Can D&I be apolitical?

In this episode of D&I Digest, Teagan and Henry take on politics, and how we approach ideas of diversity and inclusion being politicised. It's a big, heavy topic and we bring up some potentially sensitive points, so please take care of yourselves when listening.

The articles we use are:
'This is one thing Marc Andreessen says you shouldn’t do at work'
''We don’t have a political button we can flick on and off’: Business leaders rally behind maintaining open dialogue at work for DEI progress.'

If you have a question for us, then you can submit it through this form.

Music used is:
Who Do You Think I Think You Are? by Mini Vandals

Transcript

H: Welcome back to another episode of D&I Digest. I'm Henry, I use he, they pronouns. 

T: And I'm Teagan, and I use she, her pronouns. 

H: We make up the diversity and inclusion team at Anchor, which is an organisation that specialises in housing and care for over 55s. So we're kicking off season two with a pretty controversial topic today, unlike us, right? So in our jobs, we often hear phrases like, "Well, not to get political but-” or “leave politics at home today,” and even like my personal favourite is, “We can agree to disagree.” So, today we're kind of discussing whether conversations around diversity and inclusion can actually be apolitical and actually leave politics out of it. So, what do you think so far? Have you heard any of those phrases? 

T: Every day. 

H: Yeah. 

T: Every single day. I do think there was a point in time when we were having discussions, maybe they couldn't be seen as overtly political. 

H: Yeah. 

T: I think that has changed dramatically over the last maybe ten to five years. I would say actually sort of post-Brexit- 

H: Okay, proper watershed there. 

T: Yeah, absolutely. So 2016, I think with the rhetoric around immigration, particularly when we were looking at the Brexit campaign, I think for me, that’s when I noticed a shift in these types of conversations and whether they felt political or not. Now I am willing to concede here that that might just be my awareness and there's been the circles that I were keeping. I've always been very into politics and I've always been into having these types of discussions to understand the nuance of human behaviour and how that interacts with our political leanings, class system etc. But for me that felt like a very big flag in the sand for when we had a very different idea of what politics could be when it came to human life essentially. But yes, to answer your first question, I hear these phrases, if not daily, definitely weekly. 

H: Yeah, they're pretty staple aspects of work really. It's interesting though because as you were saying that with regards to like Brexit being a bit of a moment for this, I was thinking because like I studied history, and you've always kind of got those points where people are using a group of people as scapegoats. 

T: Oh, for sure. 

H: So, yeah, I was just kind of thinking like, was that apolitical then? Or is it just a different understanding of diversity and inclusion? 

T: Sure. 

H: And I wonder as well whether, because again, like, D&I in a corporate sense is still relatively new. So I wonder actually if maybe that's the bit that's changed as opposed to the politics side of it is that this has now been legitimised in businesses and granted that space and authority to talk about this. 

T: I think it's important to perhaps give a bit of an understanding of what we mean when we say ‘political’ 

H: Oh yeah, that’s a good point. 

T: A lot of the time as well. So are we talking about, particularly in this country, your political leanings and how they marry up almost with your values, beliefs and ethics? Or are we talking about something entirely different when we say political? 

H: This is interesting because I don't know if it's easy enough to separate out, especially in a conversation like this. I don't know if defining it means that you're only talking about half of the conversation? 

 T: Okay, yeah. 

H: Because I think that's a huge part of it obviously is the thing that you do when you go into a voting booth or not I suppose, that's a political decision too. But again like bringing in like the values and the morals into it, that's kind of an additional I would argue weight into that political leaning. And then there's also like the way that you act your politics in daily life and the values that you carry through from politics into work, into living. So yeah, I wonder if there is an easy point to split it, so that we can make the conversation a bit neater, or if it is just a messy one. 

T: I mean, my gut tells me it's the latter to be honest. 

H: Yeah, it's an interesting one because where is the point where it does become political or talking about human rights. 

T: Exactly. And this is always the conflict, isn't it? And it's like, okay, well I’m struggling to see sometimes how we can make a differentiation between the two and why we do that.  

H: And also I suppose with if we're talking about D&I particularly focused on the protected characteristics, which I know like actually lived experience tells us that that's not really a thing that we can do but class isn't. 

T: No. 

H: So actually does that mean that we can talk about that purely politically? Or is there still a D&I lens? 

T: Yeah, absolutely. I mean I think it’s a really interesting question because whilst you are correct, you know, class is not something that's protected under the Equality Act 2010. It is definitely something that rules our life as British people. 

H: Yeah, and it's also something that we bring into our work as diversity and inclusion professionals. 

