“Research has shown that workplaces that have more kindness are more successful.” Last month on the 17th of February saw the annual observation of the Random […]
“We have to be courageous Reverand. Al Sharpton. We have to continue to make them say the words, diversity, equity and inclusion, not just DEI, because the virtues are in the words. “Diversity. Equity. Inclusion.” Every humane society respects those things.” – Benjamin Crump
The first month of this year has finally been and gone, and it’s safe to say that much has transpired on an inter-national scale. There have been numerous misguided conversations about Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) as it is often referred to in the US, and for our brothers and sisters across the pond, we are witnessing a worrying fight to erase the essence of its meaning.
This comes at a time, where this February marks LGBT+ History Month in the UK and Black History Month in the US, both important annual observances which celebrate both the achievements and historical legacies of these communities, whilst simultaneously shedding light on the systemic inequalities faced by each.
Our article simply put, looks at some of the arguments that have proliferated into the public sphere of late on equality, diversity and inclusion, and is our attempt to give clarity, and above all hope, in an ever-pressing inter-national situation.
Lost in translation
I’m reminded by my colleague from the US, that how we refer to DEI in the UK, as EDI (Equality, Diversity & Inclusion), has differing points of departure from the US, although at the heart of both, lost in the conversation is often the part about inclusion. The meaning of DEI has been hijacked, used as a smokescreen to illustrate all the ills that have gone wrong in society, or so it seems with the messaging, under the current US administration of President Donald Trump. DEI initiatives or “DEI hires”, a code word for minority groups, centred around the belief that candidates are being chosen by virtue of their identity, rather than on their hard work and merit, have been scapegoated, so much so, that the legitimacy of seeing a person from an underrepresented group in a leadership position now, automatically raises eyebrows. This, however, is not a new occurrence.
I remember in my earliest years as a student at one of the most prestigious Schools of Art in the UK, that this was what another student had not so subtly implied to me. That the reason I had got in, was because of my race, even though they themselves were from an ethnic minority group. I mention this, because we must recognise that these internalised belief systems in so-called meritocracy, are not as some will point out, colour-blind.
When I think of this argument on hiring the best candidates, being mutually exclusive to seeing underrepresented groups in those positions, I’m reminded of the British journalist and author Matthew Syed’s Rebel Ideas: The Power of Thinking Differently (2021). Here he outlines rather cleverly the fallacies around meritocracy, whilst making a case for the reasons for diversity.
“Pretty much all the most challenging work today is undertaken in groups for a simple reason: problems are too complex for any one person to tackle alone.” (1)
The reason for diversity in these instances is to mitigate blind spots. A homogenous group of people on the surface, whether they are all men, women, all learning disabled or between the ages of 50 – 55, will most probably share similar perspectives. They will share in the same collective blindness. What’s even more compelling and something we should remember, is that hiring someone from an underrepresented group, let’s take for example, hiring a woman in a predominately male industry, doesn’t necessarily guarantee an increase in cognitive diversity, as in a difference in the ways people think, perceive or reason within the group. This is due to the process of acculturation, and that when you have been working or living within a particular culture, whether in the workplace or a particular society, more broadly, there can be a tendency for those operating in the space, to take up the dominant mindset over time. As Syed puts it “people who start out diverse can gravitate towards the dominant assumptions of the group.” (2) This is what I call transference without transformation, lodged in the idea that on the surface things appear to have changed, but in essence, the player is still the same.
Meritocracy
On the question of meritocracy, this is also not a new argument, that people should get where they get too, based on hard work and merit alone. After all, who would want to be picked for a job, based solely on their identity and not on their capability? However, we must scrutinise what we mean by meritocracy and understand who in fact gets rewarded. To this end, you cannot have a genuine conversation about merit, without talking about class privilege, or what sociologists like to call ‘accumulative advantage’. This is the idea that one is already born with a head start in life, or adversely penalised for not having the right building blocks for success. Meritocracy says that we all operate on a level playing field, and that it is through our own hard work, that some of us climb up the ladder and are rewarded for our efforts, whilst for those who don’t, their failure is down to them. Yet the playing field has never been even, nor neither fair.
