Historical Statements of Affirmative Action and Where DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) All Began

Questions to Ask in the Boardroom

1. What do you know about Affirmative Action and what was the result of it?
2. What were the concepts stated in Affirmative Action documents that would form a greater appreciation of identity groups such as age, race, gender?

Introduction

In this article, I will provide a brief summary of historical statements about Affirmative Action and references that offer more information on Affirmative Action. The concepts stated in the presidential orders were to establish a more equitable society and allow us to utilize the valuable human resources we have in the United States. When studied, Affirmative Action allows each of us to focus on promoting the human rights of all people in the United States. 

We have great challenges as board members to follow the directions set forth in Affirmative Action to increase the diversity of all boards. References are provided to see how much more we need to address to carry out the principles of Affirmative Action. 

Affirmative Action established a foundation first for what we call old baselines, and later new baselines, based on organizational hierarchy as well as the following identity groups: age, race, gender, LGBTQ, women, white males, the physically challenged, and nationality.

Historical Statements about Affirmative Action and Experiences

President John F. Kennedy, on March 6, 1961, first used the term “affirmative actions” in his Executive Order No. 10925 . This order included a provision that government contractors “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated (fairly) during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” Affirmative action was used to promote business decisions and actions that would achieve non-discrimination (A Brief History of Affirmative Action). In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order No. 11246, which required government employees to “hire without regard to race, religion, and national origin” and “take affirmative actions to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated fairly during employment, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” In 1968, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list (Lamb, Charles M., and Eric M. Wilk. "Presidents, bureaucracy, and housing discrimination policy: the fair housing acts of 1968 and 1988." Politics & Policy 37.1 (2009): 127-149.) 

My first experience with Affirmative Action was during the civil rights movement, where it was strongly addressed in the women’s rights movement.  Affirmative Action was an attempt to include and assimilate “minorities” and women into corporate America.   The basic assumptions about Affirmative Action were:

• White males dominate mainstream U.S. business.
• Women, Blacks, and People of Color are excluded from this mainstream because of widespread racial, ethnic, and sexual prejudice.
• Such exclusion is unnecessary, given the strength of the U.S. economy.
• Limitation of Women, Blacks and People of Color is contrary to both good public policy and common decency.
• Laws and social coercion are necessary to bring about this change.

A strong justification for Affirmative Action was to help compensate for past discrimination, persecution, or exploitation by the dominant group (white heterosexual males). Affirmative Action was designed to address existing discrimination. Affirmative Action was also instituted to promote societal equality to disadvantaged groups (Women, African Americans, Black people, and People of Color). The focus of Affirmative Action bridged inequality in employment and pay; increased access to education; and made certain that state, institutional, and professional leadership in organizations had the full spectrum of society. It was an effort to address wrongs, harms, or hindrances that had occurred in the U.S.  If the reader wants further information, this document will give clarity to principles and actions needed to achieve Affirmative Action.

In the initial stages of Affirmative Action, white women benefited most.  As discussion occurred about Affirmative Action, organizations established guidelines for businesses to act on.  The original guidelines, or baselines, are described in a book (Miller, F. A., & Katz, J. H. 2002. Unleashing the Real Power of Diversity. San Fransisco: Berrett-Kohler Publishers) where the authors address the nine-identity groups mentioned in the introduction to this article. The book includes new baselines. I have used their descriptions as a starting point and expanded upon them based on my own professional experience to provide the description of old and new baselines, which will be addressed in other articles.

The Focus of Affirmative Action for Private Companies and Boards

“All the legislation and applications of affirmative action were to have women, Blacks and People of Color that were qualified to hold a position on the board.  Today, we know that most boards are dominated by white males. Women hold roughly 15% of the seats on Fortune 500 company boards, and some prominent companies, including Facebook and Twitter, have no women board members.” (https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/women-still-underrepresented-corporate-boards).

An article from the Catalyst website points out that Women of Color comprise 18% of the population but are only represented on 4.6% of Fortune 500 boards  This article also points out that by 2060, Women of Color will not only comprise over half the female population, they will be better educated than their male counterparts. Both changes position Women of Color to contribute more to the economy with their buying power and to play a larger role in the workforce.

One of the best resources I have found is the 2020 Study of Gender Diversity on Private Company Boards (https://news.crunchbase.com/news/2020-diversity-study-on-private-company-boards/). The following comments and quotes from the article are an effort to summarize its main points:

• ”By contrast, board diversity data for privately held companies is sparse, as they aren’t required to disclose their board membership. In 2019, Him For Her, Crunchbase and Kellogg School of Management Professor Lauren Rivera undertook the first benchmarking study to look at gender diversity on the boards of the most heavily funded U.S.-based private venture-backed companies.”
• Using those findings as a baseline, the authors updated the study one year later, this time including a preliminary look at racial diversity as well. Professor Rivers says, “Following our baseline study of 2019, our analysis of the composition of the boards of some of the most heavily funded private companies points to modest progress when it comes to gender diversity:”
• In 2020, 49 percent of companies did not have a woman on the board, an improvement from 60 percent a year earlier.
• Women held 11 percent of board seats, up from 7 percent.
• Executives and investors compose 75 percent of director seats (down from 80 percent), of which 8 percent are held by women (up from less than 5 percent).
• “Woman directors remain most likely to hold an independent seat on the board: Their share of those seats remains relatively unchanged at 20 percent (from 19 percent).”
• ” Our initial analysis of racial and ethnic diversity revealed that:
• Only 3 percent of board seats were held by women of color, compared with an estimated 18 percent held by men of color
• 81 percent of companies don’t have a woman of color on the board at all.”
• “By tracking board diversity among private companies, we hope to highlight the need to engage more women — with an emphasis on women of color — in board service, and to inspire CEOs and their boards to source a diverse slate of candidates for open board positions.”
• Almost half of private boards are all male.

Conclusion

Even though we see slight changes in board composition for privately owned companies, board members need to have greater knowledge and experience to implement the principles and ideas of Affirmative Action.  When board members emotionally connect to the Affirmative Action principles, it is much easier to diversify board membership.  Human connection to the challenges of others connects us to the changes that need to be made in board membership.

More Questions for Board Members to Consider:

1. After reading this article and references, what did board members not know about Affirmative Action and what changed their perceptions of Affirmative Action?
2. What principles are established with Affirmative Action that board members need to utilize in considering new members for their board?
3. What strategy for diversification of board membership will board members establish that will support the concepts of Affirmative Action?

ABOUT JACKALYN RAINOSEK, PHD

Dr. Jackalyn Rainosek is CEO and Co-Founder of DTP Leadership Group, as well as founder and principal of DTP Business Strategies.  She has worked extensively with a wide range of Leaders as they make strategic decisions in ever-changing circumstances to achieve extraordinary results and increase profitability.  As a senior business consultant and marketing strategist Dr. Rainosek works with business owners and corporate executives to generate optimal results and exponential growth.  Dr. Rainosek guides organizations to develop more appropriate leadership styles, enhance cultural competency (through diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives), and improve levels of trust and cooperation both internally and with the customer base.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the authors providing them and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the Private Directors Association, its members, affiliates, or employees.