If you're all about diversity ...

[tobee]

are you not always excluding someone? So it not possible to be truly diverse ever?

Pretty sure I'm preaching to the choir here (😃) but I was thinking this a lot over the last few days. Since the furore over the apparent depiction of The Last Supper at the Olympics opening ceremony offending Christians and my thoughts meandering around lots of other things in and the news atm.

Basically, inclusion and diversity become oppositional. And yet it's the done thing to trumpet your inclusivity and diversity.

Or am I reading it wrong?

To me DEI policies are all about excluding white men.
My son got a computing degree where most of his fellow students were white males and he got on a grad scheme in a well known city institution, there was 70 on the scheme and only 3 white men.

There are no male Northerners or Scottish people.
80% of Grads went to private schools.
Only a couple of his peers have parents who are not wealthy.

Despite this it is seen as very progressive and diverse.

Hmm ds is 25 and says similar. My dnephews are 20 and 18 and think the same.

I feel it's like a fashion.

Half the time it seems fake anyway - like IT firms pretending they are employing more women, when all they've done is employ men who cross-dress.

Yep diversity never seems to include working class people unless they tick one of the other boxes…

IMO many EDI policies foster divison and resentment.

In my opinion you do not need to be so offensive to Catholics to make a point of diversity. Also, the diversity mostly has been done badly and it feels fake. Like forced and unnecessary. I rather not to be hired than given a job to tick a box. I would be extremely uncomfortable and I am not anyone’s underdog project.
Recently one of my kids was invited to put himself forward for something he needs to prepare and make an effort. He said he won’t be bothering as they will choose a person to represent diversity. Even though he is non white and mixed but it is usually a specific type they are after in the last few years. I think the US does this better. As seen in the diversity visa application and the inclusion of countries that are less represented in the immigration over there.

No, the US does not do it better. They are worse, IMO, as is Canada. Employment ads are outright allowed to say they prefer diverse candidates with no special justification. Up until recently American university weighed applications based on race.

To me DEI policies are all about excluding white men.

Apart from a specific group of white men…

My nephew’s employer moved a significant chunk of its business because the population of the area they were based in was too white for them to meet their 40% BAME recruitment targets. It left a huge hole in the local, mostly poor working class, economy.

Yes, it's all about the sacred caste. After all they can identify as anything.

Diversity is a double edged sword, encouraging moral relativism among other things

I’m really sad to read this and I hope this isn’t how most people on fwr think. Diversity as an employer initiative isn’t always done well, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth having. I look at the world and democracy is being done pretty terribly in lots of places but I think that’s worth having too. My company did a session recently on working with neurodiverse people, wasn’t in my Timezone but I am going to watch the recording. We have other dei initiatives too. I love that we have all this stuff which is thinking about how to work with people who are different from us, as they bring different perspectives and ideas and that’s valuable. I don’t think diversity should exclude white men and socioeconomic background is relevant too.

I am in fact shocked to hear how some people refer to white people these days. Even in books and movies and of course newspapers. I can also imagine the negative repercussions this has. How this can make things much worse. How is this ok? Do they not realise that this can contribute to hate crimes?. At the very least incites division.

I think part of the problem is that idea that ‘diversity is good’ so more diversity must be better. So an 18% BAME target is good but 40% is better. Whereas on a population level anything above 18% indicates discrimination against the white population. Or the BBC considers itself ‘inclusive’ when it has a trans workforce far exceeding that in the population.

I rather not to be hired than given a job to tick a box. I would be extremely uncomfortable and I am not anyone’s underdog project.

The fact that someone can tick a box doesn't mean that that's the only reason that they were hired for the post. That can be a comforting fiction for some people.

"Denying that it was social engineering, [Helen Mountfield] recalled how she had once discussed with a judge positive discrimination for female lawyers wanting to join the bench. “He said, ‘You know, I think it would be dreadful for women. They would feel they were only there because they were women.’ And I said to him, ‘Does it undermine your self-confidence that you’re a white man? Do you ever think, maybe I’m only a judge because I’m a white man and if I was a woman I wouldn’t be here?’”"

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/state-pupils-flock-to-oxford-college-and-degree-results-soar-q96p7bxj0

Kaitlyn Greenidge:
When someone manages to rise up through our hobbled alleged meritocracy and is crowned the first to hold a position, I know that does not mean that they were the only one who possibly could. I'd assumed everyone understood this, but it has become clear to me in the last few years, as these news of firsts in media and publishing and film and sports came rolling in, as people wrote and agonized over what felt like a shift in culture, that that was naive. People in power, the ones doing the crowning, generally believe that there is no one else qualified until they happen to decide to bestow the crown. It's easier that way, isn't it? To think that the first happened just because the right person finally managed to emerge and break through, and not because there was a whole system put in place to make sure no one who looks a certain way or comes from a particular background ever has a chance to do so in the first place. I am reminded of a Chris Rock quote, one he gave during Barack Obama's second term as president. "To say Obama is progress is saying that he's the first Black person that is qualified to be president. That's not Black progress. That's white progress. There's been Black people qualified to be president for hundreds of years."

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a34426455/the-bind-of-being-first/

We had DEI training at work recently. It was fine on the whole, but in the discussion I could not hear what was being said. I stood up and suggested that using the Mike (or speaking more clearly- looking at you, muttering 20 Yr olds) would be more inclusive of us older people who are beginning to lose some hearing. Said it lightheartedly, but meant it. Cue titters. All went on as usual.
So not at all equal or inclusive actually.

The ‘firsts’ argument become different though in a changing population. As recently as the 1950s the black population of the UK was less than 0.5% so even if a totally equal society it was much much less likely for a black person to achieve a position than today. And the UK is not an equal society, even more so in for before the 1950s when class was an even more impervious barrier. The black population of the upper middle and upper classes, despite what the BBC portray, was much less than 0.5%. So even without considering racism it was likely that the number of black firsts wouldn’t take place in the UK until the last decades of the 20th century.

Too often people look at America and simply apply the same thinking to the UK when these are very different population histories.

The ‘firsts’ argument become different though in a changing population.

I'm unsure if you're commenting on the items I quoted or building out.

A bit of both?

Here's an example of DEI gone wrong: when adapted/disabled toilets, which took decades and decades of campaigning by disabled people, are re-labelled as 'gender neutral' toilets so able-bodied trans people have an option if they choose not to use the toilets appropriate to their biological sex.
A hard-won advance by people with disabilities, handed over without a thought to able-bodied people because transgender people are at the top of the Hit Parade of marginalised groups at the moment..

Inclusion is not an unqualified good but people talk as though it is. Diversity is trumpeted everywhere but often it's the limited type of diversity that focuses on the most visible and the least inconvenient aspects of diversity.

Least inconvenient for men, the ones in charge. If it makes life more difficult, intimidating and potentially dangerous for women, they don't care.

I feel like diversity is a tactic being used on western countries to further divide us and make our societies weaker. It weakens our institutions and makes us less robust countries

TikTok has been an incredible weapon for the Chinese.

When Channel 4 moved its offices out of London to be more diverse and inclusive of regions, women, mothers and BAME employees were the ones who disproportionately lost their jobs.