C.E. Harris' Commentary on "Tokenism and Promotion"
If Judy's assessment of Catherine's prospects as Chief
Engineer in Quality Control are correct, the long-range
consequences of Catherine's not getting the job are probably
better than the long-range consequences of Catherine's getting
the job. If she fails and has to be removed, her promotion will
not increase the number of women in senior management. In
addition, her failure will reduce the chances of other women
being promoted to senior positions in the future.
This still leaves open the question of what Judy should do.
Presumably she is not directly involved in the promotion
decision, and she may not even be asked for her opinion about
the promotion. Thus she will have to go out of her way to make
any effort to affect the decision process. What obligation does
she have to do this?
Generally speaking, our obligation to prevent an unfortunate
consequence (especially where it does not involve the loss of
life) is weaker than our obligation not to directly participate
in wrongdoing. Our obligation to do what we can to prevent
environmental damage in the rain forests of Brazil is not as
strong as our obligation not to engage directly in
environmental pollution ourselves. On the other hand, we do
have some obligation to try to prevent unfortunate consequences
when we are in a position to do so, especially if there is
relatively little cost to ourselves. In this case, the primary
cost could be the damage to the friendship between Judy and
Catherine. If suggestions to those in a position to make the
decision about Catherine's promotion could be made discretely,
this might be avoided. But Judy would still have to wrestle
with the fact that she has undermined Catherine's chances for
promotion without her knowledge. This knowledge would almost
inevitably limit Judy's ability to relate to Catherine in an
open and honest way, even if Catherine never knows the reason
for the difference in Judy's relation to her.
Judy might decide to simply tell Catherine that she has
suggested that Catherine is not the person for the promotion at
this time. This would probably damage the relationship in the
short run, but it might provide the basis of a stronger and
more honest relationship in the future. This option would have
the advantage of satisfying more moral demands: it would
prevent potentially serious damage to the cause of gender
equality at Darnell and it would preserve a healthy, honest
friendship between Catherine and Judy.
An honest and informed commitment to the cause of gender
equality might require that both Judy and Tom express their
partial agreement with the male engineers who believe that
Catherine is not qualified for the promotion. They could say
that, even though they support gender equality, they agree that
Catherine is not the right person for the promotion. Catherine
would probably eventually hear about this conversation. But if
Judy and Tom told Catherine of their position, this would not
be a problem.
Cite this page:
"C.E. Harris' Commentary on "Tokenism and Promotion""
Online Ethics Center for Engineering
8/17/2006
National Academy of Engineering
Accessed: Tuesday, May 22, 2012
<www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/Tokenism/TokenismHarris.aspx>