T: And you could argue that a lot of the intersectionality that someone experiences will dictate what class they end up in. 

H: Yeah, it's hugely dependent and reliant on that. 

T: Exactly. So I don't think you can have one without the other.  

H: No, I agree.  

MUSIC 

H: So we'll start today with an article that argues against politics being included in D&I conversations. 

T: Ooh, are we doing it proper debate style? 

H: Yeah! 

T: For and against, love it. 

H: I don't know whether we'll stick with this all the way through.  

T: Well..! 

H: But the thought's there. So this one's from Business Insider, Netherlands. It's also in Business Insider, but that had a paywall, so we're using the Netherlands version.  So this is from November, 2024, and it's called, "This is the one thing Mark Andreessen says that you shouldn't do at work.” But I'll be honest, he's not really in the article. He's kind of used as a title, that's about it. So the article sets the scene with the notion of bringing your whole self to work, which we have heard a lot- your face tells me everything! 

T: I'm rolling my eyes. 

H: Yeah, it starts with this idea and how it's a nice idea but often comes with terms and conditions and that one of those terms and conditions is often politics. Last April, when Google fired 28 employees who staged sit-ins over the company's contract with Israel, the CEO at the time said that some actions weren't appropriate for the office. So he said in a memo to employees, "This is a business and not a place to act in a way that disrupts coworkers or makes them feel unsafe, to attempt to use the company as a personal platform or to fight over disruptive issues or debate politics.”  

T: Okay.  

H: Yeah. 

T: I don't disagree with that. 

H: Okay. 

T: Interestingly enough. I think, does that sound wild coming from me? 

H: I'm surprised actually, yeah. 

T: Okay, to give a bit more context, I do agree that as a place of work people come to work to do their jobs. 

H: Yes. 

T: I also agree that you can have whatever political leanings and associations you want that is entirely up to you. 

H: Yeah. 

T: But if the organisation that you're working for actively goes against your values as a person- 

H: Yes. 

T: I think that probably tells you everything you need to know about whether you should be working there or not. 

H: Yeah. 

T: You can't possibly expect a corporate organisation to look kindly on the fact that you're disrupting work for other colleagues and potentially losing their money in the process, but I mean, that's just like, it's a big capitalist nightmare, isn't it? So putting that aside, we know why businesses run. We live in a capitalist society, unfortunately. I'm not getting into it. But that's where we are. Is it appropriate then to be disrupting other colleagues at work? I don't think so. I spend a lot of my personal time outside of work campaigning for things that matter to me. 

H: Yeah. 

T: Whilst I know that the organisation would support me in doing that, I don't think it work is an appropriate place to bring that here. 

H: Makes sense. 

T: If I'm honest. 

H: Yeah. 

T: So I agree with his sentiment about not bringing it to work I also agree with the sentiment about them being able to protest and stand up for what they believe in. I think that’s fine. 

H: Yeah, yes, to be fair, actually, what he's saying on paper, I think I do agree with like you say: like it's a professional environment it's not the platform for it it's not particularly effective platform for it either. 

T: Not really. 

H: I don't know how realistic it is I think that's where my doubt comes around with this. 

T: Sure. And I think you're right in the sense that we spend so much of our time at work. 

H: Yeah. 

T: We're here for you know 40 plus hours a week and if you're someone that's working in the US it's probably a lot more than that because of the different laws and regulations around employee rights. But I do take issue with the idea of bringing your whole self to work. I think it's cute. 

H: Yeah, I think that's where my issue with this kind of sentiment stands of like kind of saying that, yeah, you can bring your whole self to work, but in the same sentence, same sentiment saying, but this is a business, it's got to stay business appropriate. 

T: Yeah, that's completely conflicting information. You either want people to be their whole authentic self insert buzzword here, or you don't. You want people to come here, be their professional selves, take their work seriously, respect their co-workers to your standard and your policies, and then go home. And that's also fine. 

H: Yeah. 

T: But you can't have both. 

H: But you need to be clear on where that line is, definitely. 

T: I agree. For me personally, I would struggle coming into work and be in this like, unmasked, unveiled version of myself that maybe only my husband sees at home. Nobody needs to see that work. Nobody wants to see that work. I just, I think it would be incredibly inappropriate. And I think there has to be some self-preservation here as well. 

H: Yes, yeah. 

T: There are different hats that I wear with different people. And I do that as a way of making sure that I am not making myself too vulnerable to the wrong set of people essentially. 

