Trump is the poster boy for why we need DEI

Special Halfway Through The Election Edition: Isn't it obvious by now?

My Scottish/Irish ancestors arrived on the east coast of so-called “Canada” in the early 1800’s and were part of several waves of genocidal colonization of the Indigenous people who were already here. They arrived uninvited on the traditional unceded territory of the Wəlastəkewiyik (Maliseet) whose ancestors along with the Mi’Kmaq / Mi’kmaw and Passamaquoddy / Peskotomuhkati Tribes / Nations signed Peace and Friendship Treaties with the British Crown in the 1700s. I like to start every new post by explaining my family’s history and keeping this foremost in my mind (and my writing) at all times. I know I have benefited as a result of colonization, and I find the history deeply troubling. It is what motivates me to understand the true history and advocate for real reconciliation. As a child in the 1970’s, I moved west with my family and am grateful to be writing this newsletter now in Moh’kinsstis, and the traditional Treaty 7 territory of the Blackfoot confederacy: Siksika, Kainai, Piikani, as well as the Îyâxe Nakoda and Tsuut’ina nations. This territory is also home to the Métis Nation of Alberta, Region 3 within the historical Northwest Métis homeland. I recognize that the land I now work and live on was stolen from these nations (truth) and I support giving the land back as an act of reconciliation. Lands inhabited by Indigenous Peoples contain 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity. Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge and knowledge systems are key to designing a sustainable future for all.

Note: This appeared first on LinkedIn where I comment occasionally on topics relating to the workplace. You can follow me there to see these posts earlier, or you can continue to subscribe here, where all of my posts will eventually appear. Either way, I appreciate you!

Donald Trump is the best example that has ever existed of why we needed effective diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies in the first place.

He’s also proof of the failure of DEI to do what it was supposed to do, which is allow the most qualified candidates to fairly and equitably succeed on merit.

Now, the least qualified cohort in recent memory are fully and completely in charge south of the border. They are tossing out DEI claiming it’s not needed any more. It’s just the opposite.

We need to examine where DEI went wrong and why.

I’ve been a supporter of workplace diversity efforts over the years, but have some thoughts from my personal experiences working at various jobs since I was 15. I was the primary income earner for my family for most of the first half of my career and it was not the norm in those days.

Wildly condensed history of DEI

Let’s look quickly at the American history of DEI and how we got here. Back in the early 1960’s, US President John F. Kennedy issued an executive order requiring the government take “affirmative action” to ensure employees were hired and treated fairly during employment, regardless of their “race, creed, color, or national origin.”

I was born the same year as the Civil Rights Act, in 1964, which prohibited preferential treatment for “any particular group.” At that time, everyone knew who they were talking about - straight, White men (SWM). There was little doubt that something had to be done.

Yet, in the late 1970’s, facing pushback, the actual practice of ensuring civil rights ended up in court. The plaintiffs in a case against a university argued that race should not be allowed to be considered at all. Well, you can’t ensure people are treated fairly regardless of race, if race is not allowed to be considered. But that was probably the point of the court case, to use the law’s own words to dismantle the Civil Rights Act.

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled that race could be considered when trying to foster diversity in universities. The court disallowed outright quotas, mind you, but that did not satisfy the critics.

The grievances of SWM

When I was studying journalism in Ottawa in the mid-1980’s, I took a philosophy class where we debated the case for months. It was a huge controversy at the time. In my summers, I returned home where I was a summer student and the only woman working on my team at one of the oil sands plants north of Fort McMurray. The argument weighed heavily on me as I worked 12-hour shifts underground shovelling and hosing down walls and floors caked with bituminous sand.

When I first started at the job, none of the safety equipment fit me. Some of the men on my shift grumbled and said finding smaller sizes for gloves and coveralls was somehow special treatment. It seemed as if anything could become a grievance for those who thought I didn’t belong there in the first place.

At the time, the SCOTUS decision was a declaration of war for SWM who insisted that quotas were being used against them. But despite their fears, diversity simply became good business and took on a life of its own in the late 80’s and into the 90’s.

However, somewhere along the way, things began to go sideways. Despite the involvement of many well-meaning consultants and the emergence of numerous experts in the field of diversity, not everyone understood the assignment.

People have difficulty judging on skills

I had been employed full-time for about five years. My partner had gone back to school as a full-time student. I was applying for a credit card of my own for the first time.

This was in the early 90’s and they told me I had to have my husband approve my application - my husband was unemployed at the time. They never asked for his employment status.. I was approved after they spoke with him. It was a reminder of my status as far as the bank was concerned, not based on facts or finances, but purely on my gender.

DEI exists because people have difficulty judging people on the basis of their skills, intellect or credentials. Instead, hiring decisions (and other business decisions) are too often made on purely superficial grounds. Judgments based on physical appearance, affinity with those who are like us, and a whole range of personal biases play an outsized role.

I’d argue that Human Resources departments mostly exist to try and keep these kinds of things in check, but instead of dealing with the root of the problem, most organizations tried to sidestep difficult conversations. They built systems and processes that shielded people from confronting their own worst instincts.

Training designed to limit discomfort

I’ll never forget attending a training session on diversity and human rights not that long ago. As one of only a handful of women in the room, it became clear that the whole workshop was intended to make the men in the room feel less threatened. The goal seemed to be that they leave the session feeling like nothing was really required of them, they didn’t need to change a thing. “Nothing to worry about guys” was the takeaway message.

Suffice it to say, this approach (which was not unique) didn’t work. This is evident by how little progress has actually been made in the decade since. If there’s no discomfort, you’re not actually making change. It’s as if we forgot why we had to do this in the first place. The privileges of SWM remained as strong as ever.

Not long before I decided it was time to retire, a group of supervisors were told in a meeting that we needed to deepen our voices in order to be “taken more seriously.” The thirty-something man who told us this was not challenged by anyone in the room.

What I’ve observed is that those finding themselves in positions of power not by merit but through privilege continue to perpetuate it because it worked for them. Here’s the most disturbing thing, in my 35 year career, it seems more prevalent today than it did when I first started out.

We need to dig deeper

There is a shocking lack of balance in most organizations after decades of DEI efforts. There are organizations with entire executive teams that look so similar you can barely tell them apart.

After decades of trying to ignore the errors of personal biases, people are now facing the reality that the least qualified among us, has been given the keys to the most powerful nation in the world. Where did we go wrong?

We should have dug deeper into our obsession with outward appearances, and questioned why we think attractive people are always smart. We didn’t recognize that the person who speaks the most or the loudest, doesn’t automatically have the best ideas.

We didn’t explore the concept of affinity where we gravitate towards those who are like us, who think and act like us. We need to know when to resist this and understand that getting to know those who are unlike us, brings real rewards and makes a better society.

We failed to talk enough about personal biases, including prejudices we hold close to our chests, and stereotypes we cling to despite the evidence to the contrary. This failure is the most acute, and the most dangerous in our current environment where we talk about migrants as though they are not human.

Conformity is the opposite of diversity

Instead, we continued to impose conformity on those with different perspectives. Nothing illustrates this more than the widespread persecution of transgender people. We tried to fudge the DEI numbers, and claimed we were making progress. It was fake progress and this is why we’re here.

Which brings me to the character sitting in the Oval Office today. Or out on the golf course, most days. I never in my wildest dreams expected it to reach this level.

The worst possible candidate has the job because he looks the part, talks like everyone’s embarrassing but familiar uncle, and he makes people feel like their worst instincts are perfectly fine and good.

It’s not fine or good. Not at all.