“Equality, diversity and inclusion: each word taken alone is deceptively anodyne,” writes Zewditu Gebreyohanes for The Critic. “Brought together, however, these words produce a buzzword, variously known as EDI, DEI or (most aptly, perhaps) DIE, which has become a jarring reminder of the scourges of pseudo-intellectualism, wastefulness and virtue signalling afflicting our institutions.” Zewditu continues:
“EDI gained particular traction in the wake of the ‘Black Lives Matter’ protests of 2020, when there was a sudden flurry of institutions in sectors from education to the arts, health to sport, trying to prove their righteousness and indeed how ‘cool’ they were.
“It would appear that, at last, the unpopular yet influential hysteria about BLM, EDI and their sister causes is waning. Even many of those who might once have been flag-wavers have seen the light, growing demotivated upon realising that something they had thought was inspired by a genuine yearning for a better society has transpired to be something all along designed to further personal and corporate interests instead. Yet the institutional pandering has continued, albeit more quietly: the so called ‘anti-racism taskforces’ which were set up to tackle the nation’s mythical structural racism and the somehow uniquely-qualified diversity chiefs and ‘Inclusivity Ambassadors’ appointed to hector against unconscious bias, have continued to proliferate in institutions across the country.
“Whatever the reason for its adoption, EDI necessarily diverts scarce time, attention and resources away from the core missions of institutions. Over time, the vicious circle of financial incentives leading to favourable recruitment practices which in turns, increases the conviction-led pursuit of EDI results in being seen as an end in itself, with institutional heads sacrificing the heart of the institution on an ideological altar.
“Moreover, there should be no place for EDI in our institutions because the ideology itself is poisonous. It is based on premises that are patronising, divisive and anti-meritocratic. ‘Diversity’ is invariably seen only in terms of diversity of immutable characteristics, without any regard for diversity of opinion, for example, which ought to be much more important in an apparently advanced (which one would imagine to be post-racial) 21st century society. Relatedly, ‘inclusion’ means inclusion of everyone and every opinion except those daring to criticise EDI or other fashionable ideologies. I and many others have plenty of ‘lived experience’ to prove that this is the case. Meanwhile, the originally most benign of the three letters in EDI – the E for ‘equality’ – has recently been reinterpreted to stand for the much more sinister and neo-Marxist ‘equity’, referring to an equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.
“In short, this pernicious ideology needs to be rooted out of all our cultural institutions. A good place to start would be removing the financial incentives which encourage institutions to pursue it, and the case of Bill Ackman and Harvard University shows how private individuals can act decisively, sidestepping the government. There is nothing innocent, warm and cuddly about EDI.”
Worth reading in full.
Contrary to the popular slogan that expenditure on these initiatives is “just good business”, it’s more of an an ‘EDI Tax’, as we wrote in a recent briefing doc.
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 EDI courses. Ironically, they prove most irksome to those they purport to benefit, i.e., members of the LGBTQ+ community and ethnic minorities.
You can read our report here.