H: Yeah, I think that's another side of it as well, that whole kind of bringing your whole self to work actually isn't always wanted. Like it's lovely to invite it, but actually I think a lot of people would be really reluctant to do that, at least to a full extent. Yeah, I find it an interesting one certainly because I find it quite difficult to separate, particularly from like a values kind of moral side of things. I find it very hard to separate that. I think if hypothetically in a workplace I was told to just leave that aside for the moment and focus for example wholly on a business case for something, I would really struggle with that. It would be like writing in a different language for me. 

T: Yeah totally. 

H: But I also appreciate that there are situations which lean more heavily on that side of things and that kind of have to take a little bit of a step back from it, but not necessarily putting it in a whole different ballpark, if you like. 

T: I think you hit the nail on the head, it's nice to invite it, but don't expect everybody to participate. 

H: Yeah. 

T: Because you're right, I think if we, especially me and you, if we were forced to come to work and only look at things from a D&I lens with a completely corporate view on things that would be incredibly odd for a start and it would really- 

H: Make life very hard as well. 

T: Yeah because it's flying the face of our values so we're not able to do that but also as two people, and I don't want to speak for you, but as two people that are probably quite high masking 

H: Yeah 

T: Because of autism, I'm pretty confident that not everybody will be able to cope with me unmasked version of me. 

H: Too much for you. 

T: You know what I mean? 

H: They don’t deserve my full- 

T: I don't think that people aren't ready for that. It would be quite a different version that they'd get and I just don't think that maybe that would be very well received in the workplace so I opt not to. 

H: Yeah and also the other side of that is that, again I don't want to speak for you but I've kind of been trained out of that. 

T: Oh god yeah. 

H: So actually to bring my whole unmasked self to work would be a lot of effort. To have to kind of go, “Right hang on, this is who I am, but I've been told not to, but no I'm gonna do it consciously anyway." Like that's a lot. 

T: Yeah, it's really strange isn't it? 

H: But in this article, Ella Washington, a professor at Georgetown University, said that, "The idea of bringing your whole self to work is supposed to encourage authenticity, and that workplaces need to define what's acceptable-” Which is what we said, “-So that workers can determine whether those values align with their own. She said, “When it comes to business, it shouldn't just be based on our own personal politics. And I know that's difficult for people to say because it's like, okay wait, I can bring my whole self to work but I can't talk about politics.” Which I think I kind of relate to because actually it's not that easy to separate the two for me, like my morals are quite linked to my politics, my politics I've chosen because they're linked to my morals. Yeah, that separation of my whole self doesn't really line up for me. 

T: Mm-hmm.  

H: And Jake Tellcamp, an assistant business professor in Georgia, said that fraught discussions over politics at work tend to leave people feeling depleted. I could not agree more with that, Jake. Thank you. That, in turn, can leave them feeling less inclined to help their co-workers, and that the fights aren't likely to change someone's mind. He added that people should focus on making people feel valued regardless of their background because that reduces the negative effect of having liberals and conservatives on a team together. So this bit I find quite interesting because it's the first time that brings in like fighting about politics. The other bits have been like talking about it and bringing that into a workplace. This one's like: it means that people fight. 

T: Yeah. Yeah, it's an extreme, isn't it? I mean how many times have you fought about politics at work? 

H: None? 

T: None, me either. And considering the jobs that we do, you would think that we would be the people that that would happen to most frequently? 

H: I was gonna say though, I think I- At some points I've had to hold myself back from it. 

T: Okay. 

H: I haven't because it's not been a professional thing to do. 

T: Right, okay, yeah, yeah, yeah, fine. But I think that kind of, almost argues against his point of like, actually fighting about politics isn't allowed in a workplace because it's fighting, not because it's talking about politics. 

T: Was this written by someone who's British? 

H: No, it's an American focus which does explain a lot of it. 

T: It does, exactly. So I was going to say, to offer some context then, here, I think it's highly likely that you'd be working in the US and you may have more overt discussions in the workplace around this because they would feel more comfortable doing that, but the unique sense of Britishness that we have over here- 

H: We're just awkward about it. 

T: It's not appropriate. There is rules and regulations around conversation, particularly in the workplace, particularly when you meet someone who- 

H: What is it, money and politics. 

T: There we go, I was just about to say. We all know this: You don't talk about money, you don't talk about politics, you don't talk about religion. Those are the rules, especially when you're meeting somebody because that's too contentious in order to have a polite conversation and keep everything superficial and lovely and all the niceties that come with this idea of what it is to be British. 

H: It’s the idea of small talk isn't it? Is that you're creating that safe space.  

T: Exactly. 100%. 

H: And politics isn't one that you start a safe space with. Usually. 

T: Exactly that. 

