Diversity and Inclusion Initiatives are Really Just Smoke and Mirrors

Here’s why.

It’s a fact that all companies are better with diversity, not worse. So why are modern D&I programs still just feel-good meetings which drive minimal results?

To answer this question, we need to travel back in time.

The history of Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) in America traces back to November 22nd 1963, when President John F. Kennedy (JFK) was assassinated.

Just five months prior, JFK proposed a comprehensive civil rights bill in response to brutal police suppression of non-violent protests in Birmingham, Alabama. This bill though, stalled in Congress due to a Virginian segregationist who refused to let the bill out of committee.

It was only after JFK’s assassination, that President Lyndon B. Johnson was able to mobilize Congress to pass the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 to honor JFK.

This newly passed civil rights bill made discrimination based on race,color, religion, sex or national origin, illegal. In addition, an Equal Employment Opportunity Council (EEOC) was also established to enforce the mandate of this bill.

The EEOC was neutered from the start though, when President Ronald Regan appointed Clarence Thomas (and current U.S. Supreme Court Judge) to head the organization in 1982.

Ignoring all the controversies at the EEOC during Thomas’ reign, the key fact is that Thomas focused the EEOC efforts on prosecuting individual acts of discrimination, rather than systematic and institutional discrimination.

This approach in effect, established the precedence that discrimination occurred at an individual, rather than institutional level.

Outside of the governmental institution, there are two other reasons why D&I initiatives are virtually the same since the 1960’s:

(1) D&I can easily turn into a check-the-box activity for Human Resources.

Thanks to Clarence Thomas, a company could indemnify itself by holding a series of diversity trainings and establishing affinity groups, as evidence of being diverse and inclusive, and just fire any individual guilty of discrimination.

So, that’s exactly what many companies did.

Through 2019, all that is really publicly shared by corporations is (1) number of D&I groups there are, (2) number of conferences being hosted, and if lucky (3) high level numbers of minorities in management relative to corporate population, as evidence of an inclusive D&I strategy.

But what do these numbers mean? What change has resulted because of these groups and conferences? How are we better today, than yesterday? What are we driving towards in the future?

(2) Many affinity groups actually reinforce stereotypes instead of diversity.

I’m tired of seeing Asian affinity groups exclusively hosting events that focus on things like cherry blossoms viewings, and meditation events.

What makes us Asian? Is it solely the stereotypical things that we do, or is it something more?

For me, it’s the latter. The cultural values we were raised with, are far more important than the actual activities that we grew up with. I also posit that we can still be Asian, without staying in the swim lanes of stereotypes.

Yes, I started playing the violin from when I was four, but I’ve also climbed a 6,000 meter (19,685 ft) mountain in Bolivia and also completed the Seattle to Portland bike ride (204 miles in 2 days).

I had to learn on my own, how to speak up in a packed room with my opinion. Through trial-and-error, I figured out when the right time was to speak up about my accomplishments, instead of hoping that one day, someone would notice.

It took years, to realize that going to a happy hour and connecting at the personal level, could advance my career far more effectively than just hard work.

How great would it be, for instance, to have an affinity program that could help Asians fresh out of college with these insights?

Can we please look beyond stereotypes and double down on the values and philosophies that connect us together, and also with others?

Or, you know, we could just play ping-pong.

D&I has always been broken, but I believe we can fix it by focusing on the right metrics.

Instead of counting number of affinity groups, how about a commitment to a minimum of X% of D&I population to leadership positions by Y date?

If 10% of your workplace is Korean-American, then how about a commitment towards 10% of the leadership team being Korean-American over the next 10 years?

In addition to number of conferences, how about measuring engagement within D&I populations?

If only 10% of your eligible D&I population at work are active in your D&I groups, that tells you that 90% of people aren’t interested or do not find value with the current structure.

How do we get 90% of your eligible D&I population engaged in groups?

Finally, how about more transparency in published metrics?

Take the following example. Tech company Virunga announces that 25% of their workforce is Asian, and that 25% of leadership is Asian. At first glance, that seems pretty good right?

At first glance it does, but let’s peel the onion one layer further.

Still fair?

As you can see, numbers can say anything depending on how you look at them, and especially in the case of D&I, more transparency is better than less.

While modern D&I initiatives are currently just feel good meetings, the thing is, they don’t have to be.

We can transform the institution of D&I into a force for good, where we empower people, drive results, and in turn, the companies they work at.

We just need to demand accountability and focus on the right metrics. So let’s start the path towards a better future by improving D&I for all.