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?

Again, people are not saying, don't make efforts to include people.

THey are saying that EDI is not just about those three words, it represents a specific ideology. And that ideology is not only finding its way into these organizations, the etablishment of positions and departments dedicated to it means it is doing so at a significant rate.

It's similar to the kind of anti-racism that is coming from the US. Those who are a little naive take it at face-value, oh, it's just being against racism, that's great. But no, actually it is a very specific way of thinking about racism and how it is in society and what to do about it. And also it claims that those who disagree with its formulations muct be racists, since they are against anti-racism.

These aren't ideologies that you can reform.

Those of us who are from ethnic minorities, disabled etc really appreciate all of EDI - Inclusion no less than the others.

Quite a sweeping statement on behalf of the rest of us. Some of us actually have grave concerns about the ideological motives behind many of these kind of initiatives, we value diversity of thought and recognise that even well-meaning policies can cause more harm in the long run to the cohesiveness of an organisation, and ultimately society itself.

I don't go to work to be fucking 'celebrated' because I have dark skin and autism. I go to work to do a job I'm qualified for to the best of my abilities and to be paid for it like everyone else. I don't need some self-declared DEI expert to send round corporate newsletters telling me how special I am or hiring/promoting me because it makes the organisation look 'diverse' and 'inclusive' like I'm some special pet.

I recently had to have a medical procedure I was having literally because I can have children (not to help me have children, thats impossible, to deal with some of the negative side effects of my condition)

Before we started the doctor had to ask me if there was any chance I was pregnant. I cant be, she knows that, she had to ask. I answered, the medical procedure happened.

I guess I just think as an example of where inclusion doesnt work goes its quite weak. The man could have just ticked no and got on with his day. I just think he was a bit pathetic to be honest and had less to do with a frustration at inclusion and more to do with his fragile male ego not being able to cope with sitting in the same category, in his head, as women

Sorry, but that's just nonsense.

Conflating Inclusion - which has been around many many years - with a recent extremist ideological US import like CRT is ludicrous.

That sounds like a very Daily Mail and yes, privileged take on EDI by someone who clearly has no idea what it does or what it's for.

If you think you live in a world where e.g. women never experience a sexist environment when working in STEM or where the police are never racist, then go you. The rest of us know that sexist, racist, ableist cultures still exist and can't only be addressed by bringing expensive discrimination litigation. I hope you don't manage anyone if you are genuinely so blind to the impact of working culture on your staff.

Well, up to you, but not sure where you read in my post that I think people should go to work to be 'celebrated' for their dark skin or autism. There's a huge gap between that and what I ACTUALLY said, which is that people with dark skin and autism shouldn't be discriminated against or excluded and made to feel totally left out because of these things.

You may think it's fine in 2022 to say have a staff do where some of the staff attending literally cannot eat anything because eg only pork is served. I would say that yes, providing only 1 choice that leaves out all the Jews, Muslims, vegetarians and vegans excludes them. And in 2022 we should be recognising that and including them in the meal by providing at least 1 thing they can eat. I don't think that's extremist. You - apparently - do.

Not sure what your references to people hiring/promoting you because of your ethnicity/autism have to do with inclusion, as that does not come under inclusion. It would also of course be entirely illegal in the UK. So I'm not really sure what your point is here?

I hope you don't manage anyone if you are genuinely so blind to the impact of working culture on your staff.

On the contrary, I think a lot of us are extremely conscious of the impact of working culture on staff, and hence of the sort of problems the current "DEI" things are causing.

If I say the "pro-puppy" departments are causing harm and disrupting the workplace, it doesn't mean I hate puppies.

If I say "antifa" are causing harm, it doesn't mean I like fascism.

If I say the "DEI" departments are causing harm and disrupting the workplace, it doesn't mean I like discrimination.

You're saying "I like inclusion, and discrimination is bad", which is not a counter-argument to MangyInseam's "there's a problem with current DEI practices", any more than "I like puppies" is a counter-argument to me pointing out problems with your pro-puppy department.

Do you understand?

You can't justify everything that people are doing by what they're doing it in the name of. You have to look at what they're actually doing and the effect it has.

Good piece I just saw here:

Workplace and Hellscape

In extremis, we end up with this:

Anyone who has spent time in progressive activist spaces knows that they contain a surprising amount of petty tyrants, bullies, and even actual sexual predators. Surprising, until you understand the rules of such spaces. Here, membership in any number of marginalized groups can grant one power to flout rules, squash dissent, and silence critics. Why wouldn’t abusers take advantage of the free pass?

And while personalities of this sort are rare in any population, their ability to operate with impunity means they leave long and bloody trails of victims….I’ve witnessed countless careers ruined, healthy communities fall, and organizations crippled—all due to accusations without a shred of evidence to support them.

