The RE Podcast
The RE Podcast
S14 E8: The One About EDI
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Please send The RE Podcast a Text Message!
To continue with the theme of inclusive education, I speak to Dr. Wouter Peeters about the moral importance of EDI. This is a great episode for RE teachers, for EDI leads in schools and SLT.
https://www.wouterpeeters.info/
We discuss;
- the purpose of EDI initiatives in terms of Human Rights
- the benefits to society and individuals in terms of self actualisation
- the challenges to EDI and how we overcome them
- how religion and both support and detract from EDI
- how we can teach our students the skills to uphold EDI
It's an amazing episode and both informative and practical so please share with as many colleagues and friends as possible as EDI benefits all!
Find out more;
Twitter: @TheREPodcast1
Insta: @TheREPodcast
Webiste: www.therepodcast.co.uk
Welcome to the R.E. Podcast, the first dedicated R.E. podcast for students and teachers. My name is Louisa Jane Smith, and this is the R.E. Podcast. The podcast for those of you who think RE is boring, which it is, and I'll prove it to you. My guest today is Walter Peters. He is here to talk to us about the moral importance of EDI. So equality, diversity, and inclusion. So welcome to the podcast, Walter.
SPEAKER_00:Hello, thanks for having me.
SPEAKER_04:Do you want to just introduce yourself to us?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, so I'm Wouters. I'm from Belgium. And now I'm working at the University of Birmingham as an associate professor in global ethics.
SPEAKER_04:Brilliant. And so you were recommended to me by Dr. Carissa Sharp. Can I ask an ignorant question? What's the main language in Belgium?
SPEAKER_00:So I'm Dutch. My native language is Dutch. But the official languages are Dutch, French, and German actually. Okay. But Dutch is like six million people, French four million people, and German just seventy thousand people.
SPEAKER_04:So other than that, I just know the chocolate and the fries. Belgian fries are just something else.
SPEAKER_00:And the beer and the waffles. Oh. Obesity.
SPEAKER_04:But what a way to get fat.
SPEAKER_00:I mean, come on, you know.
SPEAKER_04:Do you want to just talk to us a little bit about what your research project is currently?
SPEAKER_00:Sure. So I've worked a lot on the ethics of climate change in the past, but I was always interested in diversity and inclusion as well. And now with the current debate, the state of the current debate and the polarization in the public discourse, I decided to focus more on this. So the main question of my project is actually what is the model value? What is the importance of initiatives that promote equality, diversity, and inclusion? And why are they necessary? What are the challenges? And how can we do this well, actually?
SPEAKER_04:And have you got any insight into why there's a debate about climate change? That's the thing that kind of baffles me, because surely there is evidence to support one thing and no evidence to support the other. Why there is this debate?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, so the debate, so let's say climate change denialism is mainly fueled by the interests of the fossil fuel industry and all of the people with vested interests in our economy being based on fossil fuels. There is a lot of money going on in that. And they want to maintain their profits, maintain the way that they're making money, basically. And so they're against climate change because that, of course, challenges our dependence on fossil fuels.
SPEAKER_04:Yeah. And I'm assuming that there's a bit of nuance in that position, is that I can't imagine they're going, this is absolutely disastrous, but we need to ignore it because otherwise we won't make profits. I think it's probably more to say, you know, there's an element of it, but it's not that serious, and actually we need to kind of protect our financial interests, and that's in the interests of everybody. Money makes the world go round. I'm sure there's nuances within that polarization.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, yeah, yeah, sure. So there is outright denial that climate change basically isn't happening, although the science tells us otherwise, of course. But then there are also people who say, well, climate has changed throughout the ages, temperatures have been variable throughout the ages. So why should we care about this change in temperature? And then there is also the people who say that it's not down to humans, basically. So they will accept that there is climate change, that there is global warming, but they will say that it's not down to humans and that we can't really do anything about it. So there are indeed nuances and variations in the stances that people take as climate change denier. Yeah.
SPEAKER_04:You know, and I think I sort of had most experience with the other end, which is the kind of the young people in our country, that they have a lot of climate anxiety. So they feel there's this awful, awful problem that we're all going to die very soon and nobody's listening. And I would imagine that's probably unhelpful because it's sometimes very difficult to go to a place of activism and fighting for change if you feel things are a bit hopeless. Yeah, that's really interesting. Talk to us about EDI. What exactly is it?
SPEAKER_00:So EDI stands for equality, diversity and inclusion. Sometimes it's called DEI. For example, now D USA it's often called DEI, but it's always equality, diversity, and inclusion. And it actually comprises initiatives to make sure that members of minorities who have been underrepresented in the political debate or in society in general, that they feel welcome, are valued, included in society or in a company or in an organization, for example. And the main reason why we do this is the rights and the well-being of those members of minority groups, such as the right not to be discriminated against. And actually, the very first article of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights tells us that all people are born free and equal in dignity and rights. And so EDI initiatives aim exactly to increase equality between people and to make sure that everybody's dignity is respected as well.
SPEAKER_04:And have you any sense of why it's needed, why we have got these minority groups, why they exist and why not everybody's invested in creating equality?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, so some groups have become dominant in society. For example, in Western society, that's mainly white men who are the dominant voice or have been the dominant voice throughout history. But that's mainly a contingency of history. It's coincidentally that that happens. There is no really good reason for that because we also see they are a minority, but we see some matriarchal societies as well, so where women are actually the political leaders, for example. So minorities present another perspective than those dominant groups, and those dominant groups might feel attacked or might feel challenged in their position in society, and that's why they might sometimes be, I would say, a little bit scared, too resentful, perhaps as well, that their dominance is being challenged. And so that makes it difficult for those dominant groups sometimes to include those minority perspectives as well.
