As the FT reports this morning:
US companies are accelerating their retreat from diversity and inclusion initiatives amid an all-out assault from conservatives emboldened by the election of Donald Trump.
The pullback includes Walmart's decision to end some of its diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives last week, and Boeing's move to disband its DEI department earlier this month.
They added:
These corporate rollbacks were “the beginning of the cataclysmic shift on DEI” that would accelerate once Trump takes office next year, said Michael Delikat, a partner at law firm Orrick and co-founder of its DEI task force.
So, let's be clear what DEI is. The UK's Financial Conduct Authority (yes, the one the UK government has it in for) has a good definition on its website, they say:
Our colleagues are the key to our success as a regulator. We aim to promote a culture that enables them to speak openly, encourages innovation and supports collaborative working. This helps us to:
- build capability
- enable our people to act decisively
- continuously improve how we operate
We aim to foster a diverse and inclusive workplace environment: one that's free from discrimination and bias, celebrates difference, and supports colleagues to deliver at their best.
We believe this empowers our people to fulfil their potential and results in better decision making in the public interest.
They add:
In 2022, we used an evidence-based approach to conduct a major review of our internal DEI work. Following this review, we launched a new internal DEI programme that will run from 2023 to 2026.
The objectives of our DEI programme are to:
-
address areas of under-representation
-
make adjustments to deal with imbalances and deliver fair and equitable outcomes for our people
-
foster an inclusive work environment
-
establish a strong accountability framework for progress against our DEI outcomes
As Deloitte noted in 2018, companies that prioritize DEI are six times more likely to be innovative and agile, and twice as likely to meet or exceed financial targets. It would seem obvious why companies should adopt these goals. Doing so reflects what I have described in this morning's video, which is that companies that want to make a profit must, first of all, make people happy - because that is the only way to achieve that outcome.
DEI is, in short, a recognition of the diversity within the human condition. It is about gender, race, orientation, belief and conviction. But it is much more than that. It is about recognising neurodiversity and all that different people can bring to the table within any organisation. Above all else, it is about recognising the importance of difference and creating inclusivity for all. I am totally committed to those ideas.
But Trump and his allies are not. The DEI agenda is an affront to their belief in the superiority of the white, heterosexual, neurotypical, neoliberal male and as such, they must be opposed.
The claim is that such policies undermine profitability - which is nonsense.
What they do is share prosperity, and that is what Trump and his allies oppose. They want rewards to flow to a few, not many. And they do not care that some will suffer as a result. Instead, they consciously promote the idea that anyone who is not a white, heterosexual, neurotypical, neoliberal male is part of the 'other' who should be excluded from the rewards society has to offer. This is how they will maximise profits for their chosen few.
And, for the record, let's be clear that Kemi Badenoch and Reform are close allies of Trump on this agenda. Kemi Badenoch has already seen fit to challenge the support provided to ADHD, autistic, dyslexic and other groups in society. Reform's Richard Tice talks about the UK as a Christian country, which it is very obviously not given the tiny number of people who go to church. Both have a bias towards men.
This is not just a US phenomenon. It is going to be a growing part of life in the UK as the right-wing agenda creeps ever forward - and no doubt Labour will be embracing it soon. In fact, Starmer's utterly contemptible comments on the civil service yesterday might be an indication of that.
In 1983, Neil Kinnock said, speaking of Margaret Thatcher in the sort of political speech that is now but a memory:
– I warn you not to be ordinary
– I warn you not to be young
– I warn you not to fall ill
– I warn you not to get old.
Let me add to that list - all of which are still relevant, most especially with this Labour government in office and add:
– I warn you not to be different
Trump, Badenoch and Farage are coming for all those who are different. And Starmer will no doubt join them in doing so.
We live in very dangerous times.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Again, North American style capitalism shows its true colours – being conscientious costs money which is why I think this anti-woke movement has sprung up – to enhance the bottom line.
In the USA the anti-woke movement has sprung up due to large minority of people not understanding and/or fearing “woke”.
North American style capitalism is harnessing this fear FOR THEIR OEN BENEFIT to enhance the bottom line.
If a sizable minority of people did not fear LBGTQ, Muslims, Jews and neurodiversity, it would not be an issue.
Bur corporately now Tampa Bay, there is money to be saved.
@PSR,
You have a short-run point but as Richard address in this thread, ignoring and not promoting diversity will hurt companies in the long-run.
The trend can be described in one word: Fascism.
The history of fascism shows that it creeps into societies almost unnoticed, like dry rot into timber. Things that should not be normal become normalised one little bit at a time. Until what was once totally unacceptable is accepted as totally normal.
The economic case for diversity has been around for decades. I recall making the argument when I found myself bought into one of the large accounting firms. (I left along with most of my colleagues who were also acquired, a few years later). Wasting my time as the culture was deeply ingrained as it is in so much of the City. Finance, law, property, all still deeply regressive be it on diversity or working from home. Lots of tokenism. That in turn is significant for businesses who are heavily driven by the City and for public businesses, with the whole shareholder agenda. Anything that might possibly reduce short term profit is to be scrapped to cut costs.
You would have thought that Boeing might have learnt the lesson, given their disastrous performance and the crashes driven by its financialisation, which have brought its survival into doubt. Outsourcing, cutting experienced workers and quality control, gaming regulation, short cuts in design and manufacture. Their very survival is now in doubt.
That survival needs to be in doubt
@Robin Stafford
I have a particularly piquant example of the dangers of following this anti-DEI/bottom line hugging behaviour
In 1998 I attended a course at Bishop’s Stortford at what was then the College of my then Union MSF (which morphed into AMICUS,.then UNITE The Union, by various mergers).
