Search results

This article was written in response to the #BlackLivesMatter social justice protests that erupted around the world in response to the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery in 2020.

This article weaves personal experiences, published research and current events and social issues to build the case that there are many ways that racism kills Black people.

Although antiblack police brutality looms largely in people's minds of how racism kills Black people, less conspicuous ways that racism kills Black people are often overlooked.

In this article, the author highlights: (1) the perennial expectation that Black people cater to other people's needs and desires; (2) performative activism and allyship; (3) assigning Black people the responsibility for fixing racism and (4) thinking education, mentoring or wealth is the panacea for racism as these less conspicuous ways that racism kills Black people.

The paper is the abridged text of the author’s opening keynote address given on June 28, 2017 at the 10th Annual Equality Diversity Inclusion Conference hosted at Brunel University (London, UK). The conference theme was Borders. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

The address was given orally accompanied with slides that included pictures and quotes of referenced authors and works, websites, memes and various civil rights events. The address interwove personal experiences, published research, social movement strategies and current events and social issues. A brief question and answer period followed the address.

The address made the case that while scholarship is important, diversity scholars need to do more than publish scholarship but also engage in activism. In fact, the author argued that history has informed us that scholarship has never been enough to produce significant civil rights advancements.

Toward this end, the author provides three action steps that diversity scholars can take to engage in activism that produces results: translate research for the general public; partner with activist groups, and call out respectability politics and false equivalencies.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether sexual minority candidates are viewed as less likely to fit-in in their work environments than heterosexual candidates and, hence, to their being evaluated as less promotable.

Consistent with previous research, the authors used a hiring scenario where evaluators saw one of four different resumes, which varied based on candidate sexual orientation and gender, yet were equal on all factors, including candidate qualifications. The research included a pre-test and manipulation check to ensure the validity of the authors’ research design.

As the authors expected based on stigma theory, gay and lesbian candidates were more likely to be perceived as unable to fit-in than heterosexual candidates. Perceptions of a lack of fitting-in were negatively related to promotability ratings, as were beliefs about the controllability of sexual orientation. However, counter to the authors’ expectations, gay and lesbian candidates were rated more promotable than heterosexual candidates. This presents a more nuanced picture of sexual orientation discrimination than has been offered heretofore.

Previous research has suggested that gay men and lesbians may be trapped in “gay ghettos,” yet there is little if any research on evaluations of sexual minority candidates in employment decisions beyond hiring. The present study extends research on sexual orientation discrimination by investigating whether decision makers are biased against gay and lesbian candidates in promotion decisions, and the factors that are related to promotability ratings.

The purpose of this paper is to summarize the findings of studies presented at the 24th annual conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) in relation to how diversity is studied, microaggressions, when diversity is perceived, and employment outcomes for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) job applicants.

A select group of presentations are summarized based on observation, notes, discussions, and reading of material.

Researchers are beginning to redefine how diversity is studied as well as focus more on within‐group variation that might uncover considerable interpretation differences based on study results. More subtle forms of racism are being explored in addition to examining experiences of sexual orientation minorities.

The diversity and inclusion presentations at the 2009 SIOP conference continue to evolve diversity theory and inform evidence‐based organizational practice. This report summarizes a variety of findings during this conference.

The purpose of this paper is to explore what individuals perceive as social identity threats, the sources of the threat, individuals’ responses, and the consequences of the threat.

Narratives from 224 individuals were collected. A sample of 84 narratives were analyzed in depth using a qualitative content analysis approach.

Initial support for identity threat response theory was found. Three new distinct threat responses – constructive action, ignore, and seek assistance – were uncovered. Additionally, harm/loss appraisals were found to be perceived and reacted to similarly to Petriglieri-defined identity threats.

This study contributes to identity scholarship by shedding further light on the “theoretical black box” associated with identity threat. Such insight is necessary in further enhancing our understanding of the impact that identity threat has at the individual and organizational level.