Well done Attorney General

‘Places like journalism and politics are now stuffed to the gills with middle-class graduates from good universities who've done humanities degrees and like to talk about "diversity" a lot.’

And many of them are gay, from ethnic minorities, disabled, more are women than ever before. Progress in the areas identified as being pertinent by the EDI teams we are discussing. And the result isn’t great. That’s because it’s actually very little to do with real diversity. It’s to do with stacking the deck in favour of left-wing activists’ views.

Yes, me too.

This is fascinating, just as a starting point, because does it? Haven’t we seen a far more obvious creep of ideological conformity, rather than a widening range of viewpoints and attitudes?

We have, but then, we haven't really had an increased "range of different types of people", have we?

Places like journalism and politics are now stuffed to the gills with middle-class graduates from good universities who've done humanities degrees and like to talk about "diversity" a lot.

Forstater vs CGD was a good example of a company being hurt by lack of diversity. If they'd been more diverse by having more conservatives or feminists in their org, plus maybe been less US-centric, they wouldn't have made such a mess...

I think this has partly been a result of efforts by the Conservative party to tackle their reputation as the 'nasty' party. A reputation added to by things like Section 28, lack of diversity of their MPs and so on.

So in that time we have seen the rapid increase of women and BAME Conservative MPs, particularly within the Cabinet itself - I read somewhere that when Cameron became PM in 2005 there were only 2 ethnic minority Conservative MPs, which seems astonishing now. Same sex marriage finally came in under Cameron too.

But less positively I think it led to a reluctance to oppose anything that could be reported as 'bigoted', a desire to avoid another Section 28 legacy. So ideological activists and lobbyists have been able to embed themselves deeply whilst ministers and MPs have been guided along policy routes they are told leads to the 'right side of history'.

Seeing how hopelessly captured the Opposition party is I think it would have been no different with a 12 year and counting Labour Government either.

‘It breeds discussion...’

Again, does it? Where? What I‘m seeing is a contraction of the ability to discuss things openly.

‘I think having a wide range of different types of people leads to a wider range of viewpoints, skills and attitudes.’

This is fascinating, just as a starting point, because does it? Haven’t we seen a far more obvious creep of ideological conformity, rather than a widening range of viewpoints and attitudes?

Oops, sloppily worded - I want to achieve equality of opportunity, of course.

Absolutely. Equity, especially in the Ibram X. Kendi version, is all about disparities of outcome and not of opportunity. In my opinion it is the latter that we should be trying to achieve, but it's a long-term problem with no quick fixes.

(I think we are pretty much in agreement here, I just wanted to kick your quite good steel-man argument.)

Kick away. One way that people can vary is by race. There are other ways available!

I think we do agree.

In practice, we seem to be getting ever reduced diversity in most of those.

Of course. That's the paradox of evangelical EDI. It homogenises. It reminds me of Monty Python's "Happy Valley" sketch, where everyone was happy in the Kingdom, and anyone who wasn't was sentenced to be "hanged by the neck until you cheer up".

I think having a wide range of different types of people leads to a wider range of viewpoints, skills and attitudes.

Agreed. But the big failure, pretty much at the first hurdle, if you reread that sentence, is that to make DEI in its current form be an effective way of achieving that, you have to believe that people of different races are "different types of people".

Which is pretty fucking racist.

Being of different race can maybe be a quite weak proxy for "different types of people", but you'd do much, much better to search for different economic classes, different academic backgrounds, different political orientations and different nationalities. Those would really get you different "viewpoints, skills and attitudes", and identify more different types of people.

In practice, we seem to be getting ever reduced diversity in most of those.

(I think we are pretty much in agreement here, I just wanted to kick your quite good steel-man argument.)

The problem is not equality, diversity and inclusion. The problem is this weird interpretation of "equity" in its Social Justice sense which has crept in. That's what's gumming up the works. The idea that EDI should only be only about giving certain specified minorities what they want (even if, as the posts above illustate, they don't even want it).

I know your question is a bit rhectorical, but I'm going to answer anyway.

I think having a wide range of different types of people leads to a wider range of viewpoints, skills and attitudes. It breeds discussion, avoids complacency and immobilising conservatism (by which I mean a tendency to do things the way you've always done them because that's what you've always done). It leads to a wider understanding of the people involved in your area of business. It facilitates innovation and original, creative thinking. It leads to an increase in the amount of critical thinking that goes on, leading people to evaluate things in ways they may not have previously thought of. And it leads to a more open minded assessment of people. You notice what more they have to offer in a way that can be hidden in a dreary uniformity. It's a good thing.

Inclusivity requires positive action in that it is frequently not immediately obvious what barriers are preventing people getting involved, and sometimes not even obvious to the people themselves. Again, going out of your way to include people who are not getting involved gives you both a better appreciation of their abilities, and of the internal barriers to getting things done that your organisation may suffer from.

This is all good. And the fact that marketed, evangelical EDI courses often do the exact opposite to this does not detract from it.

I don't have issues with less diverse organisatons either, in principle. But I've been in companies that have collapsed because they never thought of changing. No one challenged the status quo and they boiled frogged themselves into oblivion.

"Only the problem is that the EA spawned EDI and that became solely focused, as another poster has pointed out, on the concept of "the minority". So everything became about the "inclusion" of minority groups... ".

Sort of, but EDI exists quite independently of the EA. EDI is chiefly a US import, from a place where they don't have proper legal protections, and actually can conflict with our proper equality law.

This case I saw today being a case in point - a woman who won at an employment tribunal over being told by an "inclusion advocate" in she must be oppressed because of her race.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11073493/Mixed-race-Sky-engineer-wins-14k-white-colleague-claimed-oppressed.html

However, she won the claim of race discrimination for Ms Cook's comments.

The panel ruled: 'The remark was one particularly concerning the colour of Mrs Bradbury's skin, which is not white.

'It was clear to the Tribunal that the remark was made because of that colour, such that it was a kind of discrimination.

'In short, the remark equated the colour of Mrs Bradbury's skin with her having been oppressed and that she would have felt that oppression, which had not been her view or experience.

'We should make it clear that we did not consider that Ms Cook deliberately used offensive language, nor did she deliberately seek to cause harm.

'It caused Mrs Bradbury understandable distress.'

In the US various Republican states are trying to crack down on "CRT/DEI" things in new laws (as did the Trump administration) - but it seems it may well be the case that our own existing EA does quite a lot to block them.

@Torunette "Only the problem is that the EA spawned EDI and that became solely focused, as another poster has pointed out, on the concept of "the minority". So everything became about the "inclusion" of minority groups... ".

It was activists, some of whom are involved with lobby groups and who also work in HR, who have deliberately distorted the intent of the Equality Act, in my view. I think we can see this in the way that one particular aspect of the Equality Act has been positioned above all others.

It’s really important that people stop thinking of minorities when they think about the EA. Everyone has a sex, an age, an ethnicity, belief or lack of belief, a sexual orientation of lack of sexual orientation, is married or isn’t married, and anyone can be perceived to have any of the characteristics. All of those things are covered by the EA, because what should matter are skill sets, personalities, qualifications, needs etc.

They want to cover their arses though. What tends to happen with legislation like this is the the public sector responds to it by creating a job to oversee it. Thus if they screw up, it lands at the door of said "EDI officer" rather than on the department/organisation/council etc as a whole.

I like the Equalities Act, I have to say. It's a cracking bit of legislation in the most part because it forces the public sector to consider how its policies and spends affect all groups in society, across a range of measures.

Applied correctly, it should stop a council, say, spending huge amount of money to benefit adult males with a sports hobby to the detriment of elderly ladies who knit, but it should also stop them from spending huge amounts on elderly ladies who knit to the detriment of adult males with sports hobbies.

It is an act that should, if applied correctly, be a "balancer": it is about ensuring, to some extent, equality across all ranges.

Only the problem is that the EA spawned EDI and that became solely focused, as another poster has pointed out, on the concept of "the minority". So everything became about the "inclusion" of minority groups, even kind of making them up in some cases, and everybody forgot that, by doing this, they could be inadvertently discriminating against other minorities, but also going against the principles of the EA by not treating "non-minority" groups in an equal manner.

And that's how you end up with a case like Maya's.

The inability of public sector managers and decision-makers to realise this is, frankly, depressing.

+1

@ResisterRex

If the person in question is a service user? Yes, a big company needs a legal department that advises them of the law. A smaller business would be advised to get legal advice.

Companies/public services do need HR knowledge and application but they also need someone who knows the requirements for service provision. For example, what they must provide a disabled person who's travelling by plane.

No organisation needs an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion service. All they need is for HR to know and apply even-handedly the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998, both of which are adequate to deliver EDI.

This is where the EHRC can assist, by providing objective [ie: not influenced by lobby groups] detailed Statutory Codes of Practice.

‘Similarly, diversity is a strength, and it is true that inclusivity requires positive action, though what that action is is often not clear.’

That’s a tenet of EDI, but what does it mean? How is diversity inherently a strength? What positive action is required for inclusivity (you say it’s not clear - so how do we know?).

To be clear, I think hiring policies might (and should) tend towards diverse outcomes because people aren’t discriminating, but I don’t necessarily have an issue with a less diverse organisation, providing it’s an organic outcome, ie it’s not the result of illegal discrimination.

I think EDI training is pretty important. There is no doubt that in organisations the culture benefits some types of people and disadvantages others. I've seen it happen in many of the places I've worked. Similarly, diversity is a strength, and it is true that inclusivity requires positive action, though what that action is is often not clear. The problem with the EDI training that I have been subjected to participated in is that it doesn't deal with any of these issues. It's all catechistic, repeated mantras and sharing pain. It's like going to Church. Ignorance is sin, and a reason for shame. But the point of training is that you come out of it with understanding of your current situation, an action plan and the tools to implement it. I have never been to an EDI training session which actually did this.

Stonewall in the Health Service? Police officers wearing political badges? Teachers deciding whether your child is male or female?

We’re going to need more flags.

I’d vote for that

They need to appoint a really senior Minister for Common Sense. Anything not economic gets put through that office. They green flag, amber flag or red flag policies and send the reds back.

Children transitioning? 🚩

Males in women’s jails? 🚩

You get the idea.