“She cannot represent us in Washington; she isn't even pretty!” “Don't try to build a career in that company, Aaron; they are very traditional. Because of who you are, you will never make it to the top...” “Check his work for a few weeks, will you, Henry? His grades are good, but you can't tell with someone from a black college”.
Abstract
This article argues that subtle discrimination is now the principal scaffolding for segregation in the United States. The author suggests that this scaffolding is built of “microinequities”: apparently small events, which are often ephemeral and hard to prove; events that are covert, often unintentional, frequently unrecognized by the perpetrator. Microinequities occur wherever people are perceived to be “different”: Caucasians in a Japanese-owned company, African-Americans in a white firm, women in a traditionally male environment, Jews and Moslems in a traditionally Protestant environment. These mechanisms of prejudice against persons of difference are usually small in nature, but not trivial in effect. They are especially powerful taken together. (As one drop of water has little effect, though continuous drops may be destructive, one racist slight may be insignificant but many such slights cause serious damage.) Microinequities work both by excluding the person of difference and by making that person less self-confident and less productive. An employer may prevent such damage by developing programs on diversity, like “valuing differences” and team-building. The author does not believe microinequities should be made the subject of antidiscrimination legilation.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Pierce, C. (1970). Offensive mechanisms. In Barbour, F. (Ed.),The Black 70's, Boston: Sargent.
Sartre, J. P. (1965).Anti-Semite and Jew. New York: Schocken Books.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rowe, M.P. Barriers to equality: The power of subtle discrimination to maintain unequal opportunity. Employ Respons Rights J 3, 153–163 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01388340
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01388340