It is one of peculiarities of language that certain terms become so allied to certain meanings that their more general meaning is subverted to the one most commonly used. This has happened, for instance, to the term “discrimination”. We all discriminate when we use our intelligence. It is the process by which we choose wise courses of action. But the legal term now dominates our thinking – so lets take a moment to examine that.
When anti-discrimination laws were being developed I was deeply concerned that what so readily applies to gender and race was being allowed to spill over into other characteristics. I have some concerns about self-inflicted disabilities – but let that pass. The two most marginal criteria are religion and belief system. Both characteristics can so easily be turned on and off. I could be a Hindu this week and a Quaker the next. I could be a Socialist today and a National Front supporter tomorrow and if I could connect such changes or characteristics with my occupational opportunities I could hold my employer to account.
Employers do clearly have a moral obligation to protect their company and employees – so if a religion or belief system espouses violence in any way or subjugation of people (such as women) because of their personal or group characteristics then I see no moral reason why they should not discriminate. This is where morality and the law part company. But I think it is morality that naturally takes precedence. Western liberalism exposes itself to exploitation if it tolerates the intolerant.
The laws of some countries such as France also have a generality clause allowing protection for unpre-specified characteristics. I am asthmatic and so would never employ anyone who smokes to work closely with me. Even the smell of smoke on clothing can trigger an attack. But in some countries such a decision would be unlawful.
Sensitivity also differs between individuals and groups. In some religions and belief systems even the faintest suggestion that what is believed is questionable is deeply offensive. Some beliefs may even engender a paranoid reaction because the views held are those of minorities and adherents may perceive threat too readily and therefore feel over-defensive. Unfortunately, those with prejudicial attitudes can also play on this sensitivity to make the believer seem over-sensitive – which often leaves HR practitioners sitting in the middle and wanting to ask the parties to “cool it” whilst sensing that a subtle and cruel form of provocation has taken place with the perpetrator saying the usual thing “cannot you take a joke?”.
So the “d” word is a real challenge. As managers we need to make choices, but those choices are hedged about by pitfalls. Like a virus the nature of prejudice mutates all the time and some characteristics are loaded with controversy and disingenuousness. On the one side is the law in all its formal unforgiving stiffness and on the other side the vast complexities of human nature. Whoever said HRM is easy?