SPEAKER_04:And so it's obviously trying to protect people of protected characteristics. So just remind us of what those protected characteristics are and why they are protected.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, so according to the law, there are some specific categories, for example, religion, color of your skin, ethnicity, sex, gender, these kind of things. But I'm actually talking about all kinds of diversity in society. So not only those set in stone in the law, but also, for example, the voice of children or the voice of the elderly, which are not as much heard as people who are middle-aged, let's say between 30 and 60 years old.
SPEAKER_04:And I think actually a very good friend of mine, this is her specialism, she's a lecturer at UCL. Great. And she looks at mental health records. Yeah. And she'll have a look at how the voice of people with mental health is often misrepresented.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah. Yeah.
SPEAKER_04:You know, she comes from an archives background. And so therefore we get a false sense of our history because of the voices that are often silenced or misinterpreted or misrepresented.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, that's a great example as well.
SPEAKER_04:And something that I have had few conversations with people recently is the E in EDI, whether equality really is what we should be aiming for, or whether it's actually more about equity. And therefore, you have to give people what they need in order to flourish rather than give everybody the same. What are your kind of thoughts on that?
SPEAKER_00:Yes, that's actually why I don't really like the E in EDI.
SPEAKER_04:Yeah, okay.
SPEAKER_00:Or I'm not in favor of including it because I also think that it should stand for equity more than equality. And if you say equality, then you can also think about yeah, equal to what or equal to whom? You know, white men are dominant in society. Does that mean that everybody has to become like white men to be equal? Or what? What is then the standard? And so I'm thinking about equity more as well. And so respecting each other, so the respect is being done equally towards each other because we're all humans. But that means that we need equity. For example, people with a disability, for example, if we treat them completely equally as able-bodied people, then they might not be able to go around as freely as able-bodied people because they might need more resources like a wheelchair or an adapted car or a dock, for example, guidance dock, and these kind of things. So I completely agree with that.
SPEAKER_04:Yeah. And I think that's the kind of nuance that was missing with Black Lives Matters, that all the people coming back were going, all lives matter. And I think that on the surface sounds like equality, but actually what we needed in that situation was equity. And there was someone that did a really lovely analogy, which is that, you know, my house is on fire. Can you come and help me put it out? And they're like, Well, I've got a house and my house is important too. Yes, but your house isn't on fire right now, and mine is. And that was the kind of analogy of Black Life Matters. Yes, all life matters, but at the moment there is a very particular emergency need for a particular group in society.
SPEAKER_00:Yes, exactly.
SPEAKER_04:So we want to talk about these kind of initiatives that are trying to fight for or protect or uphold EDI values. What are these initiatives and why are they kind of beneficial to maybe wider society?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, so some of the initiatives might be, for example, quota in an organization or in a company that they have to hire X percentage of women, for example, or have some affirmative action towards women or towards people of color. But it can also be things like teaching about diversity in schools, embracing cultural traditions which are different from ours, and all of those things are now being very much attacked by Donald Trump and his supporters basically, or at least by that tendency in American society. But I see the same thing happening in the UK and in Europe as well, for example, with anti-migration sentiments, those happening in Asia, by the way, as well. So it's quite problematic. But I do think that there are benefits to society as well. So, first of all, I want to be clear. I think that respecting the rights and the well-being of minority people is the most important motivation to do these kind of initiatives. That's the main reason. But there might be additional motivations which might strengthen our commitment to EDI. And mainly, I think that society benefits from more inclusivity and the recognition, the embracing of diversity. And actually, yeah, human rights, right? We're all human, so we all have the same rights. And if we respect another human being, then in fact that undermines our own humanity, as it's often been said. And so by increasing respect for each other, EDI initiatives strengthen our own humanity, I think. But perhaps a couple of more specific examples might help here. I think that a very clear benefit to society or company is the so-called epistemic diversity. You know, everybody's opinion is colored by your own experiences, your own particular point of view. For example, my skin color is white, and I can try to imagine what it is to live in the UK as a person of color, but I can't really know this completely because I don't experience this firsthand. And so it's important for me to talk to people of color and to include them in the debate to make sure that I take their perspective into account, their lived experience into consideration as well. And so it's necessary to include people of color in the debate as well, due to their rights. They have a right to be included and to be heard. So that's the first motivation of EDI, the human rights angle. But in addition, it just makes democratic decision-making so much more richer and stronger. If you have just one perspective, then debate is quite poor, it remains empty, it loses nuances and relevance actually, because it's not tested by different perspectives, it's not being put in contrast with other opinions and other views. And this happens, for example, with the so-called echo chambers on social media, which are quite problematic. In contrast to those echo chambers, it's actually important to get your ideas challenged by other perspectives and to critically think about your own ideas, to improve them and to reach robust conclusions, I think. I can give an example from my own discipline, philosophy, which has always been dominated by white middle-aged bearded men. That's cliche, but it's true as well. And that was true, I think, until the 1970s, I would say, when email voices and the voices of writers from minority groups were getting a little bit more prominence. Now, I have to be clear about this. Diversity and inclusion is still a problem in philosophy as a discipline as well. But since the 70s, there is more diverse debate, I would say. And so there is the debate about individual autonomy. That's a principle and it has been taken as almost sacred, basically, in philosophy throughout the ages. It's the individual and only the individual as a rational and autonomous person who makes decisions about their own life and about their own body, for example, in medical treatment. But then feminist writers came along and they criticized this principle because everyone is always in a relationship with other people. There is always a context to take into account. While the principle of individual autonomy envisages a person as an island, atomized, without any relationships, we do have to take those relationships into account, and that's why these feminist authors started talking about relational autonomy. And this actually revolutionized the debate, and this revolution is still being led by female authors.