H: Unless you know for sure you're in like company. 

T: Talk about the weather. Talk about your day. Talk about the sale that's on at Next. Like, you know, and it is that idea of creating a safety around small talk.  

H: And sussing people out as well. 

T: Yes, it is. I should just say, can't stand small talk. It boils my head. It really does because I don't know what we're talking about here it just feels a little bit pointless but I also appreciate that to make other people feel comfortable I can't just go in and go so what do you think about the latest film that's come out because that just feels a bit odd doesn't it? “Hello my name's Teagan I've just gone to see this what do you think of it?” “Uh... you're strange.” But you know, I so appreciate that there's got to be some sort of niceties around some of these conversations. So the idea of having this sort of like fraught discussion in a workplace about politics and you know shouting over computer screens and being like "Well I think that's disgusting you shouldn't-” can't imagine it, never seen it, don't think it's ever gonna happen. 

H: Yeah it's been interesting though because like while I've not had fraught discussions over politics and fights over politics, I have been told that I've been too political in talking about me. 

T: Yeah. 

H: I would argue that that is not political. I've been talking about my life experience, but I've been yelled at for getting political, where I've been talking about trans rights. 

T: Yeah. 

H: And so I agree with the whole kind of, you know, actually this is just being polite at work, like this is being professional, maybe don't yell at your colleagues, like just generally, I think that's a good rule of thumb. But also, to do that, everyone needs a solid understanding of where politics finishes, which it doesn't. 

T: Exactly. 

H: And also the people that that's going to hit the most, and the people who are going to get told that they are being too political, that they need to leave these conversations out of the workplace are always going to target a particular group of people. 

T: Yeah, and I guess this goes back to our earlier quandary at the very start of this discussion where we said, you know, what's political versus human rights? How can you sit there in front of somebody who's living their life on a day-to-day basis dealing with a rhetoric of transphobia and look them in the eye and say to them, "Oh actually I don't want to have this discussion because it's too political.” 

H: Yeah. 

T: No. That’s not how it works. 

H: Like something being politicised is different. 

T: Yes. Absolutely. Yeah. 

H: So I think there's a conversation to be had there and one that I found myself at the brunt of a few times and even things like where I've not been directly involved things like immigration conversations been told like "Oh let's leave the politics at home shall we?” And I'm like- 

T: No no, let’s not! 

H: Like this isn't politics? 

T: Yeah, I mean it's always that kind of like family trope at Christmas, isn’t it? It's like, oh you know, I was always the one that got the eye roll around the table as being the one that was, you know, in inverted commas, too political and upsetting everybody on Christmas Day over turkey and mashed potato. So we've talked a lot about this idea of professionalism and we've both said that it's appropriate to act with professionalism in the workplace. But how does that interact with this idea of authenticity? Can you be both professional and authentic at the same time? 

H: I think yes. 

T: Okay. 

H: And I think, to be fair, a big part of that has come from having been taught how to debate? In that I like to think of myself as quite an eloquent person, and I'm quite good, I think, I hope, at de-escalating things. And we've talked before a lot about kind of saying, "Oh okay, why do you think that?” And that's a discussion, that's not going, that's racist! So you can do it, I think, because actually I would argue that a part of being professional is encouraging that in others and if someone feels emboldened to spout bigotry I think it's a professional thing to do is to kind of say that's not really an appropriate work conversation.  I'm not sure though where that comes in reverse. I'm kind of thinking would it be appropriate for someone to say that they don't find me talking about my lived experience appropriate? Is that professional too?  

T: Okay 

H: Yeah, so I'm kind of looking at this very much from an anti-bigotry perspective, but I'm also aware that this has been used in reverse as well so I'm not sure on that side of it because I'm definitely biased. 

T: Yeah, whilst I don't think that professionalism and authenticity are mutually exclusive, what I do think is that you can't ever be truly authentic whilst being truly professional. Does that make sense? 

H: Yeah. I think there's always gonna be an element that you have to compromise. 

T: Yes, on one or the other. 

H: Unless you are the CEO and have built your whole company- 

T: Sure. But even then! 

H: But even that, because the idea of marketability is politicized. So yeah, there's always gonna be an aspect that you've got to compromise on. 

T: One or the other. 

H: I suppose though, it's whether or not that the thing that you have to compromise on is fundamental to your core beliefs, or if it's a peripheral thing. 

T: I agree and I think and I actually do believe that it really does depend on who you're talking to. People will get a very different version of me depending on who I'm speaking to. I speak to you every day I'm sure you'll agree that the version that some people get when we're in a larger meeting is probably very different than what you get. 

