"What’s the Point of Diversity?" — Royal Institute of Philosophy’s 2019 Annual Debate
- Ismael K.G.
- Nov 24, 2019
- 6 min read
Last week, on Thursday 21 November, World Philosophy Day (apparently), The Royal Institute of Philosophy held its 2019 annual debate. On this occasion, it was titled “What’s the Point of Diversity?”. It’s speakers were Baroness Onora O’Neil, Professor Tommy J. Curry and Kathleen Stock. The debate was mediated and facilitated by BBC broadcaster and presenter Ritula Shah. Below I share my thoughts and highlights of what was a controversial but fascinating event.
“What’s the point of diversity?” The question does not seem the kindest or the most inviting. It certainly carries a negative connotation, as if any answer will be met with scepticism and counter examples. But it allowed for valid points to be raised beyond the usual notion of diversity (or diversity and inclusion, D&I) in the workplace. And I was thrilled to hear the Equality Act (2010) brought up and the very subject of recruitment. After all, “diversity” is not a subject specific and unique to philosophy. Of course, it can be taken to a wild level of abstraction (more on this later), but it is a matter we can all comprehend and that we all have exposure to.
So what is the point of diversity? Or, taking a step back and removing that negative connotation: is diversity good or bad? This is the approach of a critical mind to every subject. And diversity, as conceived by every D&I, EDI, DEI, DIE policy out there, is taken for granted as a fully positive notion we must all strive for. So, let’s take another step back and ask: what is diversity? When seeking a quick definition (for a blog post), go with the Oxford dictionary: “diversity is a range of many people or things that are very different from each other [or] the quality or fact of including a range of many people or things." So, the question to the writers of D&I policies is: is that the goal? Are we seeking to recruit and retain “people that are very different from each other?” This is an ambiguous question and a positive response is not so intuitive. Diversity doesn’t seem to be, after all, the goal of a D&I Policy. So what is? What is the point of diversity?
Let’s return to that bit of legislation that thrilled me when mentioned at the debate: the Equality Act, first mentioned by Onora. Whilst legislation provides the bear minimum for a “moral society”, D&I policies that try to go above and beyond the Act of 2010 will still reference it (just in case they miss something out). So what does the Act strive for? Straight from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (which Onora once chaired): “The Act provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It provides Britain with a discrimination law which protects individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society.” So, it is all about protecting individuals and building a fairer society. There is nothing that that immediately references diversity. And how does the Act promote fairness and protect people? By setting out some identifiable “protected characteristics” that cannot be the basis for discrimination. These are:
Age
Disability
Gender reassignment
Marriage and civil partnership
Pregnancy and maternity
Race
Religion or belief
Sex
Sexual orientation
And maybe this is where those D&I policies get a bit confused. Because that list, read with little context, makes it seem like we should hire people with more wide-ranging age, more disabled people and so on; but that is not the point of the legislation nor the social change it is asking for. These are the characteristics we cannot discriminate on: but there is discrimination we must carry out for the sake of our organisations and society at large. We must discriminate on experience. We must discriminate on demonstrable skills. We must discriminate on the basis of holding (or not) the necessary training and qualifications to become a surgeon. Discrimination on its own is not negative: it is what you discriminate on that is wrong.
Discrimination on its own is not negative: it is what you discriminate on that is wrong.
And no, unfortunately the list of protected characteristics is not exhaustive, and the names of some can be questioned ("gender reassignment" implies surgery, which is a difficult and life-changing experience that may never be undertaken). There are many characteristics we can wrongly discriminate on. For example, nationality, socioeconomic background, height, fashion sense or accent. And this is where the D&I Policy has a chance to add value beyond the Equality Act, because it can be broader and call for respect and collegiality regardless of a much broader range of characteristics; indeed, it can simply call for respect and collegiality. And this is different to calling for diversity per se. It is actually more in line with the Equality Act’s raison d’être: to protect individuals and promote fairness.
Another problem arises in the conception of D&I policies, as Tommy argued, and it is the design of these programmes being spearheaded by racially homogeneous groups. This is an issue at two levels. The simplest being that they are groups who have potentially never been in the shoes of the people they are trying to bring into the firm or promote the fairness to (so to speak). Just think of the ludicrous image of a long table surrounded by white men in their 50s, on the 37th floor of a fancy glass building speaking of helping children from deprived areas of town get into corporate banking (for example). The deeper level of analysis Tommy brought to his listeners’ attention was regarding the very concepts employed when speaking of diversity. Race, religion, sex, gender, political views. They are strongly charged with historical facts they are linked to in the vast network of terms and referents that constitute our language and cultures. I am struggling, to be honest, to make sense of the notes I took on this part of the debate, but the point is that the language used in schemes and programmes to promote diversity carries a history which is particular to the white, colonialist “victors.” The language itself is not diverse. Western philosophy itself is not diverse. What Tommy ultimately called for was a reconceptualisation of, essentially, language and philosophy — even the death of philosophy as understood now. When pressed on this issue by Ritula, Tommy insisted on a sharpening of concepts.
A final point was made on how we can drive positive change, assuming the flawed system of concepts, and Onora took the chance to share her wisdom. It turns out that fairness (we are no longer interested in diversity per se) is best promoted not through legislation, but through more informal approaches. Onora specified further: it is not by talking to one another, but by listening to one another that we can promote a fair and more equal society.
All the above being said, there was a view shared by a dear friend I attended the event with and who does not have a background in philosophy. The level of difficulty of the talk, the lecture-like format, the interrelated concepts that support each other and seem alien to the common usage of the English language... This did not come across as diverse or fair. The Royal Institute of Philosophy failed in the eyes of some by giving a platform to someone who reiterated for what seemed an eternity that she is not transphobic in numerous convoluted ways, but also in treating the concept of diversity as something strange and abstract. I do not blame the incredible speakers — their inputs and views and conceptual constructs were phrased and explained brilliantly, but mostly to a philosophy-savvy few (of which I am not sure if I am one yet). I do not blame the audience, who was possibly mostly from that sort of philosophical background. I do not blame anybody, as a matter of fact — but I do sincerely believe the Royal Institute of Philosophy missed a chance to “bring philosophy to the people,” to make it accessible and open, to share its beautiful modes of reasoning, concepts and insights to a population beyond the confines of academia, which is where, I believe, philosophy belongs.
For further details on the debate (and hopefully a link to the recording, not available as I write this post), visit The Royal Institute of Philosophy's Annual Debate site
For an introduction to the Equality Act (2010), see this Equality and Human Rights Commission's site
Comments