We were celebrating 50 years of the NHS (I can’t see it making it to its century, alas), and one of my fellow attendees told me this wonderfully tragic tale of happenings in Yeovil, where he worked.
Apparently, a new manager came in – from America (no criticisms of his being American. The key fact is he was an outsider, and, as it turned out, spectacularly ignorant and stupid)
Anyway, he set off on a cost-cutting exercise, which included combing the workforce records, and getting rid of older workers, presumably as potentially more expensive in terms of pensions etc.
Alas, one of those experienced workers he got rid of turned out to be the bloke who signed off finished aircraft to the Ministry of Defence, and his company had to buy the worker back from Westighouse at great expense ro be able to release their products to the MoD.
What happened to the arrogant, ignorant newcomer I didn’t find out, but suspect he was hastily put on garden leave!
I have noted the Westland/Yeovil/Westinghouse connection. I was born in Yeovil but removed from there age 3 months. I quote (and I do hold copyright) ” In 1899, with crisis in South Africa, a bluff grey-haired American sat in a London office: this was George Westinghouse buying the land for a large electrical engineering works in England. Westinghouse was a remarkable man. Born of Westphalian stock in 1846, in New York, he served in the Civil War and, after three months technical education, returned to his father’s engineering shop in Schenectady while still under nineteen, Two years later he married, and at twenty-three he took out his first patent for railway air brakes, the foundation of his fame and fortune ———-. His activities were not confined to America. Shortly after his visit to England in 1871 a European Brake Company was formed, and in 1899 the British Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company Ltd was registered with a capital of £1.5m”. A lot else then happened and is recorded, but for brevity eventually my grandfather, a young engineer, was looking for work – he wrote to his own father ” I am now offered a berth by British Westinghouse Co. of Manchester, at £25 per annum and shall have to give a reply early next week. —- the tale continues and there is indeed a connection between Westinghouse and Westland via the ‘young engineers’ son. I find it fascinating how what goes around, comes around – I am the young engineers granddaughter, and the daughter of etc etc. I can give many more details, but it is course now merely history and meanwhile Westland has hired/bought a worker back from Westinghouse!
Thanks
I could not agree more! I would only add that we should learn from nature/ecology, which tells us that systems containing a wide variety of interacting components are more stable, resilient – in a word: healthy.
Diversity and inclusion are laudable goals, but not when it becomes a cloak for authoritarian bullies to shame and harass those who even dare point out that such a policy can negatively impact one group to the benefit of another. Those, especially on the left, who like to think of themselves as being ‘good’ and ‘kind’ seem not to realise that their fanaticism led to DEI morphing into the very opposite of its original aims: exclusion and purity of thought.
As a member of the Green Party, I have witnessed how ‘gender identity’ advocates have misused their powers to vilify and expel the most decent and honourable of members. For example, the cases of former Scottish Green MSP Andy Wightman or Sharir Ali, former deputy leader of the Green Party of England and Wales. Both kicked out for daring to protect vulnerable women and children. Yes, we do need to be inclusive, but there’s something very wrong indeed where such witch-hunting has become the norm. Anyone on the left who thinks that DEI is a completely virtuous goal with no downsides is seriously deluding themselves.
I think you massively overstate your case.
DEI did not cause those issues. A minority did, and I think they got a lot wrong, for the record.
But to claim DEI is wrong because some overstepped is absurd.
Thank you for at least recognising there is an issue. Unfortunately those who hitched ‘identity politics’ to DEI have permanently tarred the name of this otherwise worthy project. The cult-like hounding of those who don’t go along is widespread: beyond ‘left’/’centre’ political parties to the arts, journalism and academia. Where anyone stepping out of line is cancelled due to their ‘bigotry’. Unsuprisingly, yhe public have noticed, yet few ‘progressive’ politicians seem to have twigged this is complete electoral poison (and an absolute gift to Badenoch etc.). Nicola Sturgeon being the perfect example.
I think the penny has finally dropped with the US election result, as some Democrat politicians have begun to stick their heads above the parapet to admit their policies went too far e.g. Congressman Seth Moulton’s Washington Post opinion piece “I’m done with Democratic purity tests”… https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/29/seth-moulton-trans-democrats-word-police/
As someone who has not done identity politics and who sees all the faults in it, and recognises that some of it has had terrible personal and political consequences, I sense your frustration.
But, if you throw out care for all divergent groups as a result – which is the right wing agenda – then you gave not only given in to them, you have become one of the oppressors.
As with almost everything I discuss, balance is key. Please keep a balanced here. There is a need for support for all who are oppressed and who need help to integrate in a white, male, heterosexual, Christian, neurotypical world. Let’s not pretend otherwise. That would be a disaster.
Absolutely agree there’s a need for balance. And in no way is it ok to disrespect or persecute someone for their beliefs. Such discrimination should always be condemned. But that does not mean we should be silent when one group’s belief is elevated to the point where it infringes the rights and safety of other groups.
As I have said, balance is vital.
I will keep saying it.
How many great inventions were lost because their creators were black/gay/women/whatever?
(answer, a lot)
How many lives were lost ditto
My late father, Driver RASC/RAOC often commented that he preferred women bus drivers as they didnt throw the vehicles around like the men did 40 years or so on the French Government is encouraging men to ‘drive like a woman’ as 75% of road deaths are men or caused by men.
Equality has many benefits and white neurotypical heterosexual males can be beneficiaries (if only because they might end up not dying from a tree overdose)