SPEAKER_04:Can I just I just want to what I'm concerned about is that when we're talking about rich debate and narrative and relational autonomy, that these are concepts that I think mean something to those within this world. So in the world of academia as in philosophy, but for your everyday person on the street, nuance and debate is very, very difficult to grab hold on. And actually, people feel kind of unsafe in that space. They much prefer things that are very black and white, that are very simple, that are very polaristic, that seems to fit much more comfortably into sort of everyday people's lives. How do we then promote nuance in a way that is inclusive to those people that are uncomfortable with that space?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, so I think I have to say that I slightly disagree with that uh opinion about people in society. So I do think that too much nuance might be too difficult to grasp, but that doesn't mean that people don't want to understand each other. So I think that the current polarization debate about diversity and inclusion, on the one hand, you've got the extreme conservatives who call things gender ideology and wokeism and will uh disparage it like that. And on the other hand, you've got the the extreme radical liberals, let's say, who would say that anything goes, and they fight each other constantly and they're quite hostile towards each other. And I don't think that regular people, many conservatives as well as many progressive people, they are completely fed up with that kind of hostility and polarization. They don't want to be put in those baskets of those extreme views. They do have their worries and their concerns left and right, but they actually want to talk with each other. They are actually much more empathetic towards each other than we think they are, or than the polarized versions think we should be.
SPEAKER_04:Yeah, that's really interesting. Thank you for saying that. You were talking about then relational autonomy.
SPEAKER_00:So that was just an example of how bringing diversity in philosophy actually furthered the debate and made the debate richer than it was before when there was only a focus on uh the sacred principle of individual autonomy. So that was just an example, actually.
SPEAKER_04:Yeah, great. Thank you so much. And is there any sort of other benefits then for society of kind of EDI initiatives?
SPEAKER_00:Yes, so very importantly, actually, I think that's I mean, and it's quite obvious that building society is a collaborative project. We can't do that on our own. We need each other to build society. And so if we categorically put a minority at the sideline of society because of their color, their skin, or their religion, or their sex, what have you, then we're not reaching the best society that we could have had. Everyone's contribution is potentially valuable, but excluding one group's contribution, not allowing them to contribute categorically, means that we will just miss out. And I'm not saying that this is easy, of course, and the current debate, the current political debate really uh illustrates this. It is the difficult challenge of integration that we see in the context of migration or in the context of the questions for justice that the queer movement is asking for, etc. And all of this might lead to discussion and might lead to conflict between people in the short term, or at least problems, because it challenges the dominant position, the position of the dominant group in society. But if that dominant group is so defensive about these kinds of initiatives and only talks about us versus them, then this will in fact only create more problems and more rifts in society. If done well, I think an inclusive society will be stronger, more resilient, happier, richer in the end for minorities as well as for the dominant group. It will take and it does take a lot of work, but I do think that in the end, in the long term, it's beneficial to all of us.
SPEAKER_04:And I think, you know, if you look at even just our human history and human evolution, that the survival of our species, you know, Homo sapiens, which are the only species of humans that have survived, we did it through collaboration, through working together. You know, we weren't necessarily the strongest or the fastest or the cleverest species, but we were very good at working as a team. And so that's our DNA. Our DNA is working together as a whole. And I think it's a shame at the moment the dominant narrative appears to be individualism and it eat personal for themselves. And actually, I don't think I've seen many dominant leaders in the sort of political sphere today that really want to build a better society. It feels as though they want to build a better society for a certain privileged group of people and they're not looking at society as a whole. But that does appear to be effective in that what they're trying to achieve appears to be working, in that you know, more groups are being marginalized and oppressed, and the more powerful dominant are thriving. And people seem to be okay with that, which I find very bizarre.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, yeah, yeah, and unfortunate and problematic.
SPEAKER_04:But are there benefits then to us as individuals?
SPEAKER_00:Yes, I think so. This is a little bit abstract, I think. I'm going to try to make it as concrete as possible, but it is based on social psychology and inter-subjective philosophy and ethics, basically. But let me try to explain it and see whether I think succeed or not. So the thing is that we develop ourselves, our own identity in relation to other people. There's no doubt about that. Other people provide a mirror to us in which we actually see ourselves, and this is crucial in coming to understand who we are and ourselves basically, our own identity. But other people can only provide this mirror to the extent that we treat them with respect and recognize them as an equal participant in the relationship. For example, if there is a man who has sexist beliefs and who thinks that men are better than women, then he cannot get any authentic information about himself in his interaction with women because he would disparage them and put them at the sideline categorically. Now, he may of course believe that he doesn't need this kind of information coming from women or mirroring from women to develop his self, but that would be a wrong belief because the information he gets about himself then is in the end not complete and also inaccurate because it doesn't include the mirroring of women. The more mirrors we have, actually, the more diverse the range of mirrors that we have, the more accurate and more authentic our self realization will be, because we come to a more complete understanding of all facets of ourselves. Even members of the dominant group in society would benefit from including minorities because they equally need those minorities as mirrors for self-realization. And so, in general terms, being inclusive, open-minded, empathetic towards people benefits ourselves as well, actually, because it improves our authentic self-realization and it allows us to build society together, as I already mentioned.
SPEAKER_04:Now I want to come back to self-actualization in a second, because I think this is a term that would be helpful to kind of clarify. When I hear someone say what you've just said, I find it really easy to grasp hold of it in relation to people in society that I find their views abhorrent. So I look at particular political leaders or, you know, extreme right-wing people, anti-woke, you know, all of those kind of people. And I think, yeah, you just need to listen to everybody in society and you need to let listen to all the voices. And if you do that, you become a sort of stronger, better person. But I find it really difficult to then take on that advice to myself. Because actually all I want to do is listen to the voices of the oppressed and the minorities. I don't really want to listen to the voice of the oppressor, of the voice of those that are in power or misusing their power. And so often I shut down all I shut those voices out of my life just because I find it so offensive to hear those voices that I then actually, my well-being is better if I don't, if I just listen to people that match my own values. And so actually the challenge, I think, is for us to do that and to open ourselves up to voices that we might find morally offensive. Is that what you're asking us to do?