Sociologists Aaron Reeves and Sam Friedman make this compelling case in their groundbreaking book Born to Rule: The Making and Remaking of the British Elite (2024). Building on years of qualitatively data rich analysis, they identify who makes up the who’s who in British society. At the heart of their study is the analysis of the historical database of the Who’s Who. This is the leading source of up-to-date information on autobiographical accounts of over 32,500 influential people, hailing from all walks of life, worldwide. Entrants include ‘senior politicians, judges, civil servants, and notable figures from the arts, academia, and other areas.’ (3). The authors analysed the biographical profiles of all 125,000 entrants since 1897, taking into consideration ‘gender, location, family background, schooling, university, stated recreational pastimes, and occupation.’ (4)
Their findings reiterate that where you start in life really matters. There are nine most famous, historically male elite schools, the Clarendon Schools, including Eton and Harrow, and twelve most prestigious schools for girls, including St. Paul’s School for Girls and Cheltenham Ladies College. It is worth pointing out that whilst attending the all-male private schools, or the old boys club, remain a powerful head start for the future leaders of tomorrow, identifying whether there is a similar old girls’ network, has been harder to assess. The authors do highlight that there has been a decline in the propulsive power of these schools propelling their pupils forward into the elite, but that they still hold importance, given their connection to elite universities. Oxbridge graduates for example, those who have attended either the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge, remain profoundly over-represented in the British elite.
“This, we argue, rests on the hub function performed by elite universities, where students from elite schools use elite universities to further cultivate networks and incubate worldviews that were initially established at school.” (5)
Closing the attainment gap
Another way of looking at this, is to reflect on a major issue that many universities have faced over the years, in trying to close the degree attainment gap. The basic premise of the attainment gap, is that there is a considerable difference in white Home British students achieving a first or 2.1, compared to non-white British students. Further, when you start to break down the differences in the attainment gap by different ethnic groups, you see that the biggest differential is between white and Black students at 57.5% compared to Whites at 80.9%. This is followed by Other at 67.8%, Asian at 70.5% and Mixed at 77.2% compared to Whites respectively. (6)
This becomes an issue when you realise that not attaining a 2.1 or higher, has a ripple effect, and can indirectly stop students, particularly from ethnic minority groups, from competing in a competitive jobs market. In recent years the Institute of Student Employers (ISE), had estimated that two-thirds of graduate recruiters, set a 2.1 classification as a minimum requirement for a graduate job. Whilst things are changing, how then do organisations who have a desire to diversify their workforce for all the right reasons, do so, when there is no pipeline of students from these communities?
In 2017 Baroness McGregor-Smith published the Race in the Workplace Review, that looked at racial inequalities in the workplace. Concluding the review with a list of 26 recommendations, she emphasised that there was still “discrimination and bias at every stage of an individual’s career, and even before it begins for people from BAME backgrounds. This bias was largely found to be structural, resulting from an unfair system that works only for a select few.” (7)
This is why when the argument that job requirements have been dumbed down, or that certain criteria have been removed, to accommodate underrepresented groups, they fail to consider the forms of indirect discrimination and bias already inherent in the system. This focuses on ‘the Deficit Model’, where it’s the student or employee who is at fault, lacking in skills, knowledge or experience, and not the environment; akin to the way that we have moved away from the medical model of disability to the social model, which says that people are disabled by barriers in society, and not by their impairment or difference.
So where do we go from here?
Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community is the title of Martin Luther King Jr’s 1967 book. Here King reflects on the Civil Rights Movement and what he hoped African Americans should do with their new freedoms and discussed the need for unity in fighting poverty, and in creating equality of opportunity. Where do we go from here was the same question that was asked by prominent civil rights leader and activist Reverend Al Sharpton, as he hosted a special Civil Rights Summit with leaders in the movement, on MSNBC News earlier this month. On the panel was Martin Luther King III the human rights activist, philanthropist and advocate and son of Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King. Also on the panel was Judith Browne Dianis, the civil rights Attorney and Executive Director of Advancement Project National Office and civil rights Attorney Benjamin Crump.
Given the current political and social climate in the US, with a government administration unleashing a war on human rights and social justice, when asking the panellists where they went from there, Crump responds by saying:
“We have to be courageous Reverend Al Sharpton. We have to continue to make them say the words, diversity, equity and inclusion, not just DEI, because the virtues are in the words. “Diversity. Equity. Inclusion.” Every humane society respects those things.”
And so too must we. This is a call to action. We must continue to do the essential work of equality, diversity and inclusion, and not lose sight of its essence. Whether DEI or EDI, that is not the question.
Written by Dr. Ope Lori
Interested in learning more and taking action in diversifying your workforces in the right way? Book our hugely popular staff training session, What’s the diverse in diversity? To speak to a member of our team, book here.
Notes:
1) Matthew Syed (2021) Rebel Ideas: The Power of Thinking Differently
(2) Ibid
(3) Who’s Who and Who Was Who [Available at https://www.ukwhoswho.com/page/946]
(4) Ibid
(5) Aaron Reeves and Sam Friedman (2024) pg 134 Born to Rule: The Making and Remaking of the British Elite (2024).
(6) Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Student Attainment at UK Universities: #CLOSINGTHEGAP (2019) [https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/sites/default/files/field/downloads/2021-07/bame-student-attainment.pdf]
(7) Ibid
Now that we’re really heading towards winter in the northern hemisphere, the days are feeling shorter and darker and everything seems a bit grey and gloomy. In Denmark, they talk about the concept of hygge, and in Sweden, there’s mysig; both concepts basically refer to being cosy and comfy at home, wearing thick socks in front of a fire place, having some tea or mulled wine, reading books or playing board games by the light of a fragrant candle, and snuggling up with those you love. That’s great for the evenings and weekends, but how can you apply those ideas to work? And in general, how should we cope with the winter, when so many people tend to feel lower in mood and when it’s harder to get the vitamin D, fresh air and exercise we need?
A recent article in The Telegraph had a number of suggestions for staying healthy in the darker, colder months. Among other things, Sophie Goddard’s piece recommends that people sit by the window – whether at work or at home or while on a bus or train – so they get sunlight, and that they take some time to get outdoors during the day. It’s believed that that getting vitamin D earlier in the day promotes good sleep as well as mental well-being, so even if it’s chilly, bundle up well and go for a quick stroll. (Having a dog or a child is very useful for this, because you really have no choice but to take them out for fresh air and movement.) Anything you can do to make the most of the few moments or hours of sunlight that we get during the winter months here is well worth it.
The article also mentions that mushrooms are a good source of vitamin D and that leafy greens are very healthy, adding a burst of flavour and nutrition in the winter, so try to cook with them where possible. Stews, soups, pasta dishes or stir-fries are excellent ways of enjoying mushrooms and greens. Goddard also writes about the importance of taking your time with your meals, and not wolfing them down. Savour them and let your body digest, while having nice conversations with family and friends.
Another thing that Goddard notes in the article is that shoes bring in a lot of bacteria and that leaving shoes by the front door is one way to keep the germs from spreading. If you don’t already have a Scandi-style “no shoes” rule at home or a Japanese approach, where you slip into slippers upon arriving home, you could consider that. We are already more likely to get germs in the winter, because of being trapped with other people in enclosed areas with the windows shut, so anything we can do to reduce the likelihood of spreading bacteria is worth looking into.
Written by B.J Woodstein, PhD
To read the full article, you must be a PILAA Member.
Now that we’re really heading towards winter in the northern hemisphere, the days are feeling shorter and darker and everything seems a bit grey and […]
Last month, a new comedic crime series was released on BBC here in the UK, entitled Ludwig. Newspaper articles are positive about the plot and the acting, but as surprising as it might seem, this TV show also holds a number of useful ideas that we can employ in the workplace.
First of all, what is Ludwig? The brainchild, so to speak, of brainy actor-writer David Mitchell (from Peep Show and Would I Lie to You? among other shows), Ludwig is about a man, John, who is a solitary type who works as a puzzle-setter (he publishes his work under the name of Ludwig, inspired by Beethoven). John, it turns out, has an identical twin brother, James, a detective with the police. After a particularly tricky case, James disappears, and his wife, Lucy, and son, Henry, enlist John to try to figure out what happened. This involves John unwillingly pretending to be his brother, going to work at the police station and solving crimes while attempting to get access to files that might reveal information about James, what he was working on and where he might be. So far, so silly.
But within this somewhat intricate plot with all its complications – who knew there were murders on a daily basis in the quiet, academic city of Cambridge? – there are many important lessons about challenging ourselves as a way of developing and growing, and about the use of puzzles.
Despite being identical twins and despite Lucy’s help in giving John information about James, John can’t quite be James, for obvious reasons. He is himself acting as James, and there are a number of small differences between the two men, which, strangely, no one really seems to notice, despite the fact that John/James is working in, of all places, the police force, where you’d think that people are trained to be observant. Besides their natural variations, John also can’t quite bring himself to completely subsume himself to his role; for instance, he (sensibly!) needs to have a pen or two in his breast pocket, which his brother would never have done, given the nerdiness of the look. Lucy frets about this, but actually, John, in the role of James, gets praised for these small changes. People who knew James believe that this is James and that he’s made a few adaptations to his look, and they like it. This shows us that it’s okay to not stay the same, even if we assume that that’s what other people want from us. Sometimes people might object to the changes, but others will be neutral about them, or even positive, and ultimately, we have to be true to ourselves. John likes the compliments he receives, but more than that, he learns that people can handle change.
Written by B.J Woodstein, PhD
To read the full article, you must be a PILAA Member.
Last month, a new comedic crime series was released on BBC here in the UK, entitled Ludwig. Newspaper articles are positive about the plot and […]
Last month saw the unveiling of the fourth plinth, the public art commission ‘Mil Veces un Instante (A Thousand Times in an Instant)’ by Mexican artist Teresa Margolles. The fourth plinth which began in 1994 sees a leading artist make a public sculpture, held in the space for two years. Since its inception in 1994, there have been 15 different sculptures occupying the plinth, which has opened up a conversation with Britain’s past, present and future histories. Made for public consumption it is a key platform for showcasing and celebrating the importance of art in advocating key debates of our time and showing us new ways of seeing.
The new work unveiled on the 18th of September 2024 by Margolles has been no different. It sees a large sculpture of 726 cast faces of trans, non-binary, and gender non-conforming people. The label on the plinth itself, recalls the murder of Karla a transgender woman found dead in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico and states that the work is made in honour of Karla and the other trans, non-binary, and gender non-conforming people, who have faced violence and abuse on the grounds of their identity. The sculpture is defined as being collectively made in London, Ciudad Juárez, and Mexico City between 2021 – 2024.
This is a striking piece of work, which stands at 2.5m tall and weighs 3.3 tonnes. Once scanning the QR Code the visitor can find out more information about the piece and how it was created. You learn that each sitter was asked to choose a piece of music or to make a playlist that they could listen to, whilst sitting through the plaster cast process. The whole appointment with each sitter, the artist and the artists assistant, took between 1–1.5hrs and of that, 30 minutes were used for the casting. With such a time encompassing and laboursome piece, what we are witness to, is the sensitive and vulnerable display of faces that are then placed on X shaped fixers, which we are told have been inspired by the form of a ‘Tzompantli’, an Aztec skull rack. We are left with the inside of the casts facing us, as the front of the faces are up against a metal frame, which cannot not be seen.
Written by Dr Ope Lori, PhD
To read the full article, you must be a PILAA Member.
Last month saw the unveiling of the fourth plinth, the public art commission ‘Mil Veces un Instante (A Thousand Times in an Instant)’ by Mexican […]
Last month we saw the landmark ruling in favour of more than 3,500 employees, who had taken their employer Next, the multinational clothing, footwear and home products retailer, to an employment tribunal, over a six-year battle for equal pay. The case found that staff who worked in the stores, predominantly women, were paid less than warehouse operatives, who were predominantly men. The argument made by the employer, was that the women were paid less in accordance with the ‘market rate’, where warehouse workers are paid more than retail workers, to reflect the labour market.
Next employee Helen Scarsbrook told the press:
“Anyone who works in retail knows that it is a physically and emotionally tough job.”
“We do lots of heavy lifting, the same as the men do in the warehouse. We lift the same boxes they lift.” (1)
And here in lies part of the rub. The image of either men or women working in the warehouse or in the stores respectively, is part of an age-old problem that highlights the difference between stereotypical assumptions on gender roles and the actual lived reality, which we’ll come back to later. It is also a matter of perception, and how we have been conditioned to see such roles and give value to them, based on inherent gender norms. However, the ruling panel stated that this was not the case, and that the difference of pay allocation was purely financial. They said that “direct discrimination” in relation to gender was not at play, and that “there was no conscious or sub-conscious gender influence in the way Next set pay rates” (2). Despite this ruling, in this article we suggest otherwise.
What we are seeing are the effects of social conditioning, and how we have been conditioned to see sex, gender and associated gender roles. They are so engrained that that they become the norm. As the employer stated, this is the first ruling of its kind, which doesn’t mean that it wasn’t an issue before, but that this is the first time that a microscope has been held up to the situation. As we know with the way microscopes work, sometimes you have to adjust the wheel to position the lens and bring into focus what was hidden before.
It’s about choosing to see things differently, hence why the tribunal also stated that the employer hadn’t given enough evidence to show that the lower pay discrepancy, wasn’t due to gender-based discrimination. It was inconclusive. No evidence to prove it and similarly, non to disprove it. I say choose to see things differently, because in order to address the constant battle of awarding equal pay to women and men, we need to actively engage and reflect on our decision-making processes. This is at the heart of mitigating unconscious bias. In fact, we suggest that because gender bias is so engrained in the way that women are seen as the lesser sex, it becomes unthinkable, that such a case could be directly related to gender discrimination.
Written by Dr Ope Lori, PhD
To read the full article, you must be a PILAA Member.
Last month we saw the landmark ruling in favour of more than 3,500 employees, who had taken their employer Next, the multinational clothing, footwear and […]