H: Yeah, likewise. 

T: Yeah, right. So because of that the trade-off is probably sliding towards a more authentic scale rather than the other side of it which feels, you know, kind of super corporate dead professional and really superficial sort of surface level of "Yeah let's just get the job done.” 

H: And also like I guess the types of conversation that you're having are gonna be different? Like we’re the only two people in our team, the way that we talk gets very political because, well firstly, I hope anyway, we've created a space that allows for that. Probably helps that we're on the same side for a lot of things. So these discussions don't devolve into fights. So far. 

T: So far. I mean, you know, there's always time.  

H: Always time. But I suppose in a meeting where there is an agenda for something needs to be decided or planned or whatever, a lot of those conversations probably won't creep in. Unless you've got some wild associations of small talk. So there's probably already a line of professionalism being created in that situation, because you don't, generally I would say you don't attend a meeting to do the small talk and to get to know people. You join a meeting to do the purpose of that meeting. The small talk is helpful to nudge people into it but you're never gonna cover intense topics it's gonna be things like how was your weekend? 

T: And I guess actually that's probably where the COVID work from home shift has maybe undone a lot of the idea of being authentic at work. 

H: Yeah I think that's definitely true. 

T: Because you don't get that anymore because you're not building those relationships with people over the five day in the office seeing the same faces every day that you're gonna interact with. 

H: Yeah. 

T: So actually what happens is you are probably meeting someone for the first or second time, you go in, like you say, you've already got an agenda, you're meeting for a purpose, and because of that you do sort of like the light touch five minute small talk and then it's straight into it. So you haven't really got that opportunity to be authentic because people don't know you. And that's kind of been taken away at this point because there is more working from home and less ability to build relationships with people that you're seeing all the time in the flesh.  

H: Yeah, that's very true, especially working from home a lot of the time, you tend not to like call someone for a chat? 

T: Mm, no. 

H: Unless you've kind of got that relationship, but most of the time that you're talking to someone it's a directed conversation like you’ve put in something in the diary and you're like "We are talking about this thing I'm on a time limit we don't have time to get involved in all of this, we've got a job to do!” 

T: Yeah, that’s it. 

H: It's an interesting one though because professionalism for us probably looks quite different as well. Yeah, it's kind of tie in with the idea of things being politicized. That does touch a lot of our world. 

T: It does. 

H: And so there are conversations that we've probably had to have that are more political because that's the nature of the beast. But actually I don't think in any of those work related conversations on those topics, I've never been told that I've been too political in those. 

T: No. 

H: Probably because people have signed up to them, a lot of it is opt-in. 

T: Yeah. 

H: But yeah, an interesting line to draw if possible. 

T: It is. 

MUSIC 

 H: Our second article today is from 2021, so a bit older, and from Worklife News, and it's called “We Don't Have a Political Button We Can Flick On and Off: Business leaders rally behind maintaining open dialogue at work for DEI progress.” So this article starts by saying that when companies shut down social and political conversations, they'll struggle to make progress with diversity and inclusion. 

T: Mm, okay. 

H: Which pretty much kind of sums up the whole article to be honest, so that's their introduction and conclusion. Rich Miles, the CEO of the Diversity Standards Collective, said that “Structural racism, unconscious bias or outdated processes that don't offer equity to all, can't get called out if people can't talk about them. These kinds of issues are rooted in political discourse-” Which I think we've kind of touched on already. 

T: A lot of the time, yep. 

H: Yeah. Alison Gilbert, the DEI and Communications Manager at marketing agency WRAP, pointed out that these issues illustrate how inherently political our lives are today and being in a workplace doesn't wave that away. She said we don't stop being a Black woman, disabled, queer, or an immigrant when you're performing your job. And lastly Gabby Leung from Hcode added that "Political talk isn't optional for some employees. The decisions of politicians and sentiments around highly politicised items often weigh heavily on those who identify as members of marginalized groups.” So I think this is kind of what I was erring at in the last article, kind of actually things are politicised against our will and therefore what do I do? Just not talk about me? 

T: Yeah, exactly, yeah. You know, I don't stop being Black, I don't stop being queer, I don't stop being autistic, as soon as I walk through the door. Sorry that unfortunately people like myself and the wider community have found ourselves at the center of discussions that quite frankly we don't want you to have. 

H: Yeah, quite frankly I'd really rather this didn't happen. 

T: Really! So I absolutely agree with that sentiment of well that doesn't stop when you walk through the door so how can the conversations around these topics stop as well? 

H: Yeah. 

T: What do you think about? being able to try and shield your other colleagues from these conversations or try and avoid them where possible? Do you try and avoid them where possible? 