SPEAKER_00:Yes and no. So not entirely, because of course the requirement or the precondition for this to work is if you treat each other as equal participants in the relationship. But if somebody doesn't treat another person as an equal participant, then their views become, I would say, invalids even. Okay. It wouldn't be justified to include them in the debate. So if, for example, a racist opinion or a sexist view, we don't have to include those or we don't have to listen to those because they actually undermine the human rights of other people. They treat people of color and women respectively not as equal participants to the debate. So these views invalidate themselves. It would be self-defeating, actually, if we take those views into account, because it decreases the quality of the intersubjective relations.
SPEAKER_04:I mean, the word I have in my head is few and uh a massive sigh of relief because I think actually what we're saying is that everybody's got to come with their own views, but those views have to be founded in EDI, in actually that there is a quality of all human people. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, that's good. So let's go back to this idea of self-actualization. What exactly is that and why is it important?
SPEAKER_00:So self-actualization or self-realization is actually a very vague and very broad term. It's is basically the project that is your life, carrying out the project that is your life. It boils down to getting to know and to understand who you are, your identity, coming to respect yourself as well, coming to appreciate yourself, developing your identity, as I already said, learning what your dreams and goals are, and pursuing those dreams and goals as well. Now, this is a lifelong project, never-ending, never completed, because you keep learning things about yourself, your identity is fluid throughout your life as well, your goals change, etc. So none of this is ever completely fixed or completely done. And so you keep doing that for your entire life, actually. And since we're social beings, we're doing that in relationship to others, and that's very fundamental, I think. And I think a precondition for a good relationship which allows us to actualize ourselves and the other to actualize themselves is a recognition of each other as beings who are indeed pursuing that project that is our life, you know, and recognizing, acknowledging that for everyone this is a different project, but everyone's project is potentially worthwhile, yeah, and that they're equally worthwhile to pursue.
SPEAKER_04:And so I don't know if this is remiss of me, but obviously this is part of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. And in my head, this kind of links to the sort of EDI initiatives in actually what all human beings on this planet need, are each of those needs to be met to a certain extent. So all humans need to have those kind of basic needs met, like your sort of food and water and shelter and things like that. But then there are sort of higher needs that we have as humans. So the next one is kind of a safety, being safe. And so if we're thinking about immigration and things like that, then actually that's our next need as well, that you need kind of that sort of personal security. Then that sort of sense of belonging, and I guess that's working on that society level that every human being needs to feel that they belong, that they're not outsiders, that they're not discriminated against. And then you've got the kind of more internal stuff, which is once your external needs are met, then actually you get your sense of self-esteem, and then actually your highest need is that self-actualization. And that's what you're kind of talking about. And so I don't know if that's me reading too much into what you're saying, but that's how my brain's kind of connecting things together.
SPEAKER_00:No, I think that that's right. Because I mean, self-actualization is indeed the higher need. The condition for it is, of course, good social relationships, but another condition for it is yeah, not being hungry, for example. So having food is a much more basic need than self-actualization. That although it's not true that people who are hungry cannot develop themselves or be in that state of self-actualizing, of course, that would be wrong as well to say that. Yes, yeah. The only thing that I want to say is that we are all equal, basically, in that we all have the same need.
SPEAKER_03:Yes.
SPEAKER_00:So that's what makes us human, and we are all human in that respect, but we all meet those needs in different ways, or the needs might crystallize a little bit different for everyone. And that's also what makes humankind so rich, that we're all the same and still different.
SPEAKER_04:Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And that's why I think we it comes back to that discussion of equity rather than equality. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Which I think is important. Yeah. You mentioned earlier then that a lot of these discussions that you should have with people where you acknowledge people that think something different has to happen within within this context of EDI, of a shared understanding that people have equal access to their needs and to their rights. And I'm presuming, therefore, this isn't like a universal pluralistic thing of, you know, whatever you think and feel is okay. There are kind of boundaries to that. So why can't we accept everything? And how do we judge what we can and can't accept?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, so that's me being critical of the left as well, of the radical liberals who would just allow everything and who would accuse somebody of racism if you don't accept some kind of custom or tradition from another culture. So I do think that there are limits to what we can accept and what not. And I mean, on the other side of the spectrum, at the right-hand side, the same is happening as well, because their freedom of speech is a blanket justification for everything, even sexism and even racism, etc. intolerant views. And so I think that both are basically wrong, that there are limits to what we should accept and what not. And the first is human rights themselves. That would be the cutoff point in respect for human rights. So traditions, use or ways of self-actualization which undermine or violate other people's human rights should not be accepted. They should not be part of our project to build up society. So a frequently cited example is female genital mutilation. Some people will say that if we respect other cultures, we would even have to allow this. While it is a very painful, it's a very harmful tradition towards girls and women, of course. And so, in my opinion, it violates the rights of girls and women to their bodily integrity and to their autonomy. And so we have legitimate reasons to criticize this custom, to not accept it. And if we then talk about sexism and racism, freedom of speech cannot be a blanket justification for just about everything, because those intolerant views do also discriminate against other people. And so that would be against their human rights as well. And therefore we we should not tolerate it. If I may, just another example, and then I'm looking especially to Belgium as well, but also to the USA and UK, I think as well. That's how we treat prisoners. To some extent, there might be certain circumstances in which it's justified to punish people for violating the law, but this does not mean that we can treat them as subhuman beings and just lock them up into cages and not give a crap about them, basically not care about them, not give the appropriate education to re-integrate in society. Actually, by treating them like subhuman beings, we actually treat ourselves as subhuman beings as well. So we undermine our own humanity by doing this. And so I think that those human rights are the main cutoff points for the things that we shouldn't accept in society.
