Civil servants will be banned from wearing rainbow lanyards as part of a government “common sense fightback”, a Cabinet Office minister has said.
As reported by the Times, Esther McVey, a minister without portfolio, is cracking down on staff EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) networks, accusing them of sowing divisions and bringing politics to Whitehall “by the back door”.
Arguing against progressive theories that “purport knowledge is based on power structures and social constructs, not evidence and reason”, McVey said that “left-wing politically correct woke warriors had made a concerted effort to get themselves into positions of influence within the public sector” instead of standing for election.
To resist such trends, McVey said she wanted to “stop the inappropriate backdoor politicisation of the civil service”, which she argued distracted from delivery of public services.
Consultancy contracts for EDI services will be banned and ministers will take control of internal diversity work to ensure that civil servants are not hired to do such roles. “People want their public servants to be getting on with the job of making their lives better, not engaging in endless internal discussions about ideology,” she said.
Lanyards to hold security passes worn by civil servants will now have to carry a standard departmental design rather than a “random pick and mix” of political statements, she said. “Working in the civil service is all about leaving your political views at the building entrance. Trying to introduce them by the back door via lanyards should not happen.”
Asked what was wrong with an LGBT lanyard, McVey said: “You don’t need political activism in a visible way … you’re putting it on to make a statement, and what we’re saying is actually, your political beliefs remain at the front door and when you come in, you’re part of a happy team.”
McVey’s plans are the latest in a series of initiatives prompted by concern within government circles at the apparent correlation between the recent rise of Critical Race Theory and gender ideology inspired EDI training in Whitehall, and increased levels of politicisation amongst supposedly impartial civil servants.
In October, the Chancellor Jeremy Hunt launched a review on public sector spending on EDI, auditing how many staff are actively working on EDI schemes around decolonisation, microaggressions, unconscious bias and so on, and giving departments and executive agencies the unenviable task of accounting for how this work supports the government’s priorities.
The review, which identified £27 million worth of spending across Whitehall in just over six months, concluded earlier this year and its findings were passed on to the Cabinet Office.
In 2021, the then women and equalities minister Liz Truss urged Whitehall departments to withdraw from a controversial “diversity champions” scheme run by the charity Stonewall following warnings that its workplace EDI guidance and training may not be aligned with UK equalities legislation.
Last year, the Cabinet Secretary was warned by senior civil servants of a “woke takeover of Whitehall” that is “distorting” the operation of government and could “improperly influence government policy”, reports the Times.
In a letter signed by 42 staff from 16 departments, Simon Case was told that gender ideology promoted by trans activists has become embedded in the Civil Service in a “significant breach of impartiality”. What has emerged as a result, they said, is a pervasive culture of fear, in which staff who dare to air gender critical views suffer “serious harassment”.
The Cabinet Office minister John Glen also previously ordered a separate review of Whitehall diversity networks and a “refresh” of civil service impartiality guidance to stop officials “using their jobs as a vehicle for political activism”. Taxpayers were “very sceptical” of the activism of identity politics, which can “slip into” EDI training, he said.
Under plans subsequently discussed with Kemi Badenoch, the equalities minister, and McVey, diversity meetings would have to be held before work, during lunch breaks or in the evenings.
Speaking to People Management back in October about the EDI-focus of Jeremy Hunt’s public sector spending review, Suki Sandhu, CEO of diversity and inclusion consultancy INvolve, said EDI initiatives were “integral to a business’s success”.
“It’s critical that businesses push forward and remain focused on EDI initiatives in this time, to create both happier and more successful workers,” he added.
But is that necessarily true?
Contrary to the idea that expenditure on EDI roles and training schemes is ‘just good business’, the FSU’s latest research report reveals that it operates, in effect, as an ‘EDI Tax’.
According to a survey of a representative sample of UK workers undertaken on behalf of the FSU, many ambitious employees and senior managers are now leaving companies because of the excessive time they’re expected to spend on these courses. Ironically, they prove most irksome to those they purport to benefit, i.e., members of the LGBTQ+ community and ethnic minorities.
Given the extent of self-censorship revealed by our research report, The EDI Tax, many UK employees are also thinking twice before contributing to workplace conversations. Genuine diversity of thought is of course required for any organisation to succeed – but in the NHS, where patients’ health is at stake, encouraging a culture of silence to creep-in risks materially affecting the quality of care and treatment on offer.
These research findings are consistent with the report of the Inclusion at Work panel commissioned by the UK’s Minister for Women and Equalities, Kemi Badenoch. Following interviews with 100 people representing 55 organisations, the report noted a “lack of accessible, plain-language, robust data on the efficacy of D&I [Diversity & Inclusion] interventions”, as well as a lack of evidence that these interventions were effective in achieving their purported objectives.
In December 2020, the government’s Behavioural Insights Team came to a similar conclusion in its review of unconscious bias training. The Written Ministerial Statement accompanying that study noted that, “Despite a growing diversity training industry and increased adoption of unconscious bias programmes, a strong body of evidence has emerged that shows that such training has no sustained impact on behaviour and may even be counterproductive”.
