Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act, virtually all companies have
antidiscrimination policies in place. Although these policies represent
some progress, women and minorities remain underrepresented within the
workplace as a whole and even more so when you look at high-level
positions. They also tend to be less well paid. How is it that
discrimination remains so prevalent in the American workplace despite
the widespread adoption of policies designed to prevent it?
One reason for the limited success of antidiscrimination policies,
argues Lauren B. Edelman, is that the law regulating companies is broad
and ambiguous, and managers therefore play a critical role in shaping
what it means in daily practice. Often, what results are policies and
procedures that are largely symbolic and fail to dispel long-standing
patterns of discrimination. Even more troubling, these meanings of the
law that evolve within companies tend to eventually make their way back
into the legal domain, inconspicuously influencing lawyers for both
plaintiffs and defendants and even judges. When courts look to the
presence of antidiscrimination policies and personnel manuals to infer
fair practices and to the presence of diversity training programs
without examining whether these policies are effective in combating
discrimination and achieving racial and gender diversity, they wind up
condoning practices that deviate considerably from the legal ideals.