Wikipedia has defined DEI as an organizational framework which ‘seeks to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination’. Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the workforce. Equity refers to ‘concepts of fairness and justice, with a focus on societal disparities and allocating resources and decision making authority to groups that have historically been disadvantaged’. Finally, inclusion refers to ‘an organizational culture where all employees feel their voices will be heard with a sense of belonging and integration.’
Although, all this on first glance appears to be only fair and reasonable, the reality is that this innovation is a top down agenda to impose radical identity politics on employees and which in most cases is contrary to their best interests. This high minded rhetoric is intended to conceal the true purpose of DEI, which is primarily to promote the interests of ethnic minorities in the workplace, particularly Afro-Caribbeans and Muslims, and to openly discriminate against white people, but particularly white men.
The promotion of diversity has been around for some time in management jargon, and if it genuinely meant the encouragement of a diversity of viewpoints it would be welcome. But the objective is quite the reverse, since the intention is to police any dissent from prevailing orthodoxies, such response to which can lead to disciplinary action, sometimes even dismissal, for anyone failing to support the approved, fake consensual, group identity agenda. The declared benefits of diversity are of course illusionary. There is no evidence that employing workers from more favoured minorities will improve the operational efficiency of an organisation, since it would be at the expense of appointing the best person for the job, based on merit.
Inclusion in the workplace is a concept without any real meaning. Whilst it is certainly important for management to ensure that the opinions of all staff are taken into consideration, it should not mean that vocal favoured minorities are handed an influence out of all proportion to their numbers, which is what this clandestine agenda is intended to achieve.
The concept of equity is of more recent origin and appears to be the most pernicious of this trio of management promoted buzzwords designed to deceive and obfuscate. At least in principle it could be argued that for both diversity and inclusion there may be a possible tenuous intention to support equality of opportunity. But the intention of equity is quite different; it is to enforce an equality of outcome between different identity groups regardless of merit or talent.
Equality of opportunity can never be fully realised given the widely different backgrounds experienced by individuals. But it is not an unreasonable objective for management to aim for when recruiting staff, as it means that all applicants have the same chance of success based on their own merits. However, it has been noticed that despite all the bending of the rules to promote the favoured identity groups mentioned above, they are still not achieving the same outcome as other groups. So with the inclusion of ‘equity’ the intention is to rig the recruitment system still further to ensure that these identities will no longer be underrepresented in the workforce.
In practice this means that white people, particularly men are openly discriminated against to ensure that the quota for ethnic minorities, particularly Afro Carribbeans and Muslims is achieved. This is reverse discrimination which virtue signalling employers are happy to sign up to demonstrate their woke credentials, despite it being against their best interests as they can no longer appoint the most suitable candidates for posts they wish to fill.
There appears to be an invisible hand in operation here. Behind the scenes there seems to be an obsessive yet influential cohort of self-flagellating, guilt tripping white liberals, in cahoots with vocal ethnic activist agitators, to impose the DEI objectives. The majority of people in the workforce never sought this system of underhand favouritism, which has been imposed upon them through weak management colluding with hard left employees’ representatives who are hijacking the recruitment system by imposing their woke agenda on workforces, which they are wilfully and cynically failing to properly represent.
This has mainly occurred under a supposedly Conservative government which is just as enthusiastic as the opposition parties in imposing this agenda on their own workforce, and furthermore ensuring compliance in the private sector through mandating quotas when awarding contracts. Thus there is a conspiracy by all concerned against the true interests of the majority of British workers.
No comments:
Post a Comment