Civil War therefore provides an excellent example of how inequality and underrepresentation were reinforced in American society. Before that time, college students were almost exclusively White males.
Starting in the Reconstruction era, a growing number of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) were established. However, while they did offer higher education courses, they were mainly founded to offer a basic education given the prevailing social attitudes toward segregation at the time.
In principle, the early 20th century saw the wider higher education system become more accessible to “non-traditional” groups, including African Americans. However, this did not translate into equality of opportunity. The influential academic reform movement that soon followed attempted to direct the majority of these students to sub-baccalaureate schools, and HBCUs remained restricted to grade-school level education or industrial- or agricultural-focused training.
This is particularly important in the context of underrepresentation, as it happened at a time when college degrees were becoming a requirement for various professions including medicine, ministry, and law. Thus, barriers to accessing a college education likely contributed to the historical underrepresentation of African Americans in at least some high-paying professional occupations.
Last week, we saw that World War I opened up many new jobs to African Americans as the war effort created an economic boom. Between 1915 and 1928, over one million of them left the South as a result, but they were denied the same opportunities and pay as Whites, and they also experienced racial harassment in the workplace.
Even in labor unions, discrimination was common until the postwar period, effectively denying African Americans the opportunity to enter higher-skilled, better-paid jobs.
Women and Underrepresentation: 1880–1945
Some of the structural factors explained above also impacted women’s access to the labor market. While traditional ideas about gender roles historically meant a predominantly male workforce in many occupations, we saw in part I how African American women were considerably more likely to work than White women, long before the Women’s Movement, as a “double legacy” of slavery.
That having been said, in the pre-World War II period, all women faced bias and barriers to access for employment. While a growing number of them enrolled in higher education programs between 1900 and 1940, they were generally kept in segregation and were expected to train for “stereotypically female” roles.
In the early 20th century, they tended to be concentrated in sub-baccalaureate schools, as for African Americans. Women also experienced discrimination in labor unions up until the time they entered the workforce in unprecedented numbers during World War II.
Other Factors: The Role of Employer Practices in the Early 20th Century
Changing recruitment and management practices also played a role. One key milestone occurred in 1916, when Louis Terman published the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales that became the basis of modern IQ testing. This effectively marked the beginning of employment assessment tests.
Terman undoubtedly believed in an IQ-based meritocracy and “openly advocated using intelligence tests to help guide general vocational placement.” The problem was, as one observer has remarked, that “Terman’s racist, ethnic, sexist, and class biases undergirded virtually all of his work,” and he also had a negative attitude toward the gay community.
Put simply, bias against certain groups was “baked in” to assessment tests from the start.
Around the same time, managers appear to have reacted to growing diversity in the workforce in a negative sense, to try and curtail the powerful influence of unions. In 2012, David Roediger (who we encountered above) coauthored a book called The Production of Difference, which looked at the contributions of management practices to discrimination and underrepresentation.
Revealingly, it uncovered “racialized managerial thought” in the US, tracking its development from the antebellum South (where it originated in discussions surrounding the management of people who were enslaved) to the early 20th century, when company managers would intentionally “play races off against each other” to undermine labor unions in an effort to keep wages as low as possible. The book also argues that “standard academic studies” of labor history have missed these important historical trends and have failed to “see and name race management” as a managerial tool.
Black and Hispanic Underrepresentation: 1970s–1990s
In part I, we also saw how immigration increased considerably during the second half of the 20th century due to various policy changes, especially from the 1970s onward. In particular, the Hispanic community in the US grew rapidly at that time. And while “employer preference” (i.e., hiring bias) certainly contributed to the segmentation of labor for immigrants and other groups, the changing US economy also played its part.
The ongoing shift from a largely manufacturing-based economy to a service economy seemingly helped to establish or reinforce various aspects of underrepresentation that are still familiar to us today.
Black men were hit particularly hard by manufacturing job losses, but they missed out on many new work opportunities as Hispanic men were preferentially hired by employers in the growing service sector (albeit into low-paid jobs). Many employers perceived “a stronger work ethic than native-born Blacks” among immigrants, creating a double disadvantage for Black Americans (both men and women).
As labor markets continued to shift during the 1990s, one analysis of employment statistics uncovered “gender and racial inequalities in reemployment after downsizing,” with Black and Hispanic women identified as the biggest losers. In addition, for Latino/a/x employees, a study published in 1991 suggested that welcome progress made during the postwar period had reversed due to increased employer discrimination following the end of affirmative action, and an ongoing trend toward segmentation into lower-paid jobs.
The 21st Century Perspective
Reflecting on the above, I am sure we can all recognize many themes that remain familiar to us today. While the growing influence of DEI over the past 20 years has brought some much-needed progress, a historical perspective reminds us just how deeply rooted some sources of underrepresentation and inequality really are.
As diversity recruiters, I think that understanding these historical realities can improve our ability to engage, in both recruitment and retention efforts.
I would also like to add that as we move on to consider the history of various aspects of the hiring and selection process (such as job descriptions and interviews), we will come across some of these themes again, and also touch upon some other potential drivers of underrepresentation.
I expect those will further help us reevaluate and reshape our hiring practices, to enable us to reach all the candidates we are looking to attract. Stay tuned!
JOIN US IN THE COMMENTS: What key takeaways did you gain from this article, either today or in part I? Which parts caught your attention the most? Please share your thoughts below, as we always value ongoing discussion and community insights!
