Kemi Badenoch: Diversity policies should not "come at the expense of white men"

[AdamRyan]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1879473/kemi-badenoch-diversity-white-men/amp

https://www.independent.co.uk/business/kemi-badenoch-diversity-initiatives-can-be-ineffective-and-counterproductive-b2515403.html

Two links with different headlines but the gist is the same.

White men are disproportionately represented in a number of organisations (including the RAF which Badenoch highlighted). Any activity that increases representation of any other groups including women is necessarily therefore going to come at the expense of white men.

I know KB is anti-woke but I hadn't realised she was also anti-feminist. I cannot get my head round this statement at all. It's all a bit "people, know your place"

I presume that she wants to discourage so-called "positive discrimination" - some of the practices used are illegal under UK law.

See Furlong v Cheshire Police as an example

That's not what she said, at least as I understood it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/20/kemi-badenoch-clumsy-diversity-drives-no-substitute/

https://archive.ph/6Dnqp

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusion-at-work-panel-report-on-improving-workplace-diversity-and-inclusion/report-on-the-inclusion-at-work-panels-recommendations-for-improving-diversity-and-inclusion-di-practice-in-the-workplace

Here's the actual report. Just reading to find out what it actually says.

I know some of the practices have been found illegal in court; I'm willing to bet that pales into insignificance against all the ways women are illegally discriminated against (e.g. the stuff pregnant then screwed campaigns on)

Interesting section about equality law; interestingly it doesn't recommend changing the law but instead says organisations need principles to consider when managing conflicts of beliefs:

Condition 3: Applying equality law correctly Recent high profile cases expose employers misinterpreting and misapplying equality legislation, leading to several landmark rulings. This primarily relates to employers’ interpretation of philosophical beliefs under the Equality Act 2010, as well as the positive action provisions of the Act. In addition to those cited above, the Forstater v CGD Europe and others tribunal[footnote 58] awarded over £100,000 in compensation for injury to feelings and aggravated damages, ruling that Maya Forstater’s employer had discriminated against her because of her ‘gender-critical’ beliefs – beliefs that the ruling confirmed were protected under the Act. Similarly, in what is believed to be a legal first in the UK, employment judge Kirsty Ayre ruled in 2023 that holding a view that does not subscribe to critical race theory is a protected characteristic under the “religion or belief” section of the Equality Act.[footnote 59]
The cost of misapplying equalities legislation is significant both for employers and employees (or applicants). In particular, when the offending party is a government body, this poses an avoidable cost to the taxpayer. This year[footnote 60] a Civil Service whistleblower was dismissed after raising alarms about political activism, leading to a tribunal and settlement of £100,000 by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), though the employer did not admit liability. A new staff network in the Civil Service[footnote 61] has recently been established to unite those who share concerns about political activism in the Service.
Clear and simple legal explanation and an accessible common framework for understanding equality legislation is vital. Monica Kurnatowska, Partner at Law Firm Baker McKenzie has produced a much valued guide for employers setting out 8 broad guiding principles that employers should consider in managing conflict of beliefs situations:[footnote 62]

1. The importance of freedom of speech and expression
2. There is no right not to be offended
3. Consider the context – determining whether something is objectionable will be context specific
4. Do not make assumptions about an employee’s views or what an individual might do
5. Ensure your policies are clear and employees are regularly given training that all beliefs are treated equally
6. The importance of even-handed leadership
7. The need to handle complaints with care
8. Take a balanced approach

The Panel endorses this, and recommends the EHRC produces similar.

I'd call that a somewhat radical interpretation of the text.

It's the daily expresses headline not mine, apparently taken from this quote:

“Sadly, even a prestigious and respected institution such as the Royal Air Force (RAF) was recently found to have discriminated against white men in trying to improve diversity,” she added.
“No group should ever be worse off because of companies’ diversity policies – whether that be black women, or white men.”

I did include two links to try to get a more balanced view.

As yet my reading of the reports findings doesn't really tally with what she said

I agree with her.

No one should be discriminated against for their sex or their race.

Or any other protected characteristic.

Including white men.

It's illegal.

Thanks for the share link. What she's written is quite loosely based on what the panel recommended it's fairly difficult for me to figure out how she's drawn those conclusions. It's almost like she's cherry picked sentences to support an argument she already had in her head.

She asked the panel to come up with a new "inclusion confident" scheme. The chair said:
As you will read, we do not recommend introducing a new scheme at this stage. This is for 2 reasons. We assessed the range of existing similar or directly relevant schemes, and their efficacy. Many already cover the concept of inclusivity in some way. Introducing another accreditation or compliance scheme risks duplication and perverse incentives, and before those the challenge of communicating any awareness at all. Second, the very broad and subjective definitions of ‘inclusion’ make a precise and useful scheme near impossible. As we show below, definitions of diversity, equity and inclusion are contested and can even be – legitimately – mutually exclusive.

That's not what she said though. She said "No group should ever be worse off because of companies’ diversity policies – whether that be black women, or white men."

