On naming and owning the scary monster: DEI and its opponents

In the coming months leading up to this year’s federal election, we’re going to hear a lot about this shady animal called “DEI”. We’re going to hear this because Peter Dutton will be singing from the Trump songsheet, and the Trump songsheet mentions DEI a lot. It casts DEI as something that people should avoid, be scared of and stamp out in their workplaces and society more generally.

What is DEI and why is it the new scary monster on the block?

DEI stands for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. These are very positive steps towards a fully functioning society where everyone has the opportunity to reach their potential. By turning it into an acronym, however, the terms are stripped of their meaning, they are no longer words, and words are everything.

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion is not, as its knee-jerk opponents will have you believe, a sneaky way of employing unqualified people ahead of qualified people simply on the basis of their being in a minority group. It is not favouring women, people of colour, gay or trans people or people with disabilities simply on the basis of gender, race, sexuality or physical capacity.

What is does mean is that employers and governments at all levels ensure that no one is left behind.

In practice, this looks like:

·      paid parental leave

·      pay equity

·      equal employment opportunities

·      flexible work arrangements including working from home where practicable

·      accessible buildings and public places

·      materials and signage in languages other than English

·      designated smoking and non-smoking areas

·      accessible public and active transport options

·      baby change tables in men’s toilets

·      provision of dietary options

·      large print or audio materials

·      businesses not being fully cashless

·      size-inclusive seating

·      religious tolerance and allowance for religious observances

·      and numerous other painless and positive initiatives that ensure everyone has access to what they need in order to participate in society, or Gesellschaft, to use the Weberian sociological term.

So why is this being held up by Trump and his supporters and cheap imitators as the biggest threat to society since the Black Death? Because Trump (and his imitators) can only control through reductionism. Society needs to be reduced to a single bloc, and that means ‘disappearing’ anyone who doesn’t fit the controllable model. To these people, a diverse society is one where people are not just able, but are encouraged, to think for themselves and to be themselves.

Cartoon: Fiona Kataustas
Furthermore, a key tactic is to turn society against itself. Conquer by dividing society and setting groups against each other.

Since the election of Trump we’ve heard a lot about how American society is becoming like dystopian fiction. But the metaphor rings true when considered in the light of the new regime’s abhorrence of diversity, equity and inclusion. In Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, people are corralled into controllable groups, each group with a purpose and no individuality, and dissenters are “removed”. Likewise, in Orwell’s Big Brother control is exerted by keeping the populace ignorant and fearful of reprisal if they diverge from societal rules, which are supported by propaganda.

A diverse, equitable and inclusive society where no one is repressed is a functioning society. When we start hearing criticisms of DEI, don’t settle for the meaningless acronym. Say it out loud: Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. These are what are being targeted. Ask why? What is it that the critic is afraid of? What part of diversity, equity and inclusion are they opposing? Because only by exposing ignorance and bigotry will we protect the hard-won rights of all of us to be full and equal participants in our shared future.

Sadly, still relevant

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On hiding Barnaby

Image
Cartoon: Matt Golding It seems the Nationals plan to "hide" former leader and serial drongo, Barnaby Joyce, for this year's election campaign, restricting him to campaigning within the boundaries of his electorate. Clearly, Barnaby has become a party liability, although his popularity in his rural heartland remains high. Mind you, restricting Barnaby to New England still means he has a lot of ground to cover. It's the twelfth largest federal electorate by area and covers a vast swathe of central west and northern New South Wales.  Of course, the Nats could hide Barnaby permanently by just disendorsing him. Find themselves a candidate who won't embarrass the party by getting pissed and passing out on the footpath in the middle of Canberra or knocking up a junior staffer while trumpeting CFV*. Ah, yes. Good old CFV. The public fallback position for all conservative pollies while they're privately pursuing anything but. They roll it out regularly in order to poi...
Read more

On the problem of mindfulness as a consumer product without ethics

Image
 Living in the present moment, or what the well-being industry calls ‘mindfulness’, has become one of those words that is overused to the point of meaninglessness. Like resilience, sustainability and wellness, it has come to be used as a vague umbrella term for a range of behaviours and attitudes that are, on the face of it, positive, but which require conscious effort to put into action. Just saying one is resilient or living sustainably doesn’t guarantee any change from the non-resilient or unsustainable self. Adopting the words alone makes no change. In a capitalist world there is also a strong “ka-ching” value to these words. There’s any number of entrepreneurs, influencers and con-artists happy to sell you wellness, mindfulness, resilience, sustainability and a host of other zeitgeist buzzwords for a price.  There’s no end to the products you can buy, the workshops you can attend, the books you can read, the websites you can subscribe to, phone apps to download, celebrity...
Read more

On the conflicted nature of unfriending people

Image
  In 2009, the New Oxford American Dictionary proclaimed unfriend as its Word of the Year. It's a rather brutal notion that one can simply delete a friend by clicking on a button. Yet it also brings into question our concept of what it actually means to have a friend in an age of technology. Before social media, when all our friends were people we actually knew, one might fall out with a friend or simply drift apart due to geographic distance or different life paths. "Oh, yes," you might say of a certain former friend, "we were friends once but we had a falling out over what constitutes an appropriate pizza topping and as far as I'm concerned, he and his disgusting pineapple pizza deserve each other." Or, "Yes, I was quite good friends with her, but after she joined that religious cult and moved, we just stopped seeing each other. I wonder how she's going now?" There are other friends with whom we remain close for our entire lives regardless ...
Read more