The woke roll back continues

, it influences the diversity of research they do and their perspectives.

@newmummycwharf1 so your implication here is that only non white reserechers can carry out diverse research so are therefore inferior. Sounds kinda racist to me. HTH

It is of relevance because, at a minimum, it influences the diversity of research they do and their perspectives. Humans are not a monolith

https://www.ukri.org/what-we-do/supporting-healthy-research-and-innovation-culture/equality-diversity-and-inclusion/epsrc/ethnicity-and-race-equality-in-our-portfolio/

Hope that helps

The race of a researcher is of no relevance to the quality of their research, mentioning it is therefore unnecessary unless you are implying that they have special insight because of their ethnicity - so it's racist.

Racism is the belief that a race has specific inherent characteristics that make them inferior to other races. Mentioning race or ethnicity is not racism. Hope that helps

@newmummycwharf1 It's good that you say you are not being distracted from the research - but you still keep pushing the "systemic racism" line without apparently considering the impact that has. Outcomes in maternity are related to antenatal care. What impact do you think it has on willingness to engage with care when your community constantly tells you it's all racist. What impact does it have on NHS staff when they are constantly told they are not allowed sometimes to have a bad day because their dog has died or their partner has dumped them without being told they are racist. Not everything that is bad is racist.

Yes there are racists in the NHS and yes research has been poor - still is in often excluding the female half of the population.

It's actually quite racist to comment on the ethnicity of researchers, but perhaps that's an example of systemic racism for you.

The question of employment equity or LGB groups in employment is a strange one. Overall, this is a group that is better off than average financially, and does well in professional kinds of jobs with good benefits and working conditions.

Of course there can always be some people who are jerks, but the employers role here is to make sure such people keep their jerkiness private and if they don't they are disappointed.

Now that pensions etc can apply to same sex couples, there really isn't much that needs to be done to accommodate LGB people in the workplace.

And the corollary of the jerk thing is that no one can expect that other employees need to affirm or approve of their lives or beliefs or marriages or whatever. That stuff is as inappropriate in the workplace as coming out and telling others you don't approve. So DEI pushing allyship or whatever is inappropriate at a basic level.

Why would you think this would mean getting rid of everyone white and male? DO you know how many non-white, non-male people there are around the country who are very good at their jobs and are valued employees?

DEI should be about ensuring inclusion and equity for all.

It isn't though.

It’s not a case of companies need to stop trying to include and provide equitable opportunities for LGBTQ+ staff and service users, so that they can focus on disabled staff and service users instead. They should be capable of doing both.

Should be but clearly are not doing so.

LNER’s failure is shocking, but sadly I doubt very much it’s an isolated incident. Tbh, providing a safe environment for disabled staff and service users to access transport should be a basic part of what LNER and other transport providers do, rather than being seen as some kind of inclusion function.

Agree, it should be and the big question is why isn't it?

I know the thread has moved on somewhat, but this really stood out to me. A lot of plumbers work alone. You might feel more comfortable having a woman in the house than a man, but what if you were that woman plumber going into any house with these "dinosaur men"? How safe would you feel? What if you/your company were specifically requested by a man because you're a woman?

Do you think that would put you off becoming a plumber? Would it be easier just to choose something else?

I know a lot of carers are women, but they're usually regular visitors and are employed by agencies.

DEI should be about ensuring inclusion and equity for all.

It’s not a case of companies need to stop trying to include and provide equitable opportunities for LGBTQ+ staff and service users, so that they can focus on disabled staff and service users instead. They should be capable of doing both.

LNER’s failure is shocking, but sadly I doubt very much it’s an isolated incident. Tbh, providing a safe environment for disabled staff and service users to access transport should be a basic part of what LNER and other transport providers do, rather than being seen as some kind of inclusion function.

There is a thread running atm about Tanni Grey Thompson being forced to crawl off a train. There are lots of posts describing the awful lack of service and disrespect for passengers with disabilities. I bet all the staff have had compulsory DEI training that contains nothing about helping those passengers.

Shocking story. And yes, easy to feel good about sticking up trans flags on stations while forgetting to provide support for disabled travellers.

To add to the above, this is LNER, the train company in question.

https://www.lner.co.uk/destinations/travel-inspiration/pride-all-year-round/

A sample:
"To support the LGBTQIA+ community at LNER we introduced a number of initiatives, from the launch of pronoun signatures emails, to a Gender Identity toolkit to support our colleagues transitioning, celebrating key events such as Pride and LGBTQIA+ history month and updating our use of the Pride flag to the Progressive Flag as a result of colleagues feedback.

Our workplace reflects and celebrates the communities we serve and we are committed to creating a safe space for our colleagues to feel comfortable and proud to be their authentic selves at work."

