Why Diversity Programs Fail
“We need to make things look equal, even though they aren’t so that we make them happy.”
As a social science student who cares about fostering diversity and inclusion, I decided to join the diversity commission. Knowing what I know about white-run institutions and diversity, I had my doubts.
Despite my misgivings, I decided to join the diversity commission anyway. I joined the commission because I wanted to bring attention to the needs and concerns of marginalised groups and share my insights and ideas with the relevant people. Although I wasn’t expecting all-out activism, I did expect those on the diversity commission to care — at least to some extent — about diversity for its own sake.
However, I was in for a rude awakening. If anything, being part of the diversity commission has highlighted some of the reasons why diversity programs fail:
1. A Flawed Approach
Not every person responsible for ensuring diversity is passionate or even qualified for it, nor is it always a requirement. Depending on the institution and how much it wants to maintain the status quo while appearing to change it, it’s even preferred if those dealing with diversity aren’t qualified for it nor care about it.
This approach to diversity is highly stressful and frustrating for those who genuinely care about furthering it and inclusion because we have to work with a majority who don’t care. Even more annoying is that these people take the spots of those that do care. This means more time spent fighting or convincing members to care about diversity issues than finding ways to solve them, preventing diversity and inclusion from being realised. ‘Neutral’ bureaucratic requirements such as language and seniority are also used to exclude certain people from diversity discussions.
2. All About The Optics
The MacMillian Dictionary defines optics as “a situation in which a person or organization worries about the public perception of a decision more than the substance of the decision itself.” An example of optics is the white male professor on the commission who said, “we need to make things look equal, even though they aren’t so that we make the students happy.”
For many institutions and organisations, making things look good or equal is more important than actually making them good or equal. One way institutions play up the optics regarding diversity and inclusion is to add people of colour. These people are usually the tokens of the organisation or department who are eager to prove themselves.
Proving themselves often involves appeasing their white superiors to advance their careers. They are the ones seconding the ignorant suggestions of more senior members while silencing, dismissing, and invalidating any ‘radicals’ of colour pushing for real change. They also try to temper these ‘radicals’ by calling them “emotional,” convincing them they don’t understand ‘how things work,’ and that change can happen within discriminatory structures. They are the ones who claim to be ‘for the people’ while referring to them as “freeloaders.” They support decisions that prevent the people they claim to represent from receiving resources, opportunities, and support. They initially appear to be working hard for the cause, but you soon realise they’re working to maintain the status quo and improve their positions.
Information gathering is another optics strategy used by organisations. Not only does it make it seem like organisations care and are doing something, but it also legitimately buys them time to “collect, sort, and review” the information. In this way, a lack of data and the time it takes to gather it become excuses to do nothing. Even when given the information, those in charge would still prefer to create long and drawn-out processes to get information that ends up being disregarded.
3. Over-complicating
Another favourite of institutions is to over-complicate things. Institutions create programs and bureaucratic processes that take years to review and implement when simple, practical, and actionable steps will do. By doing so, institutions look like they’re doing something, and if anyone asks for results, they say that they’re just waiting for an abstract something or someone who’s holding them back from making the necessary changes now. People also can’t complain about this because it’s “just how things work.”
4. Ineffective Support Structures
Institutions sometimes put support structures in place to deal with the needs and concerns of marginalised members, that lack the knowledge, skills, and the will to do a proper job. Despite this, people are often referred to these support structures that they’re told are there to “help” them.
In the institution’s eyes, the only reason why there are still issues is that people aren’t aware that these resources exist, and not because they’re ill-equipped. The existence of support structures also tends to take the responsibility off those in power from actually addressing the needs and concerns of marginalized groups.
5. A Can’t-Do Attitude
Members of diversity programs block change by constantly and immediately focusing on what can’t or won’t be done. As much as there are rules and obstacles, I believe no matter how great or complicated the problem; there’s always a simpler and easier step one can take to bring about change now. Sometimes the well-timed small steps make all the difference. However, these steps tend to be rejected within diversity programs as they’re seen as inconvenient because they require action and personal responsibility instead of theorising.
Another reason why those in power are against implementing certain steps that aid diversity, comes from an ever-present fear of being “taken for a ride.” As a result, they opt to do nothing and let the majority suffer to protect themselves from “freeloaders.”
6. Diversity as a means and not an end
I’ve observed that when organisations prioritise diversity, it usually isn’t because they recognise it as necessary but because they want to increase profit, get recognition, money, or advance personal interests. Organisations even go as far as lying about diversity and inclusion goals, strategies, and achievements to get money or credit. Lying about the organisation’s state of diversity and inclusion isn’t just acceptable but also encouraged and rewarded.
7. The “it’s not my problem” problem
Any action required to further diversity that doesn’t result in money, status, or personal gain is “beyond the scope” and isn’t anyone’s responsibility, especially not those tasked with enabling diversity and inclusion.
When it comes to taking personal responsibility for fostering diversity and inclusion, people are suddenly too busy with “more important matters,” or they hand the responsibility over to another clueless department. The very people who had a million suggestions on achieving the diversity goals that benefit them suddenly have no idea how to do anything regarding diversity issues or plans that don’t include them.
8. Compliance through silence
In diversity programs of white-run institutions, there’s often someone — usually a white male in power — who seems only to be there to make outrageously ignorant statements about marginalised groups and block progress that doesn’t benefit him. In the diversity commission, we have such a white male professor who blatantly and continuously makes ignorant remarks about marginalised groups, and no one — other than me — challenges him.
If members of diversity programs don’t call these people out, then they’re complicit, even if they disagree with what is said. As Martin Luther King once said, “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”
In many organisations, too many ‘good people’ are co-signing evil through their silence. I have no desire to be one of these people, even if it endangers my position. If my role requires me to condone ignorance and maintain the status quo, then it’s not worth keeping.
