SHRM appears to be doubling down on their recent statement on equity, instead of listening to their membership as people speak out across publications and social media against the decision to remove equity from DEI. (I even considered adding letters to DEI! Have you heard of ABIDE?) The new SHRM direction appears to focus on civility.
Voices sticking with the SHRM decision to lump equity under inclusion have called it things like “a strategic move about driving results” and that it “brings more people along for the ride.”
Someone shared a recent interview with Johnny C. Taylor, and it’s simply solidified my decision that SHRM no longer represents me and my HR and DEI work. Civility does not replace equity.
Culture Leaders Interview with Johnny C. Taylor
This interview is a longer one, and covers several topics. The discussion of the recent SHRM announcement starts at approximately 11:00.
Some Highlights:
- Research showed that “the E” was creating divisiveness and disagreement.
First, can we see that research anywhere? What percentage of people, and from which demographic groups, are having trouble with equity? Is it a majority of people, or simply the loudest voices?
We get it, some people just don’t like equity. Individuals who subscribe to the idea that social identities shouldn’t matter may perceive equity initiatives as promoting division and highlighting differences rather than focusing on commonalities. Some people may feel that efforts to achieve equity result in discrimination against majority groups. But, as anyone who works in DEI knows, these perspectives often stem from a lack of understanding of the historical and systemic factors that contribute to inequality.
Second, if a widely-used term like DEI or equity is confusing your audience, why not educate and enlighten – or even be a thought leader on what equity is? Why remove it from the conversation entirely? I don’t even agree that it’s SHRM’s place to define DEI at all – it’s simply an unfortunate reality that DEI initiatives and departments usually fall under the HR organizational structure.
- Equity as a business product?
Okay, now it’s clearer. SHRM as an organization isn’t invested in what Human Resources or DEI practitioners want from them – it’s all about what a business needs instead. SHRM’s goal is supporting what a CEO wants, not a CHRO or CDO does. This aligns with some of the other positions SHRM has taken in recent years: against labor unions (How Can We Prevent a Union From Organizing in Our Company? comes up in the top search results on SHRM’s site for “union guidance,” believe it or not!), against Black Lives Matter (“The Problem with SHRM” from 2020!), and President Johnny C. Taylor’s work in the previous presidential administration.
- A steadfast, continuing commitment to equity?
You don’t demonstrate a commitment to equity by lumping it under inclusion. Same with the other concepts Johnny mentioned in the video like accessibility and belonging – these concepts stand alone in different acronyms to demonstrate their importance. (Seriously, let’s bring ABIDE into circulation!) Are you willing to “die on the sword” for the E? YES!
I encourage you to watch the whole thing to hear the words straight from the SHRM CEO himself. (Even the part where he compares himself to Martin Luther King, Jr.)
About the Data
Here’s some further reading I found that you may want to explore until Johnny shares his!
- The Business Impact Of Diversity, Equity And Inclusion (Forbes)
- How Investing in DEI Helps Companies Become More Adaptable (Harvard Business Review)
- Diversity Matters Even More: The Case for Holistic Impact (McKinsey)
Civility Instead?
Johnny’s proposal is to shift the conversation to a civil one. But there’s a critical point here to make about the limitations of civility in addressing systemic issues like inequality and marginalization. While civility is important for respectful dialogue, it cannot replace the fundamental need for equity and justice.
- A Suppression Tactic: For marginalized groups, who have historically been silenced and oppressed, calls for civility can sometimes feel like a way to maintain the status quo rather than addressing root causes of inequality. It can be seen as a tactic to suppress dissent and prevent meaningful change.
- From a Place of Power: The call for civility often originates from those in positions of power or privilege. For marginalized groups, who have less power, this can feel like gaslighting or a way to shift the blame away from systemic issues.
- We’re Done Being Polite: True progress requires more than just polite discussions. It demands action, policy changes, and systemic reforms that dismantle power structures that perpetuate marginalization. Civility alone cannot achieve this.
Words Matter: Civility Does Not Replace Equity
Civility is a necessary component of respectful discourse, but it’s not sufficient for achieving equity. A one-size-fits-all approach to civility fails to acknowledge intersecting experiences and the unique challenges faced by different groups. Addressing systemic injustice requires confronting power imbalances, amplifying marginalized voices, and demanding tangible action towards a more just and equitable society.
SHRM had two choices at their fork in the road, as Johnny outlines: Get out of DEI altogether, or rethink their approach. I think SHRM went the wrong way at the fork – it would have been better for them to leave DEI to the DEI professionals that care about making work equitable for all.