Do EDI initiatives have any real merit anymore?

The Downside to EDI

When organisations aim to diversify their employment by seeking a wide range of people who have the merit, skill and ability - what's the problem? Then there are the ones that are quite exclusive...

EDI initiatives have been a thing in recent memory that have caused wide stirring debates as to their effectiveness in diversifying the workforce, based on true merit rather than a brand image to ‘save face’ from critics. Positive discrimination, the act of seeking out people based on the nine protected characteristics, is actually unlawful according to the Government website’s webpage on the Equality Act, 2010. Is this what TfL’s Stuart Ross Communications Internship is doing?

According to their webpage, the eligibility criteria is stressed from the outset - we know what this means. Either you consider yourself underprivileged and underrepresented, or we don’t want you. It is the ultimate game of oppression olympics. Sadiq Khan’s initiative for TfL, as well as his City Hall diversity scheme both promote this segregated ideology.

The eligibility criteria for Stuart Ross Communications Internship at TfL:

• From Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic backgrounds, and/or

• People with a disability a defined by the Equality Act, 2010

• Individuals from a disadvantaged socio-economic background

Now, the application for the City Hall diversity scheme is almost nowhere to be found, despite it only being launched early this year in April. Though according to Khan’s LinkedIn promotional post:

“The Wayne Sullivan Internship program offers four London students from marginalised racial and ethnic communities the opportunity to start their career working for the Mayor of London.

If you are interested in a career in PR, marketing, events or digital communications, sign up for the online information event on Wednesday 17 April and apply before Sunday 28 April.”

The Ilford Recorder reported that this internship has ‘racist’ undertones, in its exclusionary stance towards white applicants. Can they be blamed? While some defended it as a diversity initiative, it makes one think how in any way does this promote diversity?

The ancestors of British-born non-white citizens, asked for one thing. They wanted to be seen as equal to their white neighbours, have access to the same opportunities, live in peace amongst them. Surely, this is then reversing any attempts to form a true multicultural, and integrated culture. If there are signs of multiculturalism failing, it is because of diversity initiatives like this.

Whatever happened to us making it for ourselves? The idea of our parents and previous generations arriving in Britain in search for opportunities to work , have a stake in the economy, provide a foundation for their children through strong education in order for them to have a step up in the real world. They did not educate us on seeking handouts from local authorities and governments. We were encouraged to be just as good as our neighbours, to study and work just as hard so that one day we could climb up the ladder - to be on pare with those who we might consider more privileged and fortunate!

The faults in EDI concepts are rooted in inaccuracies. Some potential scenarios:

• A wealthy black/Asian child of a CEO who is disabled - are they privileged or underprivileged?

• A working-class council estate born white male - privileged or underprivileged?

• A homosexual woman born to immigrants from a Middle East expat background who evades taxes in the UK. Underprivileged or privileged?

Take your pick! You might have a chance in getting into Sadiq Khan’s initiatives, unless of course you meet only 8 of the 9 protected characteristics :(

The term ‘ethnic minorities’ in itself is condescending and outdated. When 13 million out of a population of 68 million are from non-white ethnic backgrounds, calling this a ‘minority’ is awkward and inaccurate. By definition, it would refer to a group that has distinct differences in culture and language. Although cultures are prevalent, most non-whites can speak fluent English, are English born and educated. So, instead of labelling us under the cringe ‘ethnic minority group’ (you know the pitiful tone I imagine), call us British.

So, EDI initiatives cannot be achieved when merit plays a secondary role to identity and background. No strong economy can be founded on a culture that promotes easy access opportunities in the workforce, especially one that has based off segregating others who might actually be interested in such an opportunity. To diversify a workplace based on various backgrounds is not necessarily a bad idea - we encourage the diversity of thought, perspectives and ideas that enrich our understanding and thinking. But hire on merit and ability. Diversity hires know who they are, don’t think your recruitment is unique. There are plenty of well-equipped individuals from ethnic backgrounds, from lower income backgrounds who have worked hard and not relied on handouts. We are not stupid, we are not unable to climb our way up, stop patronising us.

These EDI initiatives do the exact opposite of what they aim to achieve - under the false facade of inclusion, multiculturalism, equality and diversity, there exists segregation, exclusion, discrimination and privilege of identity and background. Since the 1980s, an enterprise culture had been encouraged of those who come from lower social backgrounds with the right skills, in the face of the aristocratic, well-educated elite who led many of the institutions in this country. We are heading back the same way. It’s digression, with ‘equality, diversity, and inclusion’ smile on its face.

Author: Shiven Chudasama

SAFAF Member and Representative, Queen Mary University of London