H: I don't, for better or for worse. I'm very happy to be criticised or not, but I don't think it's something that I should have to hide. For a lot of my professional life, kind of been of that opinion. I don't know whether I'm thinking of it a little bit differently because for me it's not- now anyway- being trans isn't visible so actually in wanting to not talk about that, I would probably have to bring it up and then backtrack from it. 

T: Oh, okay, yeah. 

H: It's often not something, at least directed at me, not something that kind of comes up as an authentic bit of conversation, if that makes sense? 

T: Okay, so follow up question to that then. Has there ever been a point in the workplace where you've been invited into a political discussion that just kind of came out of nowhere? 

H: Yes. Not in this job, in another job I do remember. I think it was probably around an election time, and actually at this point it was when I was probably a little bit less comfortable? It was a less safe environment to be talking about it in and I remember just kind of removing myself from the situation because it wasn't something that I wanted to land myself in and be like “Oh yeah that group you're talking about? That's me” 

T: Okay. 

H: Because that would have been dangerous potentially. To be honest I think that would be a bit different now. In the wider world the conversation's moved on, it's become a bit less insidious and a bit more... people feel more comfortable talking about like trans people as a bit of a kicking sack, you know? 

T: Sure. 

H: So I think now because people are feeling a bit more confident in those conversations, I think I feel a bit more confident to speak up on behalf of people in the effort to temper it slightly, and I think for me now it's become less of a politicised conversation and more of a I need to pitch myself as an ally in this situation. Like if someone's going off about immigration, I think now I would feel obliged to say I don't think that's the full story, I think there's a very different perspective to be told, these are all still human beings, maybe we should talk about them like that. But I wouldn't- and this is an interesting one actually- because I wouldn't link it to a political conversation, I would link that to me trying to be an ally, or at least, at the very least, provide an alternate view so that everybody in that room knows that that's not an overwhelming thing that everyone agrees with? 

T: Yes! Yeah and this is one of the most important things about allyship actually it's like sometimes someone just needs to- 

H: Signalling. 

T: Yeah someone just needs to stand up and say "Oh just to let you all know this is not how we all think!” 

H: Yeah. 

T: “This is the opinion of one person and one person only” just to just to give you that beacon to let you know that's the case, it's really important. 

H: Yeah definitely, well going back to what we were talking about in the introduction, there's an interesting point there as to whether it's allyship or politics, or even lived experience versus politics because again I've had it a few times where someone's kind of been on the edge of delving into dangerous territory while talking about trans people and not realised that I am one of them. And again just kind of those throwing it out there like, “Oh really? I know someone that applies to and I don't think that's true.” Even if I'm not like, landing myself in it. 

T: Yes. 

H: Sometimes I think just kind of going like, "Oh no, this is a real thing that affects real people and you're not treating it like that.” Can at least shut them up for a moment, which makes me feel a lot better. Or potentially make them think about it a bit differently. 

T: Yeah, absolutely. I still think in my mind somewhere and I don't know why I've still got this separation almost but for me, if someone said oh do you want to have a conversation about politics? I’d be like yeah, let’s discuss the fiscal responsibilities of this country. For me that's still where I'm going with it. Like yeah let's talk tax, let's talk- 

H: Like the economy? 

T: Yeah, let’s talk strategy of how we're budgeting for schools. Do you know what I mean? 

H: Interesting. Cause I'm coming at it from a very different perspective 

T: Yeah, so for me when someone says “Oh, you know, the discussion is political,” I'm like, well whose policies have been talking about? Who's in trouble? What do we not agree with? And then we kind of go down this route, it's like "Oh well I said that I don't think it's appropriate that we're enforcing - I don't know - pronouns in the workplace,” and I'm like "Oh right well that's not what I had in my head.” 

H: Real left field discussion there! 

T: You know what I mean? Like that's not what I had in my head when you said to me that someone's had a political discussion. 

H: That's interesting. 

T: Because for me we're talking about human rights we're talking about actual real life living breathing people that you are working with, you live in a society with. So to outwardly have opinions that would hurt them, which could literally affect them to the point of being abused in the street or having a lower quality of life, doesn't compute with me at all. It really doesn't, I'm afraid.  

H: Yeah and I wonder as well if that's where a lot of these articles are coming out, because I get the impression, and maybe it's because, you know, the first article was from Business Insider, their discussions are probably going to be more economic focused, or economy focused? 

T: Yeah, maybe. 

H: whereas the second article is much more talking about D&I and those kind of social politics, I suppose. Oh, new question then, is there a difference between those? 

