DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION: THE MISCONCEIVED VALUES OF TODAY'S SOCIETY

Nowadays companies are talking about diversity. They want to prove to the public they embrace diversity and have made inclusivity one of their core values. Before we continue unravelling our thoughts, let's think for a bit. What is currently defined as diversity and inclusivity?

---

Diversity:

the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.

Inclusivity: 

the practice or policy of providing equal access to opportunities and resources for people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized, such as those having physical or mental disabilities or belonging to other minority groups.

---

In a perfect society, diversity and inclusion would mean letting any person enter, or the chance to enter, a group of people. In such a world, we would not even think, nor be preoccupied, of other people's color, way of dressing, sexual orientation, gender, among many many others. It would not even be a thing. People are merely going to be judged based on their virtues, capabilities, skills and eagerness to do a job. Fair enough, right? Now, the fact that they are going to be judged only based on such criterias, would not mean that companies, for example, will end up having the perfect percentages of every social group inside them -which is what they are currently trying to show with the mere goal to be marketed and perceived as diverse. 

In this latter scenario, I would like you to imagine this: There is a company. They are looking for a Marketing manager let's say. They end up with two applicants, one man and one woman. Let's take the simple, silly, but yet to the point, example that the company has 99 managers, 23 of them are women and 76 of them are men. The company is doing some effort to show the world how much they embrace diversity and equal opportunities, so they have in mind they would like to raise the number of women in managerial positions. So far so good. Let's now say that they come to the point to select the final applicant for this position. They have realized the man is slightly more qualified for the job. They also realize that in case they pick the woman they would have made more progress on showing a more diverse profile. Subsequently, they choose the woman. Ok. Now. What do you think? Does this seem right to you?

A company that wants to go towards a way of being more diverse and inclusive  -without taking gender, color etc. into account- ends up using the gender of somebody as a criterion to base its decision on which applicant to hire. The same company that claims that it does not judge based on gender. Does this still seem right to you? 

How can you claim both no judgement based on gender and using gender as a defining trait for your hiring decision, just in order to show numbers are showing a more inclusive image?

As former St. Lawrence University student Shanice H. Arlow said:

''Our presence on this campus– checking boxes for race, sexual identity, socioeconomic status– simply feels like numbers to make the University look good. There is no need to continuously use our marginalization to make yourself look good, and, if you decide to use us to proclaim “diversity and inclusion,” at least make the effort to interact with us and understand where we are coming from.''

As with many concepts in today's society, the ones of diversity and inclusion are also misconceived. It is not about the gender, the sexual orientation or whatever, it is about the qualities, the behavior, the values, the capabilities a person has to offer. This is the mere essence behind hiring people for the right positions. And of course this may not end up with perfect percentages showing the absolute balance of various social groups in your team. This is unnatural. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Maybe you end up with 23 women in managerial positions and 77 men in managerial positions. What does this even mean? Are we gonna come into conclusions judging based on gender? The thing (gender) that we say we don't want to judge upon in the first place?

This is not inclusion. This is manipulation of figures to make them seem inclusive. This is just at the surface of the meaning of the word 'inclusion' with immense inability to touch the core of it. And this is happening.

Companies are constantly pursuing such numbers to show that they support inclusivity..that they embrace people from different backgrounds. Even referring to the fact that you have checked upon somebody's backgrounds, to make things seem balanced and diverse, is by definition not diverse and inclusive. You should not check the backgrounds. You should check what they bring to the table as a human being and potential contributor to your work. The ethos, the knowledge, the values, the skills. And these are genderless, raceless, sex-orientation-less etc. 

Fashion brands push more diversity now with hiring more models that are black. They base their perceived diversity on the color of the skin. A true controversy, right? You should not even take the color into consideration, if you want to call yourself diverse and inclusive. If not, you just stay on the surface.

Of course I am not saying we should not cheer when minorities actually come to hold upper positions for the first time. It is not a celebration of the characteristics that make such people minorities, though, but the fact that in a society offering less opportunities and less adequate infrastructure for such people to flourish, they have still managed to make themselves such human beings, in terms of skills, experience, beliefs etc., that they well deserve to be in such positions.   

Do you want to go deeper into diversity and inclusion? Start thinking differently. Start placing the human as a human at the core and not color, gender, race, sexual identity etc. We are all humans. Let's make sure we see that.