Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) is an approach that focuses on creating situations that value and include people from diverse backgrounds, treating those people fairly, and providing them with equal opportunities. DEI initiatives are everywhere, but I have a couple problems with this all-encompassing movement, one of which is merely semantic, the other is more substantial. 

Now, I admit,  I may get hung up on semantics a little more often than I should. This has been a life-long trait that annoyed my siblings when we were kids. They even gave me a pejorative childhood nickname related to my precise interpretations of their casual expressions. 

In terms of semantics, it bothers me that there can be so much overlap in the meaning of these three words. In fact, if we cancelled efforts on Diversity and Equity, but did a good job on Inclusion, I think almost everything these programs aim to achieve would work out fine. 

Think about it, if work places, and communities, and organizations were focused on inclusion for all their members, then Equity would happen naturally. No one would be excluded from equal opportunities, equal pay, and equal treatment; they would be “included” on all fronts. This principle of inclusion would of course be extended to diverse members of the group which would minimize the need to specifically focus on diversity. Maybe the whole initiative could just be call "Inclusion".

On the other hand, focusing only on inclusion does seem to stop short of actively pursuing a diverse membership in certain instances when diversity should be sought. I admit that would be a weakness of an "inclusion-only" approach, but that brings me to the more concrete issue I have with DEI. Specifically, diversity is not always good. 

There. I said it. Probably getting cancelled as you read this...

Don't get me wrong. I know that diverse groups can be more creative in developing solutions to complex problems, and can also be more sensitive to how well policies will generalize across a diverse population. In these instances, diversity is clearly good. I agree.

But research also shows that groups focused on executing plans, once the creative solutions have been developed, are often more productive and efficient when they are a tightly knit, homogenous team. In those instances, forcing a diverse membership to function as a single unit can be counter-productive.

Overall, I think DEI initiatives should not be automatic nor universal, but rather, they should be selectively adopted where clearly needed and beneficial. I am not suggesting a major cutback, but a little more thought about how and where to emphasize DEI would be a step in the right direction.

And maybe we need a new acronym, derived from words whose meanings don’t overlap.