Equality, Diversity & Inclusion: where has this come from?

[MaudeYoung]

From where is this political movement for EDI [Equality, Diversity & Inclusion] derived?

Is it an American import?

The concepts of Equality & Diversity are written in the UK Equality Act 2010; [we are all different and equal]. "Inclusion" [for all] is not. The Equality Act's starting point is that discrimination against any of the listed protected characteristics in specified circumstances is unlawful. That does not mean "inclusion for everyone at all times".

So from where, in UK, is this all-consuming dominant emphasis on "Inclusion" derived?

Also, although I kind of get where you are coming from I am not sure why you think HRs shouldn't be doing things that aren't enshrined in law, the law is like the least amount companies and therefore HRs do.

E.g, by law I am entitled to x number of holiday days, where I work offers 5 more than this at a minimum. Many companies pay over statutory sick pay, pay enhanced maternity leave etc, some pay extra days off for charity work, or allow you to take sabbaticals and come back to your job

So so long as the company is adhering to the law (and I do get that your point may be that inclusion can actually be at odds with it in some cases) theres nothing inherently bad about including additional things.

At this point I would say it's probably best for companies, universities and the like just to completely shut down any DEI department they have

This seems over the top

Our diversity and inclusion team ensure that interview panels have an equal number of each sex to try to avoid bias against women (in a typically male company), they are the people who ensure reasonable adjustments are made for people with disabilities, they ensure that if someone faces racial discrimination or sexual harassment its dealt with.

You might want to change the way things are done, and you may feel the trend towards being inclusive of trans people is not helping women, but dont go throwing BAME people and disabled people under the bus whilst you do it

I think NecessaryScene has it.

One of the real Achilles heels of progressives is their Utopianism, they believe if only they put the right policies in place to stop exploitation, they will get the Good and Just society.

What they don't realize is that every group of human beings, no matter whether the basis of the group is race sex class or something else, has exploiters and chancers. And some of them are of the worst psychopathic and toxic types.

People like that will use any institutional structures to gain power over others. They used the old structures that progressive utopicans wanted to smash, and they will use the new ones those people build to replace them. And if there are no institutional structures they will use violence and charm and wealth and whatever other natural advantages lay to hand.

So of course things like human rights tribunals and lobby groups and equity organizations are used for exploitation. It might be that a slightly different racial or ethnic or reproductive class may be able to make best use of them, although chances are, barring violent revolution, the wealthy and powerful will always make sure they can also do so if necessary. But in any case it will still be the exploiters and sociopaths trying to gain the upper hand.

DEI departments, or even HR departments, aren't the only way to achive these things.

No but they are what we have, without a replacement in place at the time of withdrawing them then people will suffer

So by all means suggest an alternative and lobby for it, if its a good idea I will be there lobbying it too. But dont withdrawn protection from a group of people without another option in place. I've worked in companies without HR departments, some tiny companies are fine, but a lot are absolutely awful

@Tompariswasmyfavorite "... although I kind of get where you are coming from I am not sure why you think HRs shouldn't be doing things that aren't enshrined in law, the law is like the least amount companies and therefore HRs do."

The law is the baseline. One point is that, the dominance of the political agenda that is "Inclusion" is leaving organisations open to litigation. This is evidenced by all the law suits and other challenges currently in progress.

The dominance of the "Inclusion" political agenda is a corruption of our law. It is causing discrimination to arise and is infringing on our human rights in terms of freedom of speech and freedom of association.

If organisations focused on the Diversity and Equality aspects, which are written in law, such law suits and challenges may not arise and everyone would be better off.

And I do get that and I agree that if inclusion is at odds with diversity and equality then it is going wrong and should not be allowed.

But I also see things like support for women going through menopause coming under the inclusion banner in the workplace, along with more awareness around employing neurodiverse people and how to make the workplace more accommodating for them

Ive also seen companies pay more attention to potential employees social background to ensure they are employing people from a range of backgrounds (e.g. professional job applications asking whether you are first generation uni, along with your race and sexual orientation etc)

Yes diversity could cover all of these things so there is no need for 'inclusion' but it also doesn't mean that all stuff that currently sits under the inclusion umbrella is bad

'Inclusion'in schools has a different meaning. Our inclusion lead basically deals with the kids who are in danger of being excluded. It is also often used in relation to including SEN and disabled students in mainstream schools. It predates the current EDI acronym.

To clarify, excluded meaning expelled. Ie serious behaviour issues.

Very interesting question, OP. ‘Inclusion’ is an amazingly convenient principle for men wanting access to women’s areas.

@Tompariswasmyfavorite "But I also see things like support for women going through menopause coming under the inclusion banner in the workplace,"

If those workplaces cannot use the word "women / woman" and if they encourage "use of pronouns" in personal communications, such support is "gesture politics" and therefore meaningless.

Increased integration of children with SEN into mainstream education was kicked off by the 1978 Warnock Report and the 1981 Education Act, not by New Labour...

Actually i spoke to several women after the recent seminars on supporting women with menopause in the workplace and they found it hugely beneficial and not meaningless at all

I genuinely do get your point about men using inclusion to get entry to womens spaces etc

But as a mixed race neurodiverse disabled woman working in tech who is much more welcome in the workplace than I was ten years ago im uncomfortable with the proposition on this thread by a poster to just strip away some of the structural parts of a business that support me.

And yes technically the equalities stuff protects me from discrimination due to being a woman and disabled, but from experience I can tell you that that only happens in larger companies with proactive HR departments

Inclusion is more than just trans. And you cant shout womens rights and ignore disabled people, mixed race and bame people, neurodiverse people etc who may need some of the thing you are removings as a side effect of whats being asked for

It goes back even further than that, and I think it was an American policy, introduced in the 70s, to "mainstream" SEND pupils.
Although the original idea is a good thing, some SEND children struggle in mainstream schools. The provision needs to be carefully planned and managed if it's to be successful, and teachers must be properly trained. Unfortunately, too often it was seized on as a means to save money by closing existing special provision and expecting teaching staff to cope without adequate training.

I think a lot of the DEI stuff has been negative in other areas as well, so I am maybe less likely to be sympathetic. I think most of them are either corrupt or in thrall to corrupt ideas.

I do think that education is where a lot of the inclusion stuff first happened, and although some of it was positive, overall it's been a real disaster for education in quite a number of countries. Certainly the US, Canada, France, among others.

Ive interviewed for small firms where i have been told (all in the last 12 years)

They nearly didnt interview me because my name didnt sound british but they would be willing to continue the interview because I looked white enough
Did i have children or plan to have children when working there
The director is a bit handsy but just make sure you arent alone in the office with him and you will be fine (i really wish this last one was a joke)

These are the jobs i havent taken

The jobs in no hr dept firms i have taken I have had

A director tell me how he wanted to rape me in great detail, I had to leave because there was no one I could complain to
Numerous sexist comments made, comments made about my body, whether I was worth fucking
Being told that the sexist comments would stop when a colleague retired (he was late 50s with no plans to retire so I was expected to put up with it for many years)
Being refused a reasonable adjustment for my diability on more tha one occasion (special shoes which arent 'uniform')
Having rasict comments made to me and managers saying the colleagues were joking
Being banned from having naturally curly hair down because it looks unprofessional and being told I have to straighten it

(This is more than one workplace)

I will never ever work for a small firm without a HR team again. Sexist and racist comments arent made because people are worried HR will find out. I can apply for jobs without worrying my surname will immediately put them off. I dont have to worry about straightening my hair before an interview. I dont even have to mention my disability to a manager, i just log it on my interview form and the HR system and unless I need additional adjustments when it flares up (rarer now i work from home) it never needs to be mentioned again. Im in a team of men and women from a variety of countries and a variety of backgrounds, several of whom are neurodiverse and our workplace accomodates our needs

Hearing someone casually suggest stripping away a department that makes it comfortable, safe and easier for me to go to work is chilling

By all means push back on trans inclusivity if it is causing safeguarding issues like mixed toilets, or if transwomen are getting jobs or awards meant for women etc, I get it.

But some of us actually need a bit of inclusion thanks

It seems to be the case that american academia is the primary root of this stuff. Any culture where the likes of Judith Butler are tenured professors, rather than random nutjobs shouting at pigeons in car parks is clearly beyond salvation.

It's been a disaster because they treated it as a money saving exercise instead of investing adequately in the resources and training needed.
You can't cut corners and penny pinch with something like this, not where children are concerned. It needed to be properly implemented from the start - and it wasn't ☹️

That's certainly true, for it to work at all more would have to be spent.

But I actually think the premise was flawed. Inclusion in the standard classroom is not always the best or most appropriate solution, for either the kids being included or the others in the class.

I've known kids back when I was in school for whom it was really great, they were able to work, they got a lot out of it academically and socially and also I think it was quite positive for other students.

That is not always the case no matter how much you spend, and there were real losses related to getting rid of classes geared to students with various learning issues or other factors that affected their classroom experience. Not least that being the one who is always at the bottom of the class and having to have accomodations and help isn't always the most empowering or enjoyable experience.

Tompariswasmyfavorite

It sounds like the sector you work in has much bigger issues than DEI. I don't think that level of problem is particularly typical though, and I'm not convinced it justifies keeping sections that are rooted in that thinking in all workplaces. Though maybe your whole industry should be binned along with the HR people, it sounds irredeemable.

I work for a US company. We get emails literally every day about DEI. The women's network is chaired by an old white guy. They had a lot to say about BLM, about racism in football, about Russian trolls making comments on the football. They push hard for everyone to use pronouns. Constantly posting about trans rights and supporting women. And then the Roe v Wade thing came along, and....radio silence.

American companies are taking this much further than is required by law. It really took hold with the Black Lives Matter movement. In many ways, it’s a great thing. Companies are doing things like re-examining how they recruit to try to make sure they are reaching groups that might not have heard about career opportunities. There are surveys of employees and remodels of facilities to better serve disabled employees. They are re-examining which days are offered as company holidays to make sure that the days selected are not skewed too far in favor of one group. Lots of good things are happening.

At the same time, there is a degree of group-think and enforced compliance with virtue signaling that has become very obvious. There have also been measures of inclusion that can make other employees feel marginalized. I don’t just mean that they don’t feel centered anymore, I have no sympathy for that.

I think equality principles is great. Equal pay for women employees. Ensuring recruitment practices do not disadvantage people with protected characteristics. Equality of training opportunities, which means part-time staff have the same opportunities as full-time staff.

But these are really, really hard to achieve and expensive.

This is where diversity and inclusion come in. D&I present some 'easy wins' for EDI Professionals. Rainbow lanyards, pronouns, newsletters, webinars. All very visible and comparatively cheap compared with equality measures.

@MaudeYoung as a biracial woman from a lower socio-economic background, I am glad more organisations are taking equity, diversity and inclusion more seriously. It’s still not great, but at least some companies are starting to think about how they can recruit people who feel discouraged from pursuing certain careers (especially the creative industry).

Usually, if there are 2 candidates to a role who both have a first class degree and really high grades at school, then the employer is more likely to go for the candidate who went to a private school. Especially if they have connections due to their mummy and daddy’s jobs and networking parties.