I need to clarify myself. Recently a peer, after reading my criticisms of human resources departments and the marketization of anti-racism, asked me what I thought of diversity and inclusion efforts.
They assumed me to be against those efforts given how critical I have been of the corporate appropriation of the language of social movements, saying I had a negative outlook on humanity. I was surprised to hear this assumption and felt I perhaps needed to explain my position better.
I do not think diversity and inclusion efforts are in and of themselves bad. In fact, I find most of them harmless and good. What is bad is when institutions with power use these initiatives to deflect responsibility for the lack of workplace democracy.
Some of the most destructive businesses such as Amazon, Bank of America and arms manufacturers like Raytheon employ these as a way to improve public opinion while continuing their exploitative practices.
A focus on diversity and inclusion by a business or any other private institution, whose primary drive is above all turning a profit, is not an act of good faith but a calculated move to protect themselves from criticism and remain in good standing with the public.
The inherent problem of diversity and inclusion efforts are that they look to change the cultural outlook of a small group of people, which is noble work, but their sphere of influence is typically limited to small, professional settings.
In addition to microaggressions in the workplace, there are systemic barriers that prevent minority groups from entering certain segments of the workplace in the first place.
I believe ameliorating the material issues people face through universal programs like Medicare for All, a law guaranteeing minimum wage indexed for inflation and others that shift power from the hands of the owning class to workers would do more to help promote diversity and inclusion than a session.
That does not make diversity and inclusion trainings bad, just less sufficient in addressing the much larger issues of bigotry and oppression in our country. Some people call this outlook cynical. I am no stranger to these accusations.
I will admit, I have a fairly negative outlook on the people in possession of wealth and power whose decisions oversee our lives, but I am far from a cynic. I believe, maybe naively, in humanity’s profound capacity for good.
That is why it upsets me when I see corporations attempting to cash in on the legitimate anger of marginalized and materially oppressed people. What I find to be deeply cynical is using the guise of diversity and inclusion to protect the class interests of people whose entire existence is precipitated on the subjugation of those they claim to help.