SPEAKER_04:But also I think what you seem to be saying is that human rights need to be seen as a collective, not as individuals. And so if you say I have the right to freedom of speech, this means I can say whatever I want. Well, no, it doesn't, because there are other rights that means that you have a right not to be discriminated against. So therefore, rights have to be seen as a whole, and each one of those have limitations. So freedom of speech does not mean you can say whatever you want. Freedom of speech means you can have the right to an opinion, but you cannot use that opinion to discriminate against because that would contradict with another human right. And I think people very often just pick out the human rights that suits their own narrative rather than sees it as a collective for all. And actually, as you quite rightly quoted earlier, the first article is that everyone has the right to be treated with dignity and respect. And so that's really important. I personally don't, this is quite controversial, don't agree with free speech. I think I agree with most of the human rights. That one I'm I'm hazy about. And I prefer much more the sort of Buddhist precept of right speech, that I think human rights should talk about right speech rather than free speech, because I think it's it's open to too many harmful interpretations. And also I think it's really important that to differentiate between traditions and religious practice. And so actually, we have freedom of religion, which means we have the right to practice a religion, but that again has limitations. That doesn't mean we can do whatever we want in the name of our religion. And FGM, as you cited, is not a religious practice, it is a tradition that has happened, but that is incredibly harmful and takes away many, many human rights of young girls. And so again, seeing those rights in balance and in context with each other.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, but for example, killing in the name of religion or waging war in the name of religion. First of all, I don't think that any religion really advocates for it. But I also think that it's just not justifiable because it's such a clear violation of other people's human rights.
SPEAKER_04:Absolutely, absolutely. But yeah, obviously people do things in the name of religion, which isn't a religious thing in itself.
SPEAKER_00:No.
SPEAKER_04:It's just a handy narrative to have.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_04:We've talked a little bit about this, and this is the kind of the challenges to EDI from sort of the dominant voice. In the, you know, we've got the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Most countries adhere to it, and yet the dominant voice appears to be disregarding what they were created for and what they stand for and what they're trying to achieve. So, what are the challenges to EDI from sort of dominant voice and why are they challenging it?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, so I think that that's the main challenge to EDI, and that's the refusal or rejection of it, the critique that the dominant group has of it, because that dominant group has become dominant for contingent reasons, coincidentally, throughout history, and it remains in the midst of history, basically. And EDI initiatives really put a finger on the fact that this is arbitrary and that the dominant group should do more to include other perspectives and other minorities as well. So it challenges that contingent dominant position, and that might be uneasy, daunting, even, might instill some fear in people of the dominant group who basically see that their dive as they've come to conceptualize it is based on contingent features, contingent characteristics. And so I think that it's understandable that it's scary and that it invokes resentment. But I also think that the defensive reaction of putting then all EDI initiatives and the entire concept basically in the trash, that that's exaggerated as well. Like what's happening in the USA, for example, that yeah, that's just self-defeating because it creates more polarization, more exclusion in society, and it makes it more difficult to keep a peaceful society in general, I think. It's self-defeating, because what I said is that on the basis of social psychology, we know that the dominant group needs the minorities as well to get that information back to it, right? And with a mirror in the process of self-actualization. And on the level of society, such a defensive position creates a rift, makes it more difficult to build up society, excludes some potentially worthwhile contributions categorically from society, while it would actually help the dominant group as well to have a more inclusive, happier society.
SPEAKER_04:I mean, it feels if we take America, it feels as though the sort of policies that they're kind of introducing are benefiting the people that are making those policies. And so it doesn't feel to them as though they're doing any damage to themselves. So I think they seem to be consciously or unconsciously confusing what makes me weak makes society weak. So therefore, what makes me strong makes society strong.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah.
SPEAKER_04:You know, because I think actually if the policies they were doing ended up hurting them, they would change the policies.
SPEAKER_00:But in the long run, they will hurt them as well, I think. So it might be in the short term, and it's also a matter of propaganda, of spreading disinformation, fake news about things. Which makes it appear as if those policies are in the interest of the dominant group. Well, actually they aren't. Take, for example, the myth that there are so many immigrants who are actually unemployed or are even criminals, which is just plainly not true. No. Most migrants contribute to society, contribute to the economy, and criminality rates are less in migrant populations than in some white Caucasian populations in the US.
SPEAKER_04:And actually the subtext of that narrative is that if you are American, if you're born in America, if you're not a migrant, then it's okay for you to do crime. You know, that's the subtext.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_04:And so therefore, if you're giving that subtext, then there's going to be more crime because people are going, oh well, I'm American, so I'm allowed to. It's just such a bizarre thing to sort of argue.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, but that's also a difference between rich and poor in all societies, basically, as far as I'm aware of. The crimes that poor people commit will be harsher punished, more harshly punished than the crimes committed by rich people. For example, tax frauds, etc., is perhaps punished with a fine, while stealing stealing something or taking drugs is punished by uh being put in prison, you know? While actually tax fraud might be even more harmful to society in the end because it serves redistributive policies and it serves education and health, etc.
SPEAKER_04:And actually, even within that, the type of drugs that you take. So if you do a particular drug, if you do like, you know, powder cocaine, it's much, much less likely to be prosecuted, and even if it is the punishment less than if you do other forms of cocaine, which are easier to get, cheaper, done by different pet sectors of society. So the kind of war on drugs was not a war on all drugs, it was a war on drugs done by minority oppressed, poorer people.
unknown:Yep.
SPEAKER_04:So exactly. And actually a lot of this, I was talking to someone the other day and they were saying that if a rich person moves to this country, they're called an expat, but if a poor person moves to this country, they're called an immigrant. So we have different language for two people doing the same thing because of their economic background.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_04:You know, and I think this is lost, I think, in the discussion. And I think, I mean, it's immoral, is what it is. It's not, you know, I know we're kind of maybe jesting.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, it is immoral. Yeah.
