The Happy Black Box of Diversity Work

Diversity shares similar etymological roots as “divert”. At the core of both words is ancient root: *wer: “to turn, bend”. When we use the word diversity, what might we be diverting? (Perceptions?)

Diversity is a ‘happy’ word; a smiling black box that colonizes all the tough words.

It absorbs and diverts tougher words, and underlying problems. Why openly discuss racism, sexism, ableism, ageism, heterosexism, patriarchy, and so on– if we can simply feed those words into the happy black box of: Diversity?

Feed tough problems into the black box, and what comes out is perception control. For whom?

Often, differences of perception, can be the critical differences that matter.

In many years of community work (largely in and for Indigenous communities), I have been regularly asked: “why would a white guy do this work?”

To the most part, it’s a fair question – and, yet, I am often left pondering perceptions that led to the question

Perceptions of difference and differences of perception are at the heart of work on injustice and inequity.

Too frequently, I’ve observed that perceptions of problems are viewed as the actual problem. For example, many communities’ working through dialogues about homelessness, and/or those currently using substances.

Those with privilege have perceptions of the problem. The problem, from a privileged perception, is often those experiencing the disadvantage. Those with privilege, (inc. myself) view themselves as separate from perceived ‘problems’ of inequity.

Perceptions guide distribution of problems. Those with privilege often insert themselves as 'guides'; with the right perception.

_ _ _
Enter ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ work...

The perception of ‘problems’ at-hand becomes those required to “increase diversity”– those 'diverse' individuals- e.g. minority.

The problem becomes: “where do we find them?” “How do we identify them?” “How do we hire them”

“Them” is where perception of problem lies. But for 'them' it's probably reverse.

Perceptions of problem is not the mirror reflection of those asking the above questions. (That’s a hard perception for many to accept).
_ _ _ _

Diversity (and often inclusion) become a black box of happiness and progress. Historical and current composition of organizations are not seen as the problem – recruiting those diverse folks is ‘the problem’ to be addressed.

(Keep in mind, roots of 'problem' mean: “difficult question”).

By engaging words such as diversity, inclusion, and equity– the narrative is diverted. Narrative guides perceptions. The focus of diversity is those marginalized– not those historically privileged. Nor those that have been in positions that make an organization non-diverse.

Response in a majority of org’s?:
Form a Diversity Office or committee. Hire a marginalized individual(s) to operate the office, design a policy. This then means the organization has diversity as a ‘value’.

Any time an organization is questioned, it can simply point to the Office, to the policy, and say, “but look, this is a priority for us; a value…”

In the meantime, the reasons for DIE initiatives disappear into the happy black box (e.g. sexism, patriarchy, racism, and so on).

Perceptions of the underlying hard problems are diverted by ‘Diversity’. Bent from tough challenges to happy policies and procedures.