We have problems in our workplaces, we always have, and we always will, for they are staffed by people, and people are imperfect. But the problem I’m referring to is the cause celebrity of Affirmative Action and Reverse Discrimination. Topics that most people will not talk about for fear of being called a racist, or anti-Semitic, or any of a dozen other slurs that come out when ever someone starts to question our modern human resource process in diversity. But the time has come for a conversation, and a realization that demographic shifts in attitudes and work styles need to be reflected in the processes and policies we utilize in attracting, retaining, developing, promoting, and maximizing the human capital utilized by organizations to produce products, sell and deliver goods and services.

Let me state in certain terms that I do not believe in discrimination of any kind! Workforces that are diverse and reflective of society (and from a business perspective of a company’s client base) at large are a good thing, and those organizations who practice such policies are overwhelmingly more successful then those that do not. I also acknowledge that attitudes toward these issues required drastic actions to overcome societal resistance and the beliefs held at the time.

A brief history: Following the civil war in The United States people of color were “free”, but society through both legal and attitudinal actions that continued a practice of discrimination. That people have discriminated against those that are “different” from the majority is on some level a product of human nature, and has occurred in every society throughout history. In the great melting pot these attitudes didn’t really begin to change until the 1960s. At the start of that decade the workforces of our great melting pot were primarily run by Depression Generation Executives, and then, as now, a shift was beginning to occur. The “corner offices” were beginning to be taken over by the World War II generation, and the Baby Boomers were just about to begin entering the workforce.

An unpopular war, and a massive baby boom along with any number of other societal conditions also gave voice to the attitudes of the majority in the Baby Boom generation, and great change be it the Civil Rights movement, the Sexual Revolution, and other much needed shifts were occurring. So in 1961 in when President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925 which stated that government agencies and government contractors must “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin” it was right for the times. It was further codified by The Civil Rights Act, by Title IX and many other laws, and has given birth to an entire specialization in the Human Resources Profession around diversity. The intention was sound, the results unforeseeable and just as bad for society in the long term as the wrongs they were intended to right. .

In seeking to bar discrimination we instead created a system of “reverse discrimination” that punished people not for their actions, but for those of generations before them, and gave preferential treatment to those members of the workforce in so called protected classes. By and large that was likely necessary at the time, but the time has passed.

Let’s jump to the 21st century. The modern corner office still has a few WWII generation hold outs, but by and large is occupied by the Baby Boomers who themselves are holding on beyond when generations prior to them would have retired. Waiting in the wings are Middle Managers from Generation X and a large contingent from Generation Y. Both of whom grew up in the world after these changes, and with the Millennial generation about 10 years from the workforce in large number we have three generations that either saw the world globalize or have never known anything but a globalized world.

Does this mean that bigots do not exist in these generations, certainly not, but every study out there shows that in large numbers these generations also do not believe that any of the traditional diversity measures should be the criteria for who gets a job or a promotion or a raise. Instead there attitudes formed in the attitudes of their parents that helped spawn those movements are that the most qualified, most competent individual should be rewarded and that the only factors should be demonstrated competence and ability and background (education, experience).

So now we have Supreme Court cases where discrimination against “white” firefighters is occurring solely to meet diversity requirements, and in what I believe is a good trend, being overturned with acknowledgment that these firefighters were qualified, had the experience and the competence to both pass a promotion board test, and be considered for promotion. That is the one in the news, but it is hardly the first, and will not be the last case involving the laws of unintended consequences that have resulted in massive reverse discrimination.

The case law is becoming clear, going back as far as 1971 when Marco De Funis, Jr. vs. University of Washington ruled that admission quotas in college admissions at public universities constituted reverse discrimination and took less qualified students (as well as ample evidence that looking at factors beyond competence and qualifications was actually harmful to those that benefited from the quotas) solely on the bases of “protected class” membership. The rulings are following a trend that gels nicely with societal attitudes that ANY discrimination or ANY kind is wrong and MUST NOT be tolerated.

Does this mean that the world is perfect, of course not, and we must be diligent to make certain that no discrimination is occurring? The need for EOE reporting and checks of societal attitudes was given voice just last week on Philadelphia’s Main Line when The Valley Swim Club, after issuing a contract to allow the use of its facility to an inner city day care center, and taking money as part of that contract, abruptly canceled the contract, and returned the funds after the kids first visit. News reports say that this Private Club did so as its members openly complained because many of the kids were not white. If this is truly the reason behind the clubs actions such discrimination can not, and should not be tolerated. But nor should the club be required (as a private entity) to have a certain percentage of members from each “protected class” as members.

So how does this relate to the workplace? In my opinion it relates with the simple point that leading edge Talent Management is entirely about putting the best qualified person in the place where they can have the greatest impact to help the organization achieve its objectives. And that should be the ONLY criteria, best qualified person. We can not exclude based on any criteria regardless of intent. We must build modern workforces that maximize the potential of every employee and attract, reward and retain the best employees solely based on competency, capability and demonstrated performance. In fact this is imperative to remaining competitive and relevant in a global economy.

Our diversity is what makes us great, but if we reverse discriminate we do just as much damage through our “affirmative action” and “diversity” programs as we do if we discriminate. The time has come for a competence based talent management structure to be adopted in corporations and codified by government.