SPEAKER_04:Are there any other challenges to diversity? And I know something that we're going to talk about is this idea of identity politics. What is this? What are the issues with it, and why is it a challenge to diversity?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, so identity politics is basically the tendency of people to form political alliances on the basis of some characteristic that they share. For example, women as a group, or trans people as a group, or Muslims as a group, for example. And they exclude people who don't share that characteristic. So radical feminists will focus on the struggle of women as a group, as a monolithic block, actually. They don't see difference within the group of women, and they will exclude all men from consideration, basically, in their political struggles. And they might even be outright hostile towards everybody who doesn't share that characteristic as well. And so the examples are, as I already said, radical feminism, but also nationalism, religious fundamentalism, radicalism in the queer community to some extent, can have quite the same tendencies as well, I think. So there are examples across the spectrum, left and right, on the basis of religion, nationality, etc. etc. etc. And that kind of hostility and exclusiveness towards who to include in the group and who to exclude in the group is quite problematic. As I said, there are differences within the group, not all women are the same, but there are also line drawing problems, like for example, do trans women belong to the group of women or not. And all of that hostility is more problematic than it solves anything. Let me give a very specific example of this. In the feminist community and the queer community as well, there is a sentence going around, I'm tired of listening to old white men. And that's then supposed to devalue the opinions of all men in the room categorically, basically. And so on the one hand, those activists, often they are activists who uttered this sentence, they're right in questioning the dominance of white men in many of the debates and in politics. But on the other hand, this sentence is very disparaging, very hostile, very discriminatory as well, because it seems to imply that white men cannot have a valuable opinion or can't have something worth listening to. While this is of course not the case, and some valuable opinions, which are coincidentally uttered by white men, might be thrown out of the window while they they might actually contribute to the discussion. And so this kind of identity politics, on the basis of that one essentializing characteristic, is hostile, is polarizing, and creates hostility towards people with different opinions, I'm afraid.
SPEAKER_04:And this is, you know, there's a level of controversy around what you're saying, you know, because I think what's interesting is that identity politics has come as a reaction to discrimination, which is why we need EDI policies. Yeah. And so the very purpose of EDI is to protect those people that have had to create that sort of sense of identity politics in order to protect themselves in order to survive. But by doing that, they're almost undermining what EDI is trying to achieve. I think that it's really, really difficult to talk to a group who has a particular identity, whether it's their race or their gender or their sexuality or whatever it is, and talk in terms of EDI, but also at the same time say to them that that kind of identity politics is unhelpful without undermining the very thing that we're trying to achieve, which is equality and flourishing for all humans. And so I can see how identity politics is unhelpful in creating the sort of bigger picture. And that individualism that happens on the right and the left is a barrier to effective EDI policies. But actually, when you are that group, when you are that oppressed group and you've been oppressed because of that particular thing that is your identity, it's incredibly difficult to then say, well, no, you have to let go of that category in order to help yourself.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, so Iris Marion Young has written about this, and very insightfully, I think. And she says that difference is not the same as identity. And so women are different from men because they have been in a subjugated position, and they want to rectify this injustice and want to be heard as well. But actually, that doesn't mean that all women have been subjugated in the same way. For example, black women might have a completely different experience than white women, etc. of course. And also, that is just one characteristic that collectivizes a struggle of people who do share that characteristic of being a woman. However, that doesn't mean that that group membership should be so prevalent in their identity, because identities change as well throughout their lives and towards the people that you're speaking to. And as I said, black women are completely different from white women. And so it's correct of, for example, feminists to say, look, women have been treated differently from men. But I think that the pendulum has swung to some extent too much to the other side and has focused too much on women versus men full stop. And that's not helpful.
SPEAKER_04:Yeah. And I think sometimes feminism fought for the wrong thing, in that it fought to be like At some point it was fighting to be like men rather than to elevate the status of women.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_04:But actually, any kind of political change like that is a journey and you make the best decisions and the information you have at the time. I think a nice maybe analogy to kind of explain this tension really that we have here is that I used to work at a school and every Monday morning they would put one student who had special educational needs or any kind of like learning difficulties on the board and they would tally the strategies to help that one child. That meant that 10 people in the meeting would benefit from that information, but the other 90 staff that didn't teach the student wouldn't. And then the next week it would be another student. But it became overwhelming. You found it difficult to help that one student because you're trying to remember all the different things that you were trying to do for all the different children. And for 90% of the time, it wasn't relevant to you. And I always thought actually, if we just every Monday morning looked at a strategy that helped people to learn generally, then each of those individual students would help as well. So rather than seeing them as individual needs that we've got to meet, you look at what are the collective needs of, in this context, a school, but in wider society, what helps most people to flourish? Well, it's if we have this type of policy. So rather than basing policies on identity, base policies on what helps society as a whole, because then that will help those minority groups. That's probably what we're saying.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, and actually is a good example because the disability movement has pointed out that focusing on those special needs actually is exclusionary or let's say positively discriminatory as well. They would rather focus on universal accessibility of society, for example, putting in ramps instead of steps, is not only helpful for people with a wheelchair, but also for elderly people or for people pushing a child in a pushchair, for example. But mainly it doesn't make having that wheelchair in a different thing, because they are also the same way as other people are, are able to access the building.
SPEAKER_04:Yeah, no, that's a really good idea.
SPEAKER_00:And so that's much more inclusive than trying to single out those special needs.
SPEAKER_03:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:That's of course also sometimes very much necessary and rightly to demand from people with disabilities, but that focus on universal accessibility and inclusiveness is much more helpful in that way.
