Housing Services Office Staff Diversity

Diversity One of the main values upheld at the Ohio State University Housing Services office is diversity. However, the full-time staff lacks diversity, the housing contract lacks inclusive language, and the office space lacks accessibility. The lack of diversity amongst the full-time employees is problematic because it perpetuates the idea that marginalized individuals are ill-suited for or incapable of doing this job. While there are policies in place that do not allow a higher education organization discriminate against an individual’s identities, such as race, ethnicity, ability, and age, there are other ways to perpetuate exclusivity and discrimination.
For example, when the office was looking to hire an individual, they only promoted
the position through the Ohio State University’s Buckeye Career Network, circulating information about the job throughout the Residence Life department. The the pool of individuals that received information about the job opening were a select few at the university. In addition, there could have been gender bias and in-group preferences that shaped the hiring in ways that tend to limit the mobility of certain individuals (Cook and Class, 94). According to Cook and Class, “social identity theory suggests that individuals more positively evaluate in-group members and thereby limit access to out-group members” (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). Accordingly, this could explain why the individual that who was hired currently works in Morrill Tower, has previously worked closely with all of the members in the Housing office, and shares a similar identity with the other full-time employees. The language used in the Ohio State University Housing Contract and within the Housing Services data system is exclusive to individuals who are gender non-conforming.
Because the Housing Services office offer a two-fold identity option to students now, it is as if they patted themselves on the back and never second questioned themselves about the inclusivity of the language. Although only two student staff members have questioned the use of other, it is nonetheless still problematic and should be addressed. To better understand why this organizations believe they are being inclusive can best described using Joan Acker’s article, Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class, Race, in Organizations (2006). They state, “Body differences provide clues to the appropriate assumptions, followed by appropriate behavior. What is “appropriate” varies, of course, in relation to the situation, the organizational culture and history, and the standpoints of the people judging appropriateness” (451). Acker also mentions the “visibility of inequalities” and how “dominant groups see inequality as existing somewhere else, not where they are” (Acker, 452). What can be taken away from Acker is that individuals within the dominant group, which would be cisgender individuals, do not see an issue with the incomprehensive language because of the organizational culture and their positionality. While the organization strives to be gender non-conforming friendly, for instance, it can only be as open-minded and aware as the employees that work there. If the employees are not exposed to diversity training about the issue and they are not receiving this information anywhere else outside of the organization, it makes it difficult for there to be organizational change. For example, members of the organization continuously use the wrong pronouns to describe the transgender student employee. While it might be new for individuals to use inclusive language, it does not mean that it should go without being
questioned. It should not be up to the individual to have to correct members of the organization about using the correct pronouns if they can use other pronouns correctly without hesitation. While Morrill Tower is handicap accessible, that does not mean every space within the building is. In the Housing Services office, there has previously been renovations in order to increase the number of student work stations. With more desks in the office space, it leaves little space for mobility around the certain parts of the office, especially when there are several members of the organization in the office. While a wheelchair will fit through the doors and underneath the desks, the various boxes and packages that are consistently on the ground would make it difficult for an individual with a wheelchair. Getting to the restroom is the other big issue, because there are no handicap push buttons in order to get into the restrooms, out of the restrooms, or back into the doors on the third floor to access the office. Furthermore, the bathroom situation is not only inaccessible to individuals who need to use handicap push buttons, but also for gender non-binary individuals. On the main floor of Morrill Tower where the Housing Services office is located, there are only two restrooms available for binary individuals. For those who do not identify as such, they must simply choose which restroom they fell the most “comfortable” going in. Since the Housing Services office does not have its own bathroom, there are no other easily accessible options for gender non-binary individuals. In conclusion, the Housing Services office is only accessible to those who of the dominant group. For an individual who needs accommodations, there could possibly be some changes that happen around the office to make it more handicap accessible. However, the issue is that it should already be handicap accessible. Just because current members of the organization are all able-bodied, that does not necessarily mean that it should not be accessible for those who are not.