Look out for the mafia with rainbow lanyards - Hadley Freeman

[IwantToRetire]

Diversity officers have terrorised workplaces, but their reign may be ending

Introducing activism into the workplace has rarely gone well, and the diversity officer is the human form of this activism, not interested in making things fairer but in replacing one hierarchy with another. Aside from distracting people from doing their job, it invariably makes everyone sound insane. A few years ago the place where I worked held a “Diversity & Inclusion Week”, in which a panel on “LGBTQ+ allyship”, featured the tax barrister Jolyon Maugham. I asked a diversity person how Maugham, a wealthy heterosexual man who had blocked countless women on social media, including me, was a representative of diversity and inclusion. “The agenda is set,” was the response.

Another time I was told the “anti-bigotry workshop” would ensure no one in the office “would think or say anything bigoted”. I replied I didn’t care what thoughts anyone had. “You don’t care if the person next to you has racist thoughts?!” the person gasped, and all I can say is it was a good thing no one could see the thoughts in my head at that moment.

Article in full publised at https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/look-out-for-the-mafia-with-rainbow-lanyards-vb29s3b86 and at https://archive.is/b0zgB

It seems the guardian wanted windows into men’s souls. No better than medieval thought police.

I have to admit I didn't think this was a great article.

By that I mean that it probably made sense or resonated with those following the wholeTRA extremism, but for others who aren't families they may not really understand the reality it is talking about, because it is written as though everyone has the same level of knowledge.

Mafia? Come on, that's a ridiculous choice of words.

Diversity officers are there to ensure the company/organisation doesn't break the law. Essential.

Diversity officers very rarely have a legal
background.

And one might ask, how's that working out for them?

That's going well!

Genuine question?

Are you quite new to FWR? If so it might explain that you aren't aware that nearly every other thread on FWR is from someone undergoing some sort of group think training at their place of work.

Let alone the court case that has promoted 30+ threads in relation to a nurse in Scotland.

Or even this recent thread https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5374111-compelled-conformity-new-workplace-research-by-lgb-alliance

You really haven't been here long, have you?

You might want to look at the shocking evidence given by Isla Bumba, Equality and Diversity lead at NHS Fife, in the Sandie Peggie case. Then have another think.

I'm a regular and a radical feminist. Yes my employer has had a trans incident, but the majority of their EDI work is to tackle racism, sexism and homophobia so that we get the best people for the job.

That sort of catty reply isn't helpful. Try playing the ball not the woman.

Not sure who your comment is aimed at and obviously great that you feel confident your employer is working with in sensible boundaries.

But equally given the number of threads, court cases etc., it isn't very respectful to just brush them to one side.

Or do you think everyone who has written about their negative experiences is exaggerating?

Also note that the article title is about "rainbow" lanyards, which in themselves suggest a hierarchy of EDI.

I can’t look at the pronoun section of email sign offs, without wondering why we don’t add a list of all our protected characteristics; age, sex, race, religion, disability etc.

You might be interested in Tanya de Grunwald’s podcasts: This isn’t working

"Second, no job has more of the whiff of 2020 than the diversity officer. They exist to confirm their employer’s moral purity by “improving diversity and inclusion”, and they do this by quantifying minorities and gamifying vulnerabilities, keeping track of which disabilities are up and which are down, as if the human condition were a stock market".
👏
[...]
"Every generation must find employment for its duller lights. In the 1960s a grifter could become a guru. Going back further, there were exorcists. Today there are diversity officers, who drive the bad thoughts from our heads, but don’t know their arse from their whatever".
😂🙌

The Times, not the Guardian.

No, Hadley worked for the Guardian until a few years back when she realised that they would never let her write on a lot of the things she wanted to, because they didn't fit with the Guardian's agenda. So she jumped ship to the Times. IIRC one of her first longform pieces in the Times told this story. So the Jolyon story is far more likely to be from her Guardian days.

Another time I was told the “anti-bigotry workshop” would ensure no one in the office “would think or say anything bigoted”. I replied I didn’t care what thoughts anyone had. “You don’t care if the person next to you has racist thoughts?!” the person gasped, and all I can say is it was a good thing no one could see the thoughts in my head at that moment.

This is really one of the elements of this I find most bizarre. Why would anyone's employer have any ind of position to offer this kind of moral direction or training?

I sometimes wonder if it is because people no longer go to church as much, there is a sort of gap for group ethical initiatives, so it feels sensible to people?

When I think about some of the places I've worked over the years - a pizza joint, fast food, a medical office, a cafe, a farm - why would any of those people be in a position to give me ethical advise? And frankly, the same is true of my adult, mature jobs. I like my company director, he's good at his job, but I know he left his last wife for the one he has now - and he is supposed to organise ethical training for us?

Obviously employers get to decide how they want their employees to behave in the workplace and how they want the company policies to function. But where they get off telling anyone to think I don't know.

At my workplace, we were supposed last month to have a special visualisation journey thing done in a workplace training day. It's actually semi-religious in a kind of a slightly new-agey kind of way, packaged as broadening our experiences of diversity. But to me it feels no only dumb, and a waste of time we could spend on real training, but it's really an inappropriate imposition.

I know just the kind of person who would be like "oh god how could you stand working next to someone with BAD THOUGHTS!" But I really struggle to understand how they think that is a sensible way to think.

@SqueakyDinosaur Your link was from the Guardian!

Errr… that used to be the case, but EDI officers are amongst those encouraging people to break the law. NHS Fife is a prime example. EDI only works when ALL the protected characteristics are protected. Not just the fashionable ones.

I’d always thought ensuring your company wasn’t breaking the law was the responsibility of HR.

Which I think is a big part of the problem. From what I’ve read of the case, part of the reason Fife NHS got themselves into such a mess was because they took advice from an Equality and Human Rights Officer who appeared to operate independently from HR.

I agree though that it’s not one of Hadley’s finest. Sometimes - and this is one of them - I think she spends too much time thinking up her one-liners and not enough on crafting the article as a whole. She also assumes the reader is already familiar both with the Fife tribunal and her own work history. But even a second notch Hadley Freeman article is still a treat for me. The biggest take away was that the DEI lead at the Guardian saw monitoring thoughts as part of their role. It explains quite a lot.

Not my link! I'm just a fan of HF so I know a little about her career.

I've been posting here for a few years but I actually work in DEI (although we dont call it that) in the public sector. I've name changed as I can't risk my job.

My organisation has to obey the Public Sector Equality Duty of the Equality Act. I do assessments of whether the organisation's proposed actions would unfairly discriminate against protected groups. This includes young people and disabled people, both groups who have recently benefited from the assessments done. None of my assessments have ever identified any impacts on gay or transgender people.

I firmly believe that losing Equality initiatives will cause damage and set back progress in Equality for anyone who isn't a middle-aged, straight, white male. Despite the impact of transgenderism, women should support Equality initiatives as it benefits their half of the population.

It is far from over. My (public sector) workplace just employed a D&I Lead, and announced it as a great thing. I will be interested to see the first thing they decide to talk about. Will it be rainbows? Or will it address the massive problem they have with racism (confirmed by an independent review they tried to suppress and were sued by local media to release)!

Thanks for this. Is there any discussion / acknowledgment in your profession about the immense harm that's been done to women by so many DEI advocates, both inside and outside organisations, demanding that the word woman be removed from public life? By framing the language of women (health, bodies, pregnancy / maternity etc) as transphobic and needing to be removed - even from the most female experiences such as pregnancy, maternity & menopause policies?
While I appreciate what you say, I can't see there's been any standing up for women from a profession responsible for removing sex based information from public life to the extent that the accuracy of our public data is completely fucked.

Do you follow Tanya de Grunwald’s podcasts?

No, sadly I have not seen this. I have to be honest, raising that kind of issue outside of my organisation would be very problematic.

And it is a double-edged sword - internally, there is scepticism about trans rights issues...but there's also possibly scepticism about gay equality and I also suspect possible racial bias in hiring practices.

I don't think the sector as a whole will change until we stop casually equating 'gender critical' with 'racist' and equating 'gender neutral' with 'equal and progressive' 😞