SPEAKER_04:Yeah, that's a really good analogy, yeah. Let's think about religion then. How can religion both support a commitment to EDI but also detract from it?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, yeah, so I'm not a religious scholar, um, so there might be other people who might give a more detailed or more complete answer to this question. But there there are a couple of things that I would like to highlight here, a couple of points that I want to make. First of all, the humanistic values of respecting other people's lives and seeing the humanity in others is, as far as I know, a central value in all religions, and in the most important religious texts. Love thy neighbor as well as kindness towards strangers are preached in all religions, and in Christianity we know the compassion of the Good Samaritan, and we know neighborly love, but in Islam there are the same emphases on neighborly love, and there are verses in the Quran talking about neighborly love as well, and there is actually one sentence that I want to draw attention to here in the Quran, and to quote, Surely Allah loves not the proud and boastful. And so I think that considering yourself to be better than others or discriminating against people on an arbitrary basis of the color of their skin, etc., is an attitude of pride and boastfulness. So I think that Islam, or at least the Quran, would be very much against this kind of attitude. Now, we've already said this, but religion has also fueled war and conflict between people and tolerance. I think, especially when texts are being interpreted in a very fundamentalist way. And I believe that this in most cases is a misappropriation of those texts of religion, which itself can be very beautiful and can be very inclusive and can be very creating a community, etc. So I do think that it has a lot of value. But many contemporary scholars who seek to show how religion is something that can bring various people together, I believe indeed that there is this value of neighborly love and indeed of bringing people together rather than being intolerant towards the infidels or towards people who do not share the same religion. And so religious texts are a matter of interpretation, and I believe that they can be a source of inclusion and recognizing diversity in people, very humanistic towards other people, if they are interpreted in this way, at least.
SPEAKER_04:It's interesting, as you're talking, there's kind of interesting nuance in language in terms of whether we say, does religion cause problems, or does humans' interpretation of the religion cause the problems? Definitely. And I think you know, we've got to be careful not to use religious text to support our own narrative. And sometimes I don't think there's an objective look of what actually what does this text say? What does this religion say, and how much of it is just humans using it for their own purposes?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah.
SPEAKER_04:You know, and I think that that's the interesting, because I think a lot of people say, quite often say things like religion causes lots of wars. Well, it probably doesn't in itself cause wars because religion is a concept. It doesn't exist in itself. Humans cause fighting. You know, that's it. That religions do not, humans do. And they might sometimes use religion as an excuse. But I think that's kind of just something that I think, particularly listeners, if you hear people saying that religion causes lots of wars or causes lots of problems, just clarify. Do they mean the religion or the people within that religion? So yeah, I think that's an interesting one. You know, a lot of people that are going to be listening are going to be working in schools, they're going to be educators. Is there anything that we can do on that level to maybe teach EDI or teach students skills in order to be able to challenge the dominant narrative to help our students to be more critically aware of the messaging that they're getting?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, so I think that is really a tough question, and my response to it might be less specific than people might want it to be, I'm afraid. But I think one of the things, I'll come to the main thing in a moment, but one of the things is the fight against disinformation and propaganda, I think, because that actually fuels intolerance and it creates myths that legitimize treating people differently. So, for example, during the ages of the slave trades and slave ownership, the transatlantic slave trade, slave owners and slave traders were convinced, or at least believed, that black people were actually brutes who needed to be enslaved to be actual productive members of society. This is, of course, a racist belief, completely untrue, but it did legitimize their plural treatment of those slaves. And we see the same thing happening right now as well. If Donald Trump and his supporters, for example, believe that there are only two genders, and that's saying differently is gender ideology, that's just misinformation, that's just propaganda in order to exclude or to disparage demands of the queer community, for example. Biology says that there are indeed two main sexes, but that there are a lot of intersex conditions as well. And sociology, psychology, other social sciences tell us that there are many, many, many genders. And so it's scientifically false to say that there are only two genders, like Donald Trump Bennett's quotes do. They just do it as a myth, as propaganda, to justify their own beliefs. And so I think that education is very important in giving the skills of critical thinking about this kind of information, also transferred into correct information, or at least what is scientifically the most evidenced information. These things are really important, I think. But even for more fundamentally, I would refer to virtue education. I think especially the virtues of empathy, kindness towards each other, open-mindedness, those are very important virtues to make those relationships between people work, to build society and to make sure that everybody can provide a valuable contribution and that we can self-realize each other, and the other can do that as well in those relationships. And so empathy means literally the ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. And this does not always come naturally to us, especially when some differences might be very, very big between people, between different groups of people. And so I think education can be very useful, can be very helpful in instilling that kind of attitude in in teaching those virtues to young people.
SPEAKER_04:And I think what it appears that you're saying is that what is so important as educators that we don't do is impart opinions to them. Because I think it's very easy to think that that is teaching. That I have this opinion, I'm the expert, I've studied this for a long period of time, I'm going to teach you what this opinion is. And I am a hundred percent guilty of this, a hundred percent guilty because this is my way of reacting to the things in wider society that I struggle with. What we've got to do, and this is so important, is teach them the skills to be able to make those decisions and to be able to critically evaluate the dominant narrative, to understand how to make moral decisions. You've got to give them the skills, not the end point. Because if you just give them the end point, then it's going to be very, very flaky and it's not going to stand up to scrutiny when they get outside into the real world. And I think that's a challenge to me. And I'm sure there are people listening here that find it really difficult not to just try and push the students to the end point without them having that journey. And the only reason that I am at this point here is because of the experiences and the bashes and the sort of different views that I've held throughout my life. I haven't always thought what I think now.
SPEAKER_00:Nobody does.
SPEAKER_04:It's just the end result. No. And so we've got to try and avoid the temptation to bring children to the end point too soon. We've got to give them the skills to successfully navigate that journey of life that they're going to take. What then needs to change then?
