Diversity, Equity, Inclusion

I put in my two cents' worth about DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) and the backlash against it.

Sources:

https://thewalrus.ca/dei-was-always-flawed-but-the-backlash-is-truly-alarming

https://theconversation.com/understanding-the-backlash-against-corporate-dei-and-how-to-move-forward

https://www.catalyst.org/insights/2024/dei-backlash-causes

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20240304-us-corporate-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-programme-controversy

The words I use in the recording may not match the words in the transcript.

Transcript

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion

Over the last month or so, I've heard--and read online--about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and all variations thereof and the backlash against it, and I want to take this opportunity to parse, and offer my two cents, on the topic.

Like no doubt so many others, the first time I heard the initials DEI, it was from white folks saying it stood for 'Didn't Earn It' (while refusing to acknowledge their own unearned privileges); I had to look up 'DEI' on Google to find out it actually stands for 'Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.' And I have to admit, as a white person, I thought--and still think--the idea behind it sounds promising.

However, even I have to acknowledge that the concept of diversity, equity, and inclusion does have its drawbacks.

Longtime activist Angela Davis has stated on the subject of DEI: “I have a hard time accepting diversity as a synonym for justice. Diversity is a corporate strategy. It’s a strategy designed to ensure that the institution functions in the same way that it functioned before, except now that you have some black faces and brown faces. It’s a difference that doesn’t make a difference.” What I take from Davis's quote is that true justice for everyone who isn't a wealthy, cis, heterosexual, able-bodied WASP man will not occur as long as we still play by the rules made and enforced by the most privileged people and demographics in society--at best, we will only get a situation in which historically disadvantaged groups of people perpetuate the status quo--a status quo that has failed them time and again. As Pacinthe Mattar states in her online article for The Walrus, 'DEI Was Always Flawed, But the Backlash is Alarming'; 'For DEI to actually be meaningful, in practice, it had to challenge the status quo of power and who gets to hold it and wield it...diversity was often nearly ornamental in practice, with industries boasting of racialized, minoritized faces they like to feature prominently on websites and brochures. Diversity...is not decoration. If it’s not challenging deeply entrenched power, diversity is only serving it' and 'This application of diversity—one that doesn’t punish those of us who are invited to the table specifically for bringing our perspectives and experiences into our work—of course, flies in the face of the corporatization and co-opting of DEI as a public relations strategy and performative, surface-level representation.' In essence, DEI, as it's thus far been implemented in workplaces, is nothing more than a smokescreen for corporations and society at large, as a way of making those in power comfortable while still upholding and perpetuating the status quo--in other words, DEI as it's established and implemented allows those with power and privilege to have their cake and eat it, too. As Princeton University professor Ruha Benjamin puts it, '"Our Blackness and our womanness are not in themselves trustworthy if we allow ourselves to be conscripted into positions of power that maintain the oppressive status quo. Black faces in high places are not going to save us."'

Then there are those who view DEI as a threat to what they've been convinced is their role and place in society (read: people in the most privileged places).

The (greatly misnamed) People's Party of Canada (a far-right party) defines DEI (on their website) as 'a far-left ideological fad imported from the U.S. which is being imposed on all sectors of Canadian society by the Liberal government. This hateful ideology holds that the dominant culture and the entire institutional structure of Western societies is irredeemably racist, colonialist, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic' and claims that 'DEI is a fundamentally racist, sexist, and discriminatory ideology that divides Canadians into oppressors and oppressed, creates blatant injustices, and undermines social cohesion. Under the pretext of promoting nice-sounding goals, it does the exact opposite: it imposes a uniform far-left perspective, and unfairly gives more rights to some, while excluding others who don’t fit in official categories of victims.' Kim Honey states in her article for theconversation.com that, 'The backlash to DEI efforts is often framed as evidence that the initiative is failing, but it can also be understood as a natural part of the learning process' and 'Traditional approaches to managing DEI backlash often focus on mitigating threat: providing reassurance, avoiding confrontation or encouraging self-affirmation (“DEI isn’t about you; it’s about everyone”). Yet these approaches miss an important point: social identity threat doesn’t have to result in defensiveness or backlash. It can also inspire reflection, learning and growth'; in the same article, Honey identifies what she calls 'social identity threat,' which she defines as: 'When someone identifies strongly with their group — whether as a white person, a man or a member of another dominant identity — they may see DEI (or affirmative action or similar) initiatives as attacks on their assumptions.' (It is my humble opinion that the People's Party of Canada is a portrait of white male fragility and mediocrity, and plays into the social identity threat of privileged people.) Honey goes on further to explain that, 'The backlash against DEI isn’t just about individuals rejecting change; it reveals deeper tensions in how people see themselves and their place in society.' In short, the root cause of the backlash against DEI (or EDI) from people with privilege is zero-sum thinking--the assumption that they will lose everything important to them if the people they historically looked down upon and felt superior to get even the slightest advantage, or even concession.

Granted, as with so many other ideas/programs/institutions, there are bad actors advocating for DEI, but that doesn't mean that DEI itself is bad; DEI, while the ways it's been implemented is, in certain situations, questionable, the idea behind it is admirable, but it could go deeper to help bring forth actual equality.



Sources:

https://thewalrus.ca/dei-was-always-flawed-but-the-backlash-is-truly-alarming

https://theconversation.com/understanding-the-backlash-against-corporate-dei-and-how-to-move-forward

https://www.catalyst.org/insights/2024/dei-backlash-causes

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20240304-us-corporate-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-programme-controversy