Recruiting for EDI roles

Here's an idea.  I suggest that anyone interviewing someone for an EDI role should ask these questions:

What is a cause, issue or injustice that you feel particularly strongly about?

Tell us about it and why you feel so strongly...

Now, I'd like you to put yourself in the shoes of someone who takes the opposite position; someone intelligent and well-intentioned.  What would he or she say?

And anyone who is unable to answer that last question, in a way that would satisfy someone who did indeed take the opposite stance, would be a poor appointment. 

My thinking here is that people who lead on Diversity and Inclusion, should be able to understand and empathise with diverse views, and include people who differ from them in a respectful way. Otherwise, it is not diversity and inclusion, at all; merely the imposition of the current preferred views and beliefs. 

I have blogged previously about some of my reservations about the EDI agenda, so I won't repeat myself here. But I think the principle (and indeed the practice) that I suggest above would be very valuable for organisations wishing to avoid putting ideologues into influential roles.

And as I write this, it occurs to me that this could also apply to teaching roles, whether in Schools or Universities: activist teachers are all well and good (perhaps) but not if their activism means that they can only see - and teach - a simplistic view of complex issues.

I am reminded of the time when a friend and I signed up, at Fresher's Fair, to go out with the Hunt Saboteurs. We successfully disrupted a local hunt, and one of the huntsmen took the time, despite his understandable annoyance, to come and speak to us in an intelligent way. Most of the Sabs weren't prepared to listen to him, but my friend was wise enough to do so. I stayed with him and listened, too.

As we were going home afterwards, I expected him to be dismissive of the huntsman's arguments. But he was not. He was smart enough to realise that he hadn't done his homework. He had assumed he knew what the issues were and where he stood, but in fact had never engaged with the counter-arguments. 

That was a real lesson to me: if one wants to take a stand, one has, I think, an intellectual and a moral obligation to engage sincerely with those who disagree, to understand their arguments and perspectives. Then by all means, take a stand; but to do so without that preliminary step strikes me as rash, to put it mildly.

It is, of course, much easier to assume that those who disagree with me are either mad or bad, and probably both (and that may, of course, be the case...) but the rapid leap to that assumption is one of the things that fuels so much of the division and toxicity that seems to be on the increase - and not least in our Universities.

--

With thanks to  Tim Gouw for sharing his photos on Unsplash

Further reflections on the EDI Agenda

In a previous post I commented on the ill thought through guidance on Trans inclusion, published by the CIPD. My point was that their naive approach didn't work, as it wasn't - indeed couldn't be - reciprocal across all the different groups with protected characteristics under the Equality Act (these are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation).

I have been reflecting further on this, and think that the EDI challenge is profound, if not intractable.

It has been brought into sharp, and tragic, relief by the events of the weekend. How do we (and indeed should we) create an organisational culture that includes the most radical supporter of Hamas and the most radical Zionist?

Will the CIPD be publishing inclusivity guides?  Based on their recent track record, they should say:  authenticity – empowering Hamas militants to express their authentic self in the workplace, and showing outward acceptance when they do. and likewise, of course: authenticity – empowering Zionists to express their authentic self in the workplace, and showing outward acceptance when they do.

One problem I have with the EDI agenda is that I don't think anyone really believes it: not all the way through. Would anyone argue for equality and inclusion for the sake of diversity extending to those we believe to be advocating evil, or supporting genocide?

And it is an intellectual cop-out, I think, to say that it doesn't extend to those who express themselves outside what is legally permissible. We cannot outsource our consciences to the law; nor can we assume that the law is always just, as even the most cursory look in a history book - or indeed survey of current legal systems around the world - will confirm.

Or do we really mean, EDI (for those whose opinions I value)?

Because I am interested, too, in whom we seek to shame. It's a useful barometer of the moral atmosphere. People often talk as if shame is some evil that enlightened people have left behind. It is deemed quite wrong to fat-shame or to slut-shame, for example. But in fact, what has happened is that the targets of shame have changed. All the vogue words that end in -phobe (for example) seem to me designed to shame those who hold views that we now deem shameful (and possibly rightly so). Shame is, in fact, a useful and important moderator of undesirable behaviour. It would be a good thing if politicians were ashamed to lie, or celebrities ashamed to indulge in sexual exploitation. But we seem incapable of being honest about this; or even talking about it openly and clearly.

So where am I on all this?

My current thinking, and it is somewhat provisional, is that Equality, Diversity and Inclusion are not absolute goods (though we are invited to reverence them as though they are) but rather that they are, in reality, useful indicators. Where one or other of them is lacking, it should cause us to stop and take notice. And what we should take notice of, I think, are justice and truth and compassion.

That is, we shouldn't unjustly (or dishonestly, or cruelly) exclude someone; or unjustly (etc) demand that they conform, or unjustly treat them as less than equal.  But there may be occasions when it is indeed just to do so. Men are justly excluded from women-only spaces; students are justly required to conform to intellectual rules (such as not plagiarising) and children are justly placed under the authority of responsible adults for their own protection. 

Justice and truth, then, I see as absolutes to which we can - and should - commit; and compassion a default operating system. They are not, of course always easy (or even possible) to attain, but we should commit to striving for them. And I find it interesting that the pursuit of truth is so out of fashion in some intellectual circles; and further, I wonder if it is the search for a value-base to replace the gap left by its absence that has led EDI to be promoted to the first rank, when it should, by my reckoning, be in the second.

And it is with wry amusement that I notice that it is often those who refute the notion of truth who make strident truth-claims for their own particular dogmas; and occasionally do so with a pronounced lack of compassion. 

Problems with the EDI Agenda

The CIPD is the leading professional body for those who work in Personnel/Human Resources/People Development (or whatever we are calling it this week). It publishes best practice guidance, as one might expect.

I have been reading its recently published (September) guide: Transgender and non-binary inclusion at work (Fletcher, L., & Marvell, R. (2023) Transgender and Non-Binary Inclusion at Work Guide. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) Doi: 10.15125/ BATHRO-271384630).

I was initially struck by the claim that it was evidence-based, followed quickly by the claim that sex is 'assigned at birth.' I may not be a biologist, but I am a father and a grandfather, and I know that the sex of all my children and grandchildren was observed well before they were born, and was not assigned at all. 

I admit to a degree of pedantry when it comes to language, but that is (at least in part) because I think that conveying meaning clearly and accurately is important. It struck me that the choice of language here was driven by political considerations, rather than truth. (If there is an evidence base for the assertion that sex is assigned at birth, please let me know!)

Akua Reindorf

Reading on, it struck me that the document was profoundly problematic. On the one hand, it takes a very partisan approach throughout: taking the Stonewall (and allies) perspective as the gold standard, when as Akua Reindorf's review of events at Essex University highlighted, that is an unsafe approach.

But more problematic still is the problem of Equality that is unaddressed (and indeed subverted) by this text.

The Guide says that one of the day-to-day actions managers could (and implicitly should) take is to encourage: authenticity – empowering transgender and non-binary workers to express their authentic self in the workplace, and showing outward acceptance when they do.

It also says: The Equality Act (2010) may also protect gender-critical views, as holding these views is not in itself unlawful discrimination. A number of recent cases (See Appendix A: List of employment tribunal and employment appeal tribunal cases) have collectively reasoned that gender-critical beliefs can meet the criteria to be a protected belief. For example, in Forstater v CDG Europe, Forstater’s belief was that sex correlates to reproductive biology and that it is impossible to change sex. A person cannot be treated less favourably at work due to holding these views, and holding these views does not amount to unacceptable behaviour. However, this does not give anyone the right to manifest any beliefs in a discriminatory way at work, and the manner of expression of these beliefs could amount to unlawful discrimination depending on the circumstances.

It seems clear to me that the treatment of those with gender-critical views is not in any sense equal to the treatment of trans and non-binary people. One group is to be accepted and celebrated, the other to be (at best) tolerated. 

In terms of equality, the document should (I would argue) also say (or at least allow for):  authenticity – empowering gender-critical workers to express their authentic self in the workplace, and showing outward acceptance when they do. Yet immediately, we see that it could not possibly do so.

Likewise, one might consider other workers with protected characteristics: say those with religious beliefs that conflict with the beliefs of those who identify as transgender or non-binary. Again, one would expect:  authenticity – empowering workers with religious beliefs to express their authentic self in the workplace, and showing outward acceptance when they do. Again, we see that the guide could not possibly say such a thing.

My point is: it doesn't work. This simplistic approach, which lacks any reciprocity, doesn't work.  What it does is prioritise one group of people over others: equality is out of the window, as is inclusion (imagine how you would feel if you were gender-critical, or a devout believer of a faith that doesn't accept the trans world view...), and thus diversity.  

We need to think - and talk - with much more sophistication and nuance about these difficult topics; but there is little appetite for doing so.  We deserve better from the CIPD; and Universities (my primary sphere of work) need to engage much more intelligently and courageously with the difficulties here. 

Indeed, one of the reasons I wrote this blog post is because I know many academics who self-censor: they don't say (or in some cases teach) what they believe to be true because they fear that the repercussions from those who preach inclusivity will be so terrible. And when I realised that I too was feeling some fear about broaching the subject, I knew that I had to do so.

Mixed Messages

I was at a special interest group virtual seminar, about Diversity and Inclusion, this week. It was a closed group, not public: you had to give your identity, credentials and reason for attending in order to get the link, to ensure that relevant people attended.

One of the themes was about the subtle messaging that we can send, either deliberately or inadvertently, that others may read, that signals that we are intending either to include or exclude.

And the meeting was set up so that not only the Q&A stream , but also the chat function, were only visible to the host and the panel speakers.

The host, opening the session, mentioned that he realised that he was 'preaching to the choir' in his opening remarks.

All of which had the effect of making me feel excluded.

It is not, of course, that I think that either Diversity or Inclusion are Bad Things; but I do like to engage critically with such topics, and there are certainly questions about the particular approach that was being championed on this seminar.  

In particular, I think that diversity and inclusion are indicators; if either or both are missing, then it may be that an injustice or a lack of charity is being committed.  But it is justice and charity that are the primary values, not diversity and inclusion per se. Sometimes a lack of diversity, and exclusion, may be both the just and the charitable state of affairs. To take a topical example, men are rightly excluded from women's sporting competitions.

But the set-up of the event made me think that raising such questions would not be welcomed - it would be like the choir questioning the vicar mid-sermon, to use the host's analogy.

As a team I worked with many years ago used to say, if you can't walk the talk, at least try to stumble the mumble...

--

With thanks to Tim Mossholder and Eilis Garvey for sharing their photos on Unsplash

When Higher Education Encounters a Stone Wall...

The VC at Essex University has written a very sober post on his blog to staff about the University's mistakes in handling objections to  two speaker invitations, including open apologies to the two academics concerned.  He also writes: I was deeply concerned to read the input into the review from some staff and students who said that they felt constrained to self-censor their speech and activity because of concerns about how we manage the balance between freedom of speech and our commitment to diversity, equality and inclusion. 

When one goes on to read the Report one can see why he is concerned. Akua Reindorf, the Barrister who was commissioned by the University to undertake the independent review, does not pull her punches.

At the heart of her criticisms is the influence that Stonewall, the advocacy and campaigning organisation, has had on the University's Policies and Practices. The University, like many others, in pursuit of its aspirations around diversity, equality and inclusion, has signed up to be a Stonewall Champion, and aspires for continuing Stonewall recognition as an outstanding (Top 100) employer.

Unfortunately, Stonewall does not seem to merit being seen as the Best Practice benchmark that Universities, and many other bodies, assume it to be. 

For example, Reindorf notes that the University's policy on supporting trans and non-binary staff 'is reviewed annually by Stonewall, and its incorrect summary of the law does not appear to have been picked up by them. In my view the policy states the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it is.'

Reindorf recommends that: The University should give careful and thorough consideration to the relative benefits and disbenefits of its relationship with Stonewall, bearing in mind the issues raised in this report. In particular, it should consider that this relationship appears to have given University members the impression that gender critical academics can legitimately be excluded from the institution,'  and that 'If the University considers it appropriate to continue its relationship with Stonewall, it should devise a strategy for countering the drawbacks and potential illegalities described above.'

Many other HEIs have signed up as Stonewall Champions. Reindorf's findings suggest a culture of fear that some academics and professional staff experience if they don't wholeheartedly endorse Stonewall's distinctive position; which, it seems to me (as to Reindorf) works precisely against both the academy's wider responsibilities and mission, and more specifically, against a culture of diversity and inclusion. I hope that other institutions follow Reindorf's recommendations; and perhaps with more courage than Essex appears to be doing in this regard.

I blog about this, as in the context of confidential coaching conversations, I have heard academics and senior professional staff talk about things that they consider undiscussable, both with regard to this and other highly politicised issues, where voicing a view that differs from the perceived orthodoxy is seen as highly risky, personally and professionally. I think that is a failure in the academy.

And I nearly didn't blog about it, for fear of being 'outed' as a 'transphobe,' which of course could be very damaging to my professional practice and credibility. But I refuse to be cowed by the very bullying culture that I decry; and I rely on the wisdom of my clients to recognise some important distinctions; for example, between disagreeing with Stonewall and any wider agenda; and indeed, between disagreeing and hating - a line that some activists seem to me very keen to obscure.

--

With thanks to Rory McKeever and Nsey Benajah for sharing their photos on Unsplash