T: For me, in my head there is, yeah, but I think- 

H: But also doesn't economic politics rely on how the social has worked? 

T: 100%. Absolutely does. 

H: Again there's like so much integration. Oh this is so interesting. 

T: It is interesting because this is what I mean, like we've had situations in the past where someone said to us, oh it's a very political discussion and I've just been sat there bewildered because I'm just confused as to what they mean. 

H: Interesting, I've got a bit of an anecdote for this one because one of the times where I have been told that I was being too political, I was talking, I think it was around trans awareness week, and I was kind of saying like “Here are ways that you can be an ally, here's the reality of the situation and here's how you can help things. And I was kind of called in to a higher up’s office and was told that I was being too political. And I'm absolutely representing myself here as being very calm and in control I was not, I was on the cusp of crying, but that's not the point- 

T: It's stressful though isn't it, it's difficult. 

H: Yeah, but I kind of pointed out that he had a recycling bin next to his desk. And I was saying like the Green Party exists. That's a political view. Recycling is a political action. A strong one, a weak one, a social one, an economic one, it doesn't matter. Me saying that maybe you shouldn't kill trans people... 

T: I'm failing to see how that's a policy. 

H: Yeah, and I'm failing to see how it's less or more political than recycling. 

T: Yeah, I understand the analogy. 

H: I really struggled with it and it was interesting because I'd brought someone else in to kind of be a bit of a mediator and moral support for me. And this person was very big on the environment. 

T: Okay. 

H: And so yeah, I was kind of saying like last week we had a talk on the environment and how climate change is kind of ramping up and all of this. How is that less political? How is that allowed and normalised and people are very comfortable talking about that, and people aren't comfortable about saying maybe we shouldn't abuse trans people? 

T: Yeah, that just doesn't make any sense to me. Does that not fly in the face of a lot of legislation that we have as well? This is where I can't compute either. Because it's like, you know, going around abusing people is illegal. Like, you know, you don't get to choose who you are hateful towards based on your political leanings, by the way. Like, it is actually just illegal. Hate crime in this country is illegal. And discrimination is illegal. So these conversations that we're having around, "Oh, you know, well, I don't wanna talk about trans people because I don't believe trans people should exist.” That's hate speech. 

H: Yeah Yeah, 100% 

T: We're not talking about, you know policy here. We're talking about Thinking that an entire group of people shouldn't exist. No. For me that's where we're getting into the realms of illegality rather than talking about policy and politics and policy making I just yeah for me that just doesn't make any sense.  

H: Yeah, just feels like there's very a real disconnect. 

T: Massively. 

H: And like this feels like very obvious thing to say but there's so much of it dependent on what the wider world is talking about as well like the things that are acceptable to discuss at work are only acceptable because we've made them so. So where does that line kind of come actually? Shouldn't we talk about how to make life happier for other people like should that not be a very familiar conversation to people? 

T: Right, some things floating around my head, okay. So, you've got the idea of having an immigration policy. Now having an immigration policy on the face of it is absolutely fine. I mean, you could argue it's kind of strange to have an immigration policy at all, but then we're getting into the realms of history and life ownership. There really isn't time to get into that. So, let's just- 

H: Truly, modern situation, as we are now. 

T: Let's just concentrate on where we are in 2025. If you wanna check out our history podcast- no, I’m joking, we don’t have a history podcast. 

H: Seven hours long. 

T: Right. So having an immigration policy and having each political party in this country having an immigration policy makes sense because it's something that you endeavor to make sure happens in the best way possible. 

H: Yeah. 

T: So really it's there for, well it should be for safety measures. 

H: I was gonna say like actually the immigration policy should be to enable it to happen positively. 

T: Correctly, yeah exactly. So it's about making sure that when people are seeking political asylum, where do they go? Who can they speak to? 

H: Staying safe throughout the process. 

T: How do they become a citizen? It's about talking to people about who are just emigrating to this country? What do they need? Where do they go? How do they initiate the process? Having that policy is fine. Where we get into a very nasty situation is we start to create politicised groups of who deserves safe immigration and who doesn't. And this is where the problem lies. So we start saying, "Okay, well, Brown people on boats that are fleeing their country because they fear death, no, no, no, but anybody who's coming from a country where there's lots of people who already look like us with some money, yes, yes, yes.” That is where we start to see the problems. 

H: Yes, 100% 

T: And for me, we've now veered away from understanding policy and politics and we've now politicised certain groups of people. 

H: We're scapegoating now. 

T: We're scapegoating and we are inciting hate. That is the difference. 