If a group is disproportionately better off before an initiative starts, then the "playing field" is levelled, that group will be "worse off" because of diversity policies. Unfortunately it is a zero sum game. If a company employs 99 men and one woman, and wants to become more representative then of course men will lose out as the representation of women increases.

This is why I'm finding her argument confusing. She appears to be saying that maintaining the status quo is fine, which is an odd position for a Minister of Women and Equalities to take.

I don’t think it’s helpful for inclusion policies to disadvantage individuals.

I believe the intent is to improve representation by eliminating barriers and bias at a company level. So advertising in places where your under represented group will see it, ensuring under represented groups get an interview and are considered in the light of barriers they may have experienced, rather than eliminating some individuals because they aren’t in the target group.

Yes, I agree. And actually in the report there was no evidence anything other than this was happening systematically. Which is why I don't understand her article. Unless she's deliberately trying to be provocative.

Depends what she means by 'worse off'.

They shouldn't be worse off in terms of equal opportunity for roles and judgement on merit for the roles.

They may find fewer white men get roles over time because of this, but that shouldn't be the aim.

No individual white man or black women should be 'worse off ' in opportunity because of the colour of their skin or their sex.

White men and black women may however find the ratio of representation in roles changes over time as discrimination reduces.
That's not being worse off.
That's fair and meritocratic.

The Independent article doesn’t read any differently. She’s saying that all the waffle initiatives are a waste of money (rainbow washing). That policy shouldn’t be designed to discriminate against individuals including white men.
That the RAF did it wrong- so we need better training so that it’s done right.

I can’t see anything controversial there.

I think she’s clarifying that the worst fears of white men are groundless, they can’t be discriminated against.

almost like she's cherry picked sentences to support an argument she already had in her head

That sounds eerily familiar

I think she's saying a lot of the diversity programmes are wrong.

The aim should be to reduce discrimination through policies and the law not increase it by changing who you discriminate against.

I think KB is about class more than colour. She seems to see herself as ruling class and kicks down to her inferiors. It puts me in mind of Thatcher who did nothing to help women who came after her.

She's one of those people who can't understand why poor / disabled / disadvantaged people aren't as wealthy as her and chooses to believe they haven't worked as hard, without recognising her own privilege.

I think the issue is having a policy which says;

We are going to hire 6 people. But all those people have to be black women.

Thats not necessarily going to help black women in the long run, if every male in the company thinks they aren't up to the standard and only got the job to tick the diversity box. It just leads to resentment and the idea that white males are being discriminated against deliberately even if they were the most perfect person in the whole world for that job.

The point has to be, if you are employing 6 people who are equally skilled, why are you giving the job to the white male rather than the black female if there's nothing to pick between them as candidates.

The reason women tend not to get jobs isn't because they are worse candidates on paper. They don't tend to apply for jobs without having a much better CV. They often don't interview as well because they lack in confidence and don't bullshit as much. These are things that employers should be wiser about when selecting candidates.

My point is that increasing diversity has to be seen to be fair - in its own way - rather than just a box ticking exercise.

What we don't want is the best male candidates out there to be not getting jobs because of their colour and their sex because all the current jobs available are only open to Diversity Candidates. It means there is a lost of talent and a perception of unfairness.

It also never seems to be taken into account that of course higher positions are often biased towards white men because the people holding these positions have worked their way up and are in their late forties to sixties and started their careers when there were much more white men (and women) in the workforce so this should iron out. Sorry not strictly about Kemi.

I'm late 40s and when I started work I fully expected that things would be more equal by the time I got to the age I am now. And they aren't.

To me if there is no appreciation of unconscious bias (which I believe she calls "bunkum") and no EDI work then it makes it impossible to explain why certain groups are disadvantaged and impossible to tackle.

Maybe I'm jaded but it just feels like another example of the world heading backwards and it's very disappointing.

Belief in "meritocracy" is why we are struggling to make progress. We already have laws and regulations to prevent discrimination, and yet the over representation of middle/upper class white men in positions of power or financial reward remains.

So the "meritocracy" isn't enough to make a change. We need to remove structural barriers and that's the kind of thing I'd like to see a Minister for women and equality talking about. Not pandering to the egos of threatened men.

💯

I think I would prefer to go by what KB says herself than what the Daily Express said she said:

Many people are under the misconception that the act protects groups. It does not. It is about protected characteristics. It is important to remember that every single person has a protected characteristic therefore the act protects all individuals. The 9 protected characteristics in the act are:

• age
• disability
• gender reassignment
• marriage and civil partnership
• pregnancy and maternity
• race
• religion or belief
• sex
• sexual orientation

I would like to be clear that there is no ‘hierarchy of rights’ under the act, therefore we should not hold one protected characteristic in higher regard than another. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-sector-equality-duty-guidance-for-public-authorities/letter-to-public-authority-leaders-from-the-minister-for-women-and-equalities

There was a thread about this at the time the letter was circulated, so not sure if it is worth re-discussing.

Unless of course KB has issued some further guidance?

It's about a report that was published today, commissioned by badenoch. Worth a read because the report is pretty anodyne and uncontroversial.

Maybe its just the express playing culture wars, of course