Earle Wilkes discusses what the EDI sector should be doing in the current political climate
What exactly is unfolding right now?
Having worked as an EDI specialist for over 25 years, I have experienced periods like this before, where political and business leaders seek to blame EDI for the real and perceived issues facing particularly mature Western democracies. Following the Global Financial Crisis, for example, many Western governments and corporations drastically scaled back their commitment to EDI. The major difference this time is that the USA, the country widely regarded by many as the home of equality, justice and freedom, is at the forefront of championing radical conservative reactionary ideology, as embodied through the new Trump administration’s avowed commitment to the eradication of ‘liberalism’ from federal and corporate America. EDI (or DEI, as it is often referred to in the American context) is seen by the Trump administration as the main public political manifestation of Bidenism and liberalism.
Many critics of EDI, of which there are increasingly all too many, have spent many years operating as ‘sleeper agents’, in that for the most part they kept their deep-seated dislike (in some cases hatred) of EDI hidden from public view. Since President Trump’s crusade to purge EDI from American federal, corporate and civic consciousness, a plethora of politicians and business leaders across the globe have jumped onto the illiberal (and specifically the anti EDI) bandwagon, condemning seemingly everything that is progressive and/or liberal as ‘woke’. It is ironic that those who opposed progressive thinking rubbish everything with reference to being woke, displaying a complete lack of understanding of woke’s true meaning.
What, exactly, is the Trump agenda unfolding before us?
It is a mistake, I think, to regard the reactionary conservative and authoritarian action being pursued by the Trump administration as just an attack on EDI. What is taking place in America by the Trump administration is an ideological crusade against anything that poses a threat to ultra right-wing conservative ideology. All institutions and proponents of progressive thinking and liberalism are finding themselves under attack from the Trump administration. American citizens are having their freedoms and legal status to remain in America removed because their political views do not align with the ultra-conservatism of the Trump administration. Nationwide and international programmes and universities have either lost funding, been barred from recruiting certain categories of students or been threatened with a loss of funding unless they subscribe to the Trump administration’s anti-liberalism and reactionary conservative ideology. The attempt to remove EDI from Federal government and civil society by the Trump administration should be seen as part of the wider attack on progressive thinking, plurality of expression and liberalism. This isn’t just about EDI.
Over the previous few months, I am often asked whether EDI will survive four years of a Trump administration in its current form. I disappoint many people when I say that no, it won’t, and I hope not, for reasons I will explain later in this article. I think EDI has lost its way, and in doing so it has lost connection with the reasonable majorities in many mature Western societies and has become an all too easy target for right-wing conservative politicians and administrations globally. I am, however, confident that in four years’ time EDI will emerge stronger and more effective by returning to its core founding purpose of addressing inequity, championing merit and challenging prejudice.
I am also of the view that the Trump administration has set in place what will be seen as the best modern day case study that conclusively demonstrates why we need EDI to be at the heart of our government, corporate and societal decision-making consciousness. And what happens when EDI accountability is removed.
In the face of Trump-style authoritarianism, how should the EDI sector respond?
I disagree fundamentally with the ultra-right-wing conservative reactionary ideology of the Trump administration (and their global copycats) in their crusade against liberalism and progressive thinking in general, and EDI in particular. However, I am of the view that too many of today’s general EDI precepts have strayed too far from the foundational principals that ignited the civil rights and freedom movements of the pre- and post-colonial eras. Progressive thinkers, supporters of EDI and EDI leaders should use this moment in time to reflect in particular on the previous 25 years and try to learn lessons from what is taking place now and reimagine what EDI should be about for the next 25 years. I believe EDI has increasingly, particularly over the last 25 years, lost its way, focusing too much for example, on diversity at the expense of equity. In allowing diversity to dominate over equity, this has inadvertently fuelled a narrative – for some within the workforce and society – that EDI regards, for example, all middle-aged heterosexual white men as being part of the problem with limited or no real value to workplaces and society of tomorrow. Whilst this narrative is inaccurate, it is understandable why many in society – who do not have a detailed understanding of EDI – believe this to be true.
The disproportionate focus on diversity over equity has created an environment where ‘natural allies’ of EDI have joined those attacking EDI, because in their mind EDI is seen as divisive and unfair. Well-intentioned but misguided EDI practices that appeared to elevate niche aspirations of the few at the expense of the ‘moderate majority’ have created real scepticism of EDI. This scepticism has resulted in the ‘moderate majority’ regarding EDI as being ‘excessive and unfair.’ EDI’s continued relevance, success and credibility will be determined by securing buy-in from all sections of society. We undermine this when EDI moves too fast or too far from the ‘moderate majority’. Initiatives such as, for example:
1. Inclusion of Transwomen in women’s sports (particularly contact/explosive sports)
2. Allowing Transwomen to use female-only changing rooms and toilets (the UK Supreme Court has now determined that sex is to be solely determined by birth)
3. Legislation allowing a child to change their gender identity without their guardian’s/parent’s knowledge or active engagement
4. Allowing young children to identify as a pet, or any other non-human entity.
The pursuit of these well-intentioned but flawed types of initiatives dominates the airwaves, brings EDI into disrepute and gives a misleading impression of the substantive nature of what EDI is about and the influence it is seeking to have on society. Due to a mix of a lack of expert EDI leadership, evidence-based EDI good/best practice has largely given way to lived experience and ‘charismatic’ or ‘executive’ opinion. You see this, for example, in the increasing reliance which organisations place on Affinity/Network/Resource/ Employee Groups (ANREGs) for their EDI strategic and operational guidance in preference to broad based intersectional EDI expertise. Such groups can certainly bring a valuable ‘insider’s’ perspective from a lived experience, however this perspective should be balanced and evaluated by someone who is able to bring an independent, intersectional and evidence-based perspective to the decision-making and implementation process. Without specialist EDI leadership, there’s a risk that ANREGs groups become too inward-looking, overly focused on their own lived experiences and perspectives. This can lead to isolation and a weakening of connection with the mainstream.
EDI has its origin in the Civil Rights struggles and the cornerstone of this was EQUALITY (equity). Over time, there has been an unfortunate shift away from equity in preference of diversity, which in turn has polarised opinions and created in the minds of many reasonable people the belief that EDI is about creating ‘winners and losers’ based on your identity.
Anti-merit myth
The EDI fraternity should have been more effective in taking ownership and the credit for democratising the workplace by challenging and seeking to eliminate cronyism, favour and patronage, because we allowed the focus to shift from equality & equity too quickly towards diversity. All too often, EDI considerations are dominated by diversity, which unfortunately has led to far too many reasonable people regarding EDI as being problematic and divisive.
Well thought through EDI interventions have a laser focus on equity, and by implication merit. Unfortunately, the anti-merit myth has been allowed to persist. Despite this being untrue, it remains another major reason why EDI is often unfairly criticised. The reality is that many who oppose EDI and claim it is anti-merit are doing so because they are unwilling to acknowledge the obvious disparities which they see around them in the workplace and civic society, and/or believe that any disparity which might exist is both ‘justified’ and ‘natural’. There is also an unwillingness to acknowledge that historic practices which produced largely homogenous groups of ‘winners and losers’ were significantly more anti-merit based than current EDI practices. Genuine merit-based interventions create transparency of decision making, lessen the ability of decision makers to influence and determine the outcome outside of the process, and provide greater objectivity when making comparisons and decisions.
The irony is that extreme critiques of EDI, such as the Trump administration, are in practice vigorously opposed to genuine merit-based processes because they constrain their ability to make personalised subjective decisions. For instance, if you look at the Trump administration’s key appointments, the key criteria for appointment is their personal loyalty and friendship to Trump and not previous relevant experience or competence. The homogenous make-up of Trump’s cabinet should be seen as stark warning of what happens when EDI is removed from the recruitment processes, and you are left with nepotism, bias and rampant subjectivity.
Opportunistic illiberal reactionaries like Winston Peters who employ a simplistic reductionist attack on EDI through the vogue and incorrect use of wokeism, use their platform to mislead and ferment unnecessary societal discontent through their inability or unwillingness to acknowledge that despite EDI’s imperfections, it is evidentially true that EDI has been an important factor in enabling the creation of greater societal equality on a global scale.
Making a difference
This moment in time represents a great opportunity for companies to ‘walk the talk’ and demonstrate their genuine EDI credentials at a time when many are being opportunistic in scaling back or dropping their EDI commitments altogether. Many people have said to me that they are frustrated by the emerging anti EDI rhetoric and feel powerless to make a difference. My response to this is that there are a broad range of options as either a consumer, customer, service user, civic leader or investor, whereby they can hold organisations to account by the decisions they make, supporting organisations that are genuinely committed to EDI. In America, for example, the customer boycott of Target resulted in stock price fall of approximately $27.27 per share, resulting in a loss of about $12.4 billion in market value. These kinds of impact will cause alarm in boardrooms and executive leadership teams.
This is also a crucial moment for EDI professionals to act with courage — to resist the urge to champion every minor concern without first weighing the risks and rewards, and reflecting on whether it would stand up to the ‘reasonableness test’ in the eyes of the moderate majority.
The future
EDI practitioners all too often bear the scars of trying to manage the constant tensions and contradictions within their organisations between those who:
· Genuinely want transformative change
· Are hugely frustrated by the slow pace of change or disingenuous nature of change
· Have yet to turn their philosophical commitment into action
· Prefer a steady-as-she-goes approach
· Are yet to be convinced of its relevance or value
· Are opposed to EDI and don’t regard it as being relevant to them.
Despite the above contradictions and tensions, as well as the concerted ideological attack from illiberal doctrinaire authoritarian governments and copycat opportunist political, civic and business leaders, EDI will remain a critical workplace and societal asset by rediscovering its central purpose of addressing inequity, championing merit, challenging prejudice and being resolutely evidence-based. An EDI approach based on this central purpose will garner popular support from the mainstream by exploding the myth that EDI is a niche concern delivering no material benefit to the majority.
Genuinely inclusive workplaces and societies are ones where equity is not just a goal, but an everyday experience.
Earle Wilkes, Director, Equity Matters
