Analyzing and Discussing Corvino’s Article, Under God’s Authority
Reading John Corvino’s article, “Under God’s authority: Professional Responsibility, Religious Accommodations, and the Culture Wars,” helps one realize the advantages and disadvantages of religious accommodation at the workplace. Corvino takes readers through life-cases whereby accommodation is considerable, presenting the controversy that comes with the subject. Religious accommodation at the workplace is one way of promoting human rights, especially for minority groups, but can sometimes become problematic. Various instances lead to religious liberty being wrongfully used when religious accommodations remove a burden on some people only to shift it to others more harshly (Corvino, 2016). Since religious accommodations can be misused, leading to favoritism and discrimination at the workplace, it is essential to draw the line where the extent of accommodation is appropriate.
Despite the controversies surrounding religious accommodation at the workplace, religious commitments are still privileged in most work environments. Different reasons justify the special treatment that these commitments get at the workplace. One is that religion ties one to important commitments. Also, believers in divinity consider their beliefs to be non-optional, and privileging religious beliefs is a way that businesses and institutions show support for minority groups (Corvino, 2016). The special treatment that employees enjoy attributed to their religious belief not only assists in increasing the employees’ comfort and satisfaction in undertaking their tasks but also grows a firm’s reputation as an institution that embraces and respects diversity. Additionally, the accommodation of workers subscribed to different religious beliefs promotes awareness of different religious practices internally among a firm’s employees. Resultantly, employees will be able to work more collaboratively with fewer hiccups in the entire organizational performance.
A range of benefits comes with accommodating an individual’s religious beliefs in the workplace. However, few setbacks can arise from the accommodation. Exempting someone from various duties that are against their beliefs could result in a surge in tasks to be completed by the rest of the workers (Corvino, 2016). The duties are passed on to the individual’s colleagues who might have other duties to undertake or might be few in number, and the tasks might be overwhelming, leading to a slowdown in performance.
Also, as seen through a real-life example presented in the article, some roles compromise an entire system if strict religious beliefs are accommodated for individuals in these positions. Roles involving public service and enacting legislature, which affects a vastly diverse population limit accommodating religious beliefs. Roles in the judicial system such as clerks, magistrates, and judges require individuals who are religiously neutral when undertaking their duties—accommodating religious beliefs for individuals performing these roles results in biased decisions when passing judgments.
A flight attendant of Islamic faith might be exempted from serving alcoholic beverages to passengers since her religious faith forbids the practice. Accommodating such a flight attendant for airlines is appropriate as the other attendants could fill the role. However, if the alcohol-service requests from passengers accumulate to a capacity that overwhelms the rest of the crew members, such a flight attendant should step in and help as her duty requires her to. Despite her accommodation, the flight attendant could assist by informing her partners when alcohol service is required (Corvino, 2016). On the other hand, a clerk assigned the duty of issuing marriage certificates cannot deny issuing marriage certificates to gay couples even if their religious beliefs are against same-sex relationships. Accommodating the clerk by exempting them from such duties will be against the state laws, which now recognize gay marriages as legal (Corvino, 2016). Such accommodations serve to favor one group only to burden another minority group.
As seen in the aforementioned life-cases, accommodation is a critical concern to organizations and society at large. Different scenarios and job roles dictate where accommodation is applicable and the extent to which it is enforced. It is hence important for decision-makers to have a neutral ground when deciding to accommodate an individual’s religious belief in the workplace. Caveats exist that determine the special considerations employees will enjoy with regard to their religion (Corvino, 2016). Through these caveats, employers can identify instances when accommodation could be passed on. These are the instances that will lead to damaging the parties involved and might lead to ruining a firm’s performance as well as reputation.
With accommodation being a controversial issue in any work setting, it is essential for business executives, leaders, employees, and the wider society, in general, to learn about the subject. Examples of life-cases detailing scenarios whereby an individual’s beliefs limit undertaking their job to the maximum are a practical way of informing and educating the society on workplace accommodations. Presenting these different scenarios will invoke people to gauge which instances truly deserve accommodation and will be appropriate to all parties involved as well as the instances where accommodation becomes damaging (US.Gov, 2020). Therefore, it is important for readings discussing religious accommodation in the workplace or any other setting to be clear and thorough. Such readings are a focal point to understanding and informing on the accommodation subject as well as the issues surrounding it.
In summary, the workplace should be an environment whereby all employees’ religious or non-religious practices and beliefs are recognized and respected. Doing so will result in a vibrant workforce which is satisfied with their job roles and, in turn, leads to improved organizational performance. However, caveats should be put in place to make sure the accommodations are not biased, discriminatory, or unfair to other employees. Identifying when these accommodations become damaging to different parties concerned is necessary. Drawing the line between appropriate and inappropriate accommodations is problematic but essential to upholding religious diversity while being non-discriminatory.
References
Corvino, J. (2016). Under God’s Authority: Professional Responsibility, Religious Accommodations, and the Culture wars. In Ethics Across the Professions (pp. 484-490).
US.Gov. (2020). Religious Discrimination. Retrieved from U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm