DEI: Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater

The US Supreme Court’s decision was in some way a reflection of the growing sentiment against affirmative action that emphasized, and advocated factors other than merit as serious consideration for access to opportunities. The decision also triggered a backlash against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, as reflected in the recent decision by Walmart to join a growing list of companies to roll back their DEI policies.

Affirmative action has been controversial, not just when it comes to diversity but in everything else, too. Governments in several countries have taken steps to create a sort of level playing field for historically disadvantaged groups by giving them special rights and benefits. The intent is to obviously compensate for the discrimination these groups have suffered in the past. The belief, and quite rightly so, is that in the absence of affirmative action, the gap would only continue to widen. The problem with affirmative action, though, is that individuals who belong to the majority groups have to pay for the creation of this level playing field by foregoing some benefits that would have otherwise been available to everyone equally.

Diversity in the workplace is far more complex than merely giving it epithets like “good” and “bad” and often has both positive and negative effects.

Lip service and tokenism

Affirmative actions that seek to create diversity, and a level playing field are important, but the manner in which companies have gone about implementing DEI initiatives without encouraging a debate on these policies has resulted in lip service and tokenism. David A. Kravitz, professor of management at George Mason’s School of Business, who has been researching the relationship between diversity and performance, says, “Some diversity advocates claim that diversity is always good, and some opponents claim that it’s always bad.” According to Kravitz, both these claims are naïve and inaccurate. Diversity in the workplace is far more complex than merely giving it epithets like “good” and “bad” and often has both positive and negative effects.

Also Read: Diversity and inclusion: A growing factor in mergers and acquisitions

A whole profession of DEI took shape and championed its cause but was guilty of being judgemental and rigid when it came to dealing with dissenting views on this topic. DEI became a holy cow that could not be questioned, so much so that Sundar Pichai had to cut short a vacation to deal with a dissenting view. James Damore was fired from Google upon publishing his views on why women can’t code because of biology. His conclusions about women were simplistic and backed by unscientific and inadequate arguments. However, that inadequacy was just the same as anyone else’s arguments at Google, arriving at any equally simplistic, though favourable conclusion about women. Damore’s memo, in the very least, was not inflammatory. The decision to fire Damore, instead of addressing the issues he raised and create a broader discussion, was indicative of how the DEI folks went about their job.

Because companies embraced DEI for all the wrong reasons, corporate initiatives around this were rife with gaming and tokenism, and meeting targets set up by someone at headquarters became the sole objective. Many companies, even the large and highly respected ones, were guilty of double-standards and tokenism.

Slowly but surely, this approach to DEI, which evaded debate and deeper discussions on what really constitutes DEI, led to quiet dissent underneath the surface. The court’s decision was both a result of this sentiment and a trigger to bring it out into the open. Unfortunately, this decision has rolled back decades of hard work and momentous progress. One hopes this judgement would trigger a healthy dialogue on this topic and bring out questions and concerns that were swept under the carpet in the past.

Also Read: Shareholders grill boards on sexual harassment, pay disparity, ESG