Diversity, inclusion and equity, or “DIE” as some people call it, hasn’t been around for very long. Google trends shows that few Americans searched for “diversity inclusion” before around 2016 – though interest has been steadily climbing since then.
Today it’s practically everywhere: schools, universities, corporations, charities, the civil service, the armed forces. Even Britain’s supposedly cash-strapped NHS employs dozens of “diversity managers”, who often get paid as much as doctors.
The exact purpose of DIE is hard to pin down. According to Dictionary.com, it’s a “conceptual framework that promotes the fair treatment and full participation of all people”. The mega-consultancy McKinsey refers to “three closely linked values held by many organisations that are working to be supportive of different groups of individuals”. It all sounds very vague and platitudinous, doesn’t it?
We all know what DIE means in practice: bloated HR departments, politically correct jargon, patronising employee workshops, and discrimination in favour of ‘historically marginalised groups’. You’d assume, then, that a decent share of people would oppose it. Sure, some people like having their lives micro-managed by woke busybodies, but a lot of us don’t.
Yet according to a new survey by Pew Research, just 16% of U.S. workers say DIE is a “bad thing”. And 56% say it’s a “good thing”.
Far more men say it’s a “good thing” than a “bad thing”, and the same is true of whites. Even 30% of Republicans say it’s a “good thing”. What on earth is going on?
The first thing to say is that the question itself was quite vague: “Do you think that focusing on increasing diversity, equity and inclusion at work is mainly a good thing or a bad thing?” And it’s possible that some respondents just didn’t put two and two together. They thought “those things sound good”, without realising what “increasing diversity, equity and inclusion” actually entails.
A subsequent question in the survey did ask specifically about DIE “trainings”, and the results were pretty much the same. However, no question asked about positive discrimination – the aspect of DIE for which you’d expect the strongest opposition.
Another possibility is that the white, male, Republican respondents did put two and two together, but were concerned that if they gave the ‘wrong’ answer they might be punished. (Under DIE, you’re not allowed to criticise DIE.) It’s hard to believe this was a major factor given that the survey was anonymous. Though the fact that it asked about work may have primed some respondents to answer more “carefully” than they otherwise would.
A third factor is that the sample wasn’t representative of all U.S. workers. Only those working at a company or organisation with 10 or more people were included. This matters because self-employed workers may be more sceptical of DIE than your typical employee of a large corporation. Small business owners, for example, are among the most pro-Republican constituencies.
I’d like to see someone re-do the survey using methods that would address the points above. Given the backlash against Critical Race Theory, it’s difficult to believe that only 30% of Republicans consider DIE a bad thing. More research needed.
Stop Press: An additional consideration is that this was a ‘panel poll’ and, as Mike Hearn pointed out in the Daily Sceptic, certain groups are likely to be over-represented among the panellists that polling companies assemble, such as politically-engaged university graduates. They’re also more likely to be white, female and high earners, which is the demographic most committed to DIE ideology.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
We would be in a far better position as a society today if we had pursued a policy of Disagreeableness, Isolation and Exclusion.
Disagreeableness is an undervalued trait.
“The exact purpose of DIE is hard to pin down.”
I presume the author means the purported purpose rather than the true purpose, which is to destroy Western civilisation and for those involved to gain power and wealth.
As a white stale 50 year old hetrosexual male with natural grey hair, I wait in anticipation to the day I am treated with equality, inclusion and respect in the workplace.
Start with self-respect and don’t use “stale” as a word to describe yourself. Aside from that, here’s a useful phrase that can help deal with your workplace situation:
“If you want to change the people around you, change the people around you”
I don’t believe it.
Just like elections, opinion polls