Equity, diversity and inclusion - the trouble with circular logic.
The circular logic of Equity, diversity and Inclusion initiatives
Via Negativa*: It is easier to know that something is wrong than find a fix. Most EDI initiatives are circular logic- that's a problem. I explore that further here, with a critical component to conclude.
_ _ _ _
I've been thinking about this principle a lot- esp. in relation to a line from a senior leader in higher education in some work a bit ago.
"I'm tired of hearing about problems; I only want to hear about solutions."
I still chuckle at the absurdity, and it may shine some light on why some organizations led by this sort of logic are in financial trouble?
An initiative gaining momentum in higher ed (& elsewhere): diversity, inclusion and equity strategies, actions plans... (EDI) Each of these words is critically important.
Unfortunately, condensing these three words into a 'tool' or one 'action plan' waters many things down. That's a problem.
Another central 'problem' with EDI strategies, action plans, is that if one asks many a senior manager in organizations "what is the purpose of your EDI strategy?"
The answer is often: "diversity, inclusion and equity..." Or, something to that effect.
It's a circular argument- tautological. Faulty logic.
Often, a powerful tool for engaging complex situations- look at them in reverse...as well as forward.
We often know far more about what is wrong, what is harmful- than we do about what is contextually right, what will work, and what is beneficial.
For example, I can make a decent assessment that my kids will land a backflip safely on skis, because they've done it countless times and had coaching.
Inversely, I can make a pretty accurate assessment that a neighbour kid with no training and no history of trying these- will most likely fail, with high odds of injury. Wrong situation.
Charlie Munger, Vice-chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, and Warren Buffet's long-time partner argues: "It is in the nature of things that many hard problems are best solved when addressed backwards."
_ _ _
The history of EDI initiatives comes out of corporate America and multiple successful lawsuits, focussed on discrimination and racism. Huge $$ settlements.
Now EDI initiatives are popping up like gopher heads on the prairies. No Org. wants a losing lawsuit...
What are the vast majority of EDI missing?
Thinking inversely.
Things such as, what needs to be avoided? What needs to be reversed? What needs to be subtracted? As in to add EDI, does require subtraction... but of what?
Last time I checked, the issues of systemic racism were still quite present and alive. These are embedded structural and institutional systems.
What is one thing that clearly needs to be reduced and subtracted for EDI to be successful? The thing that is not laid out in any strategy I've read: Hiring and continuing to employ folks like me: white, Settler, able-bodied, heterosexual men.
Tough problem for some to point out, when one resembles it?
If the answer to the equation = 10. As in 10 employees. To ‘add’ diversity, but keep the same number of employees, means one needs to be subtracted, for one to be added, and still = 10.
Is there a "5 things to avoid in EDI" guidebook, because by definition one of them is avoid hiring folks like me, and that's probably not a bad thing.
_ _ _ _
*The concept Via Negativa is explored beautifully by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book: Antifragile: Things that Gain from Disorder.