I am unshakable in my positive view of diversity in the workplace. And indeed everywhere. In a UK work context there is a focus on the protected characteristics “under the act” – rightly so. These are hugely important – that’s why they are in the law. Also, diversity around and outside of this definition matters too.
Solidarity grows when we see the world from the perspective of others and then strive to improve what we do for everyone as we work together.
I also strongly support the need to question what in the USA are called “DEI” policies and projects. That’s because we let everyone down – and specifically those we set out to directly support – if we spend money on things that haven’t been questioned, exposed to (the right kind of) scrutiny and then ruthlessly ditched if they serve no-one.
Seems simple. Diversity policies and interventions (and mindsets and solidarity) bring amazing dividends to individuals, businesses, governments and society when they focus resources on the right kind of things done in the right way. They are a complete waste of money if they don’t do that. Obvious really…
But here is the ironic/self-referential/tricky bit: the way that we assess “the right kind of things done in the right way” itself needs to take a diversity perspective – not least through being participatory with a fully representative set of participants. Not only that, but any methodology we use to assess these things should be equally valuable for the lessons learnt as it is implemented as for the results it produces.
We need to make the technical side of what we do serve the need of our larger aims. Cold, detached and clinical is not the same as robust, relevant and credible.
If what I create with my numbers and words does not reflect the true value of what we set out to achieve then I have failed. On the other side, if I have manipulated my words and numbers to produce the answer we wanted I have failed too.
Once again, I must emphasise that spending money on things labelled diversity but achieving nothing helps no one. We must ensure, in a fully participatory way, that worthwhile results proportionate to the resources put in are being achieved or no-one is well served. The groups and individuals at the heart of diversity action will be let down and we will not see the broad societal gains that flow out of it.
So, does the new direction in the USA support this? Are they questioning the value of what is there – or questioning the fundamental principle that a diverse and inclusive society brings benefit to the whole of society? Do they truly believe they have got there and no more action is needed? Who are the ‘they’ that think this?
I’m not sure anymore. But I am sure that I think more effort is still needed in Europe on inclusive development, implementation and evaluation of actions that supports and embraces those at the heart of disadvantage or injustice.
If we cancel everything, we have failed. If we waste our resources on things that look good rather than do good we have failed. If we follow the fashion without thinking, we have wholly failed.
Can you explain what ‘they’ are up to?
Thanks for reading.