Why aesthetic diversity does not necessarily equate to diversity of thought

By Lejohn Dillon, Junior Consultant

The fact that DEI is so widely championed in contemporary society has been a much needed and long-awaited change. However, there’s a potentially unpopular opinion that our industry really needs to hear: aesthetic diversity does not necessarily equate to diversity of thought.

One of my main issues with DEI is the fact that the conversation typically circles around what we can see – on this occasion, the focus will be on race. As someone that is mixed-race, I can appreciate the sentiment. However, I feel that as we focus most of our attention to what we can see, the issue around tokenism remains rife and looking at what truly defines us falls further down the pecking order. I know that you may be thinking this sounds familiar, but before I get into the crux of my point, I’d like to alleviate all concern and confirm that this is by no stretch of the imagination an apologetic piece in agreeance with the UK Race Report, produced by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. The report is written both insensitively and ignorantly – and that is before we get to the conclusion that Britain is not “deliberately” rigged against ethnic minorities!

The optimal word to look at here is “deliberately.” Yes, we can hide behind the term deliberately and accept the fact that the UK is trying its level best, but we must question:

  • What is the government genuinely doing to ensure that ethnic minorities are not lumped into squalid areas that fall under zones of transmission?

  • How is the government ensuring that there is ample opportunity and incentive for individuals to seek employment?

  • How is the government ensuring that there is a life for people beyond prison?

  • What is the government doing to stop perpetuating the cycle of deprivation?

If the answer to any of the above questions is unclear or not enough then it’s time to address the elephant in the room – whether it be through intent, neglect or somewhere in-between, the system IS statistically rigged against ethnic minorities.

Now that we have cleared that up, I want to touch on something I feel even more passionate about – not every ethnic minority has a compelling, marginalised story to tell. This isn’t to say that much of the BAME community haven’t had horrible experiences directly related to racism, and this is by no means a medium to discount those experiences, but the fact that we were born with more melanin in our skin does not automatically mean that we have all been through the same struggle. Aesthetic diversity does not necessarily equate to diversity of thought.

There’s that line again, and for good reason. As businesses continue to come under increased pressure to hire “diverse” talent, they find themselves scampering to tick multiple boxes – race, check; gender, check; sexual orientation, check; disability, check – often missing out the value behind diversity of lived experience and the many forms this presents itself.

Is meeting a quota for aesthetic diversity enough to ensure that truly diverse values are embedded throughout your business?

General quotas have been, and continue to be, a solid first step in ensuring the greater representation for marginalised groups long-term. However, if we look at DEI and race more holistically, it becomes apparent that there are nuances which employers sometimes look over. Let’s look at a hypothetical scenario with social class at the forefront. If we take two ambitious BAME individuals, the first is building their way up, coming from a poor socio-economic background, rough neighbourhood, both parents are unemployed, has to go the library to get WiFi, has never stepped foot in a theatre or art gallery. The second, comes from a middle/upper class family, enrolled in private primary and secondary schools, has never suffered material deprivation and has obtained sufficient social and cultural capital - who is more likely to continue reinforcing the current homogenous status quo?

We need to normalise the idea that, while not all BAME individuals have a story to tell, not all of the community has a vested interest in its success within the workplace either, nor are they obligated to feel such a way. Within contemporary society, there is almost an unspoken expectation for those that fall within historically marginalised categories to be an ally, fighter for the cause or a pioneer but this isn’t the case - the same can also be applied to those within categories such as gender, disability, sexuality. If we take this truth into consideration, it seems only logical that someone who doesn’t fall within any of the marginalised categories (but is an ally) would be more likely introduce diverse values into the workplace, doesn’t it? Yet, due to wider public pressures, employers have leant on tokenism and are more likely to employ “diverse” talent without a care in the world for their lived experience. There’s a sweet spot to be found and I believe it lies between aesthetic diversity and lived experience.

With this being said, there needs to be a deeper discussion to be had what real diversity is and the way employers go about finding it:

  • Is it about meeting a specific quota for BAME, gender, disability and sexual orientation?

  • Is it about finding a diversity of ideas and experiences that consistently challenge the status quo for the better, no matter your biology?

  • Are employers seeking out diversity beyond what can be seen or treating it as a box-ticking exercise?

Conscious that I’ve dumbed down centuries of race and class theory in about five minutes, and possibly raised more questions than answers due to the many nuances considered within this limited space, but I believe this to be a relevant first step in kickstarting the conversation around how we all have a responsibility to ensure DEI is as effective as can be by looking beyond the aesthetic.

 

 

Stuart Lambert