[...]the problem isn’t merely the fact that social justice issues are abused by disturbed personalities with the right identities, it is that social justice politics condition the average “nice liberal” to accept bad behavior and cancerous work dynamics, all in in the name of “justice” and “inclusion”.

EDI is CRT. Just like what is at the monent called "anti-racism" is CRT. Just like the "anti-bias training" I recently had to do, which said very little about our actual work but a lot about what we should think, plus a few rather unpleasent things about Catholics, was CRT.

That's what is meant when someone said that it would be better if these EDI departments were simply swept away. Not, let's ignore sexual harassment at work.

"Inclusion" that obliterates the existence of human females as a sex class:

www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/9038985/scots-government-backed-puberty-leaflet-women-girls-erased/

Today’s promotional extra pullout section from the Guardian was on Inclusivity in the Workplace, paid for by Diversity and Ability: https://diversityandability.com/

It’s a firm that delivers courses and issues a “kitemark” in recognition of goal achievement. It claims to be mainly based around disability and has a list of criteria on which its intersectionality is based on: socio-economic status; ethnicity; religion; disability; sexual orientation; age; gender; culture. Not sex, although the word “women” appears frequently in the text. I couldn’t work out where the firm was based, they seem to be trying for a global reach. Certainly they had not chosen to use the UK Equality Act’s protected characteristics.

Their testimonials included one from the UK Office for National Statistics.

Presumably this is a standard approach to embedding a particular ethos. It could be a good thing. Instead I’m suspicious that it’s sliding gender in where sex should be and not respecting the fact that UK institutions should be observing the requirements of UK legislation.

Everything that's American comes here in 5 years or so. Wish it didn't!

Apparently it's also National Inclusion Week.

https://www.inclusiveemployers.co.uk/national-inclusion-week/

Our HR department has an EDI function and I honestly don’t recognise your characterisation. The ‘inclusion’ aspect of it has resulted in policies around the menopause, around the needs of older employees, around how to communicate effectively with ND colleagues (its tech so
there a lot!) around employees who are also carers for adult relatives (effectively mirroring parental leave but for caring duties) and policies around team-building activities (pointing out that paint balling followed by a piss-up excludes disabled, pregnant, Muslim etc colleagues). None of this is mandated by law however the company does it because they want to attract and retain employees.

I thought it was derived from the UN's 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and the Sustainable Development Goals? Developed in 2015.

EDI is the S in ESG (Environment, Social Governance) corporate ratings competition with Blackrock (a US/Canadian company) involved.
Barry, the EDI Jester will sort you all out and he doesn't mince his words:
He has another video explaining equity and equality really well on his channel.

D&I my backside. Try getting provisions for people with visual impairments or those using BSL…

Inclusion is exclusion for women.
Not very well thought out as to be inclusive of the ‘approved’ means exclusions of a lot of other people.
On the contrary it's been very well thought out, executed and enforced by those that it benefits.

IMO total equality is a myth. It just won't happen. But allowing everyone a seat at the table when deciding policy is a big part of society that reflects inclusivity.
If hard decisions have to be made, then there should be an equal number of votes from all sides. You can't please everyone, but you can allow everyone a voice.

Those with seats will be those with the loudest voices. Squeaky wheel and all that. Not those who deserve it more.

I was recently on a board with 8 people. 2 very loud gay men (pronouns various), a very loud ‘q’ woman (who has a male boyfriend) and 4 women who didn’t make a peep.

I will go back to read the thread but in my organisation inclusion is about being inclusiive those with disabilities.

I should hope so too. It’s so much cheaper for companies to talk and fly a few flags rather than actually make accommodation for wheelchair users, people with mobility issues, blind, deaf… although some of the training and ‘experts’ they get in costs a fortune.

As previous posters have mentioned, the principles of DEI have been around individually for years, but the real push recently has come from the institutional investment companies, Blackrock and Vanguard being two major examples.

Companies wishing to raise capital, or whose shares are bought by these groups, are subject to DEI reform and may struggle to raise money without it. This trickles down, as the companies with these targets then demand them of others.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-15/vanguard-to-push-companies-on-racial-diversity-next-year

It’s very telling that I now see (at work and on my commute) many more males presenting as female than people in wheelchairs or with guide dogs. Funny that.

I work in a STEM department of a university which now has an EDI Officer. She's lovely, but appears to spend her time in meetings, or at colouring-in sessions designing "ally badges" and distributing rainbow lanyards. The new EDI bookshelf is 90% gender and race (but only black people). Books on disability and age (high number of staff/students are neurodiverse in academia, and there are a lot of people working past retirement age) are notably absent.

Meanwhile, I am the one who spent the best part of two years nagging the building manager about replacing the defunct emergency cord in the only accessible toilet in the most high-use area.

To be more specific in answer to the OP, I can see that we had to include a section on EDI in our most recent CDT proposal to UKRI (2019), but I don't think in the one before that (2015).