This is what DEI Departments should be concerned with and sorting out but instead they are painting pillars in the train station concourse with Pride flags, wearing rainbow lanyards and badges to signal their inclusivity.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/aug/27/paralympian-tanni-grey-thompson-crawl-off-train-lner?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

As detailed in the article this is not a one off this happens frequently but I guess there are no shiny badges, pretty flags or bunting for disabled people and treating them with basic consideration, respect and dignity just doesn't matter.

There is NO justification for treating disabled people like this, none.

It's interesting though, because this demographic really think, as in they are completely convinced, they're immune to the fall out from getting rid of everyone who isn't white and male. Who do they is next in line?

Private businesses in the main don’t focus their DEI policies on disability in particular as this would involve some expenditure to make reasonable adjustments needed - far cheaper to stick up LGBTI banners and flags and call it good.

I still at a loss as to how a prospective employer could know an applicant was same sex attracted at interview stage and exclude them on that basis? Most gay people I know are unidentifiable from straight folk. If it applies to internal moves I suppose that could be an issue if the orientation of the person was known, but really? Does anyone still care about it that much? I’d have thought all the older bigots were pretty much gone even in quite parochial parts of the country.

Race can be much more thorny. I live in a very homogenous part of the country with very few asian, black or mixed race people. Public sector employers in particular are very keen to recruit from this pool as it ticks a box for them. Having recently been involved in a recruitment board I can attest to that. A colleague on another board with two interviewers (her first time on board) told me she interviewed one black candidate but rejected them as they did not score highly enough across the various competency categories. (one doing questions one scoring answers) The other board member who had been until then very methodical with interviewees became very anxious, talking about how nice the person had been and admitted she was concerned about being thought of as racist. Only when she was asked to go through the marking profile properly to see if the applicant had covered the minimum points did she agree this was a fair outcome. My colleague was really surprised at the other board member’s behaviour - she felt she was being fair but the other person was being racist.

This isn’t the case everywhere. At our midsize company (2k employees) we have a fantastic woman in charge of DEI projects. As a result we’ve made one of our offices more accessible (it’s a listed building so no legal obligation but we’ve put a lift in), we’ve got a policy around adjustments for ND individuals and we’ve started taking apprentices from local schools in disadvantaged areas. We’ve also introduced KPIs around female representation in senior leadership.

I really don’t think we should be throwing the baby out with the bath water here.

Several posters have expressed the problems with DEI in many companies way better then I could. Fundamentally, some flags and bunting are way cheaper then making any real changes.

At The end of the day it’s illegal to discriminate on basis of sex, race, disability etc so companies should be following the law.

Exactly. Plastering progress flags and rainbows everywhere is no help to someone who is visually impaired or in a wheelchair. Guidedogs can't navigate rainbow crossings and painting the train doesn't provide more staff to help the wheelchair bound person get on and off.

I think a key issue is that activists for certain groups have become more and more ridiculous in their demands.

I see quite a bit of overlap with some autism activists and trans activists. They suggest that only autistic people/trans people have a right to express views on anything relating to the 'differences' they have and the accommodations that should be in place to address them. They also suggest that in-group people who disagree with them have internalised bigotry relating to their 'difference'.

They also seek to control language and certain behaviours within the workforce and think it's entirely reasonable to expect this without discussion. Furthermore, they expect people who do object to be banned from expressing their objections.

Many HR departments bought in to this but have come unstuck as the activists rarely recognise that employees are there to perform their roles and adjustments are there to allow this. They often think that workplaces are there to supply them with allyship, validation and social justice.

Having said that, some HR departments do think their roles are more about social justice than enabling high performance.

Id agree with this. I don’t think a lot of the DEI initiatives in companies do a lot to help people who need it. It’s generally a focus on a tiny minority with lots of rainbows. To me it seems like companies pay hundreds of thousands to be told they need to centre a trans woman and everyone should have pronouns and all paperwork should be gender neutral ( leading to ridiculous results sometimes) then they are graded on this by the outside company. Also how much you pay can affect your grade.

I mean you could spend the money consulting with your actual employees and spending on support measures but that would probably cost more. I’m sure it’s cheaper to just pay someone to tell you that you are a fabulously diverse employer. I suspect firms are dropping out as public perception of these schemes isn’t great.

Much of the current DEI focuses solely, exclusively on Transgender issues, with no time, effort, energy, or money for other issues (disability, racism, sexism, LGB issues).

As a disabled female, I would absolutely welcome a balanced approach to DEI, that is not merely a front for transactivism.

I wouldn't worry.

These initiatives are/were all wound up in TQ+. So your needs would be ignored but they would get brownie points for pronoun name badges and flying the 'progress' flag.