Louise Duffy
Staff Writer
‘What is diversity, and why is it important?’ This, so the gossip goes, is a question asked to every aspiring model during their Abercrombie interview.
This, to me, is quite a bewildering question, that means very little. ‘Diversity’ – ‘The state of being diverse’ is better understood by reference to its antonym – uniformity. Diversity, or a lack of uniformity, is of course very important. That isn’t the bewildering part. The bewildering part is why Abercrombie would be asking such a question.
Abercrombie is perhaps the least diverse organisation that I’m familiar with. I have worked in many shops, with many kinds of diverse people of all different ages, nationalities and backgrounds. Never once in an interview have I been asked to define diversity; however, diversity was usually apparent.
Models and door staff at Abercrombie and Fitch’s new College Green store. Photo: Jack Leahy.
In Abercrombie, however, they go to great lengths to include mentions of diversity in their hiring process. Yet, it would seem to me that there is a very distinct uniform ‘type’ that they are looking to hire. This is, namely, young, good looking, wholesome, all-American style, polished-looking college students. Even once they hire this fairly homogenous group of young people, they further streamline them by setting rules as to how employees style their hair, wear their makeup as well as dictating ways of interacting with customers. Call this clever, call this good business practice, call this profitable- but do not call this diversity.
‘What is diversity, and why is it important?’ This is a question with a history. Because, you see, Abercrombie is a lot better than it used to be. These days, there is at least one type of diversity that Abercrombie is anxious to get its hands on: ethnic diversity. Abercrombie is now more than willing to hire young, good looking, natural, All-American style, polished college students of different skin colours. Racism isn’t cool it would appear, nor is it profitable.
In fact, a lack of diversity proved very unprofitable indeed for Abercrombie when in 2005 the company handed over $40 million dollars as part of a settlement for an employment discrimination law suit. The action was brought by nine young people of colour who claimed that they were refused sales jobs or had them terminated on the basis of their race. They sued on behalf of themselves as well as others affected by the alleged practices. These plaintiffs were joined by more as the action grew. The plaintiffs were given considerable support by various non-profit legal groups.
The accusations of the individual plaintiffs were startling. One plaintiff claimed that in the two weeks after Abercrombie corporate managers came to visit the store where she worked, five Asian American employees were fired and white employees were hired to replace them. Managers were instructed to, ‘make the store look more like’, one of the posters, featuring a white male model.
Of course, you wont see anything like this anymore. As part of the settlement, Abercrombie agreed to take substantial action on ‘diversifying’ their workforce. The commitments included hiring 25 recruiters to seek out minority employees, hiring a, ‘vice president for diversity,’ and providing all employees with so-called ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ training.
However, the most important commitment, as judged by many involved in the action, was Abercrombie’s promise to reflect their new diversity policy in their marketing material- in their glossy catalogues and gigantic posters. One big reason that this was so important was that many members of minority groups had felt discouraged from applying for a job in the first place. The other reason, perhaps more important, is that Abercrombie, as a huge retailer, have a certain power. A company that spends so much money on advertising is bound to have an effect on the public psyche, and they were, intentionally or otherwise, using this power in a way that was causing harm. As Mr Gonzalez put it, “they were portraying the image that all-American is all white. That’s not the case”.
I think most people intuitively feel that this settlement, despite Abercrombie not admitting to any wrongdoing, was a step in the right direction. This case, some would argue, was a clear one; morally if not legally.
However, the case may pose more questions than it answers. If Abercrombie is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of skin colour, then why is it allowed to discriminate on the basis of hair colour? Or face shape? Or height? All of these are things that people cant change about themselves (within reason). Yet, Abercrombie bases its hiring decisions on these factors because it helps them to sell more clothes. Because, due to some freaky evolutionary psychology that makes us more susceptible to the influence of attractive people, we all seem to buy more clothes if they are sold to us by sales assistants who are hot.