SPEAKER_00:Uh that's a very broad question. To be personistic, I'm I think that a lot needs to change, to be honest. But uh, let's say specifically in the EDI context, I think that we already touched upon it, but I think that the polarization and hostility in the public debate needs to end. And yeah, I would call upon people to be more empathic toward each other and not to be as hostile, not to be as extreme in your views. So the conservative sides should or could try to understand that the demands of minorities come from a place of past injustices. That's very important to understand, and then maybe it becomes easier to understand what those people are actually asking for. On the other hand, the liberals also should understand that the demands that they ask for people to change, basically, that that challenges the position of the dominant group, and that might be very daunting, as I said, very scary as well. And so we should understand those kind of feelings from dominant group to some extent as well. But it's the extremes at both ends that dominate the debates, and they're determined to be hostile to each other. And as I already said earlier, I think that actually most people are empathic and are willing to talk to each other, and that might not always be common ground, that might always be different of opinion, but at least it's a shared space where they can talk to each other. While the extreme versions of the debate, extreme positions don't want to talk to each other, and that of course precludes any debate whatsoever. And so I also think that moderate conservatives are fed up with the intolerant views of the extreme right-wing pundit, as well as some liberals are really confused about what won't people tell, poke between brackets, between aircodes, what radical liberals are asking. But there is no, or there seems to be no alternative in the debate right now. It's either you're an extreme conservative or you're a radical liberal. And I think that many people in the middle are actually just willing to talk to each other. They might have different opinions, but at least they want to work with each other, I think.
SPEAKER_04:But they almost need a dominant voice, don't they? Because the centrist position doesn't seem to have a dominant voice.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_04:Even though it probably reflects most of the thinking of most of society. Yeah. So the dominant voices seem to be these extremes. And this is it's a huge challenge to me because I am aware of this, that my terror at what is going on in the world at the moment is the same terror that is felt by certain people on the right about things that are extreme left.
SPEAKER_00:Oh, yeah, definitely. Yeah.
SPEAKER_04:You know, and I think that there has to be a little bit of nuance in those conversations, that not all people that have right-wing views are bad people. You know, and I think that you're right. So I think that's what needs to change. There needs to be a dominant centrist voice that kind of comes out of all of this. So that the majority of people that are basically in the middle somewhere have somebody that they can follow. Because actually, if their only choices are one or the other, then they're forced to go to extremes. You know, I I do bring it back to Buddhism quite a lot just because it seems to make sense in our current climate, which is this idea of the middle way, that when you live your life to extremes, it's dangerous and it's you know harmful. And so you should always try and find that middle way between two extremes. So we just need a politician that's going to take up that button.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, that's very Aristotelian as well. Aristotle said basically the same thing of finding the midway, basically. Yeah, and I also think so. I don't want to blame the media of everything, but it's the media and the public discourse who makes those extremes quite attractive. We talk about people like Donald Trump, for example, as a colorful person, while a more moderate person would be described as being grey or boring, you know, and that's very difficult to cope with, I think. Yeah.
SPEAKER_03:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, no, I'm just giving it as an example that there are many many other people in the UK as Alberto who would qualify as as powerful but extreme people, I would say.
SPEAKER_04:Yes. Yes, I definitely have centrist um opinions about him. Well, so if you could wake up tomorrow then, because you know what needs to change is a big picture and it's quite overwhelming. If there was one thing that you could wake up tomorrow and it was different about the world, what would you want that one thing to be?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, so I found this a really hard question because there are so many problems currently, I think, in the world. But I am going to say again, empathy. But please hear me out. It's not because of the tunnel vision that I have on the EDI project. I think that empathy is more important in a much wider sense as well, in a much wider context. As a humankind, we're faced with many big challenges like climate change, environmental pollution, etc. They're huge and we're all in it together. But rather than actually providing a united front and trying to tackle them together, we're always distracted by some petty wars and conflicts and division that don't help us in the long term, not even in the short term, let alone in the long term. While on the other hand, we've shown to be able to do so many great things if we collaborate together. For example, we've eradicated smallpox, we developed technologies that were unimaginable a couple of decades ago, we've achieved so many scientific advances, and I don't want to be lyrical or woolly or utopian or anything about it. But just imagine what we could do if we would not be distracted by our differences and our pretty divisions, but rather work together, not being distracted by those differences, and trying to make each other's lives easier and trying to make society the best society that we can have. And I think that genuine empathy is both a requirement and an enabler for that kind of collaboration. It's both necessary as well as it will promote this kind of collaboration.
SPEAKER_04:Yeah. And do you know what? I think that as educators, we are in a very unique position to be able to provide conditions for empathy with our young people. And what I mean by that is get people in. Contact theory. If they meet somebody that has a view, they're more likely to be empathetic than if it's just uh an educational cognitive idea of a view. So I just think give your young people as many opportunities to meet different people from different walks of life with different ideas as possible. Because the more contact you have with people that are different from you, it's a fertile ground for empathy. Yeah. You can't force empathy. You can't say, right, if this person thinks this, therefore you have to be empathetic. It will happen naturally as children have those interactions with different types of people. So I think that's maybe a challenge for us as humans is to go out and meet different people and that think different things and travel the world and have those experiences. But actually, you know, an opportunity that we can provide for our young people. Wow. So this has been incredible. Thank you so much. And I think that what we've done is we've talked about things from an individual level, but also a societal level, but also kind of like globally as well, within sort of, you know, an hour and a quarter. So, you know, we've gone through some really difficult, some really tough, some really challenging ideas, but I don't think there's going to be anyone listening who is not on board because I think this is predominantly listened by a lot of educators and RE teachers and This is kind of our bread and butter. This is kind of the reason we get up in the morning. So thank you so much for bringing your wisdom and your knowledge to us today.
SPEAKER_00:No yet, thank you for having me. And if people have a reaction, then I won't know it's so they can always send me an email.
SPEAKER_04:Yes, so obviously if the Birmingham University So Walter Peters from the University of Birmingham hit him up. And thank you so much. My name's Louisa Jane Smith and this has been the RE podcast. The podcast for those of you who think R.E. is boring, but it's not. It is vital to give our students a way to challenge the dominant voice, which undermines their human rights and gives them the skills to make society stronger and better and help them strive for self actualization. But thank you so much for listening to us board the life out of you.