H: Yeah, definitely. And I think as well there's always the line of politics as an ideology because, or a theory even, because that's always going to work because it's ideal, yes, it's theory. The thing that, I don't want to say corrupts because I think that's a very heavy word, but the thing that skews that view for better and for worse is the politicians, and I think as well that is a lot of where the disagreement arises: it’s not necessarily in the bit that's on paper. The “pure politics” to the extent you can have pure politics, it's arising around like the awkward conversations, the fraught conversations that are happening when politicians make bold claims and add opinions into the policy or yeah or groups into the policy. 

T: I agree. So there are some clear distinctions happening in my mind now. 

H: Yeah, there's so many. 

T: This has been a fascinating conversation. 

H: I feel like we need the conspiracy board with the red string. 

T: We do, I feel like I need to create a mind map to go alongside this podcast. So here's another one for you. So we'll put a policy around safeguarding children in schools. 

H: Ooh. You know it's a good one here. 

T: You know where I'm going with this now don't you? Me and you can look at each other and get a safeguarding children in schools? Fantastic. 

H: Love that. Love to hear it. 

T: That is a great policy to have. I think if we can protect our youngest in society and provide them with a very good state education mostly when you're looking at policy like this, then happy days. We want everyone to go to school feeling great, happy and safe. Okay, so let's now branch off of that. But hold on a minute. We'll have the safe garding for children, but not the trans ones. 

H: Or another branch of this nonsensical tree is safe from whom? Which, again, cracking one, because, I mean we're straying somewhat from these articles and lurking into another one, but like the idea of keeping children safe in social media, an article the other day that I saw that was very focused on giving parents a lot more autonomy, authority over what their children are seeing. Cool, in theory, if your parents are great. If they're not, who's protecting those children? Do they still fall under the safeguarding policies and protections when the person who's meant to be protecting and safeguarding them isn't? What happens then? And yeah I think there's there's a lot of assumption that goes into it of safe from whom, actually what happens when those safeties fail? There needs to be something, I mean we’ve skewed slightly from the topic, but I think it's that kind of idea of the policy in its, whatever it means, purest form is always going to be read by people. 

T: Yes, and interpreted by those people. 

H: And interpreted, yeah. And that's where the, for me anyway, a lot of the conflicts and contradictions arise and where that policy is just nudged gently into a particular direction and then it quite quickly becomes something that is politicised and talked about 

T: At the detriment of a certain people. 

H: Yeah, and it becomes something very different to the immigration policy that in itself 

T: Works fine, yeah. 

H: So to conclude this article, then, Ryan Dennehy, who's CEO and founder of IT startup, Electric, said that if these discussions around social or political issues reaches the point of distraction and hostility, it's time to think about ways of facilitating those conversations in a healthier and more productive way, rather than silencing them. Spot on. I couldn't agree more. 

T: Yeah, I agree. 

H: And additionally, the view that with the political becoming personal, companies will have to acknowledge that or be left behind, which is also what Afdhel Aziz says as part of his consultancy organization. And the article ends with a quite a nice quotation I think from Julio. Taylor, CEO of Hallen, saying that "Social discourse is vital in moving companies forwards. If you're having to crack down because people have opinions, then the issue isn't the forum.” 

T: Yeah. 

H: Which I love that. 

T: That is nice. 

H: It's a good ending point, I think. 

T: It is. It’s absolutely spot on. It's much like the discussions we probably would have had four years ago if we were doing this podcast. In that if you are a business who fails to see the value in diversity and inclusion and having that as part of your overall business strategy you can absolutely bet that you will reach a point of obsolescence at about ten years time because people don't want to work for organisations that don't care about them. In the same way that people don't want to work for organisations that force them to be silent. 

H: Yes. 

T: And that’s that. 

H: And that's that on that! 

MUSIC 

H: Thank you for joining us for this episode of D&I Digest. It has been a long one and, oh, there's so many branches! 

T: I've got so many thoughts in my head. 

H: I feel like this isn't finished, but it's all just the same thing. 

T: Exactly. I fear people don't want to listen to a 5-hour podcast. So, maybe we may have to return to this discussion later in the year. 

H: I think it's a returnable conversation. 

T: I agree, I agree. Because I think any time that you pick this up, there's going to be something different in it. 

H: I think so, yes. 

T: So, yeah, stay tuned for part two, whenever that may happen. Brace yourself, come prepared. In the meantime though, remember that you can follow us on our website and on social media, and we really hope that you'll come back in and you haven't been put off by this really long conversation about politics. Yeah, please come back and listen in next month. So it's bye from me. 

T: And bye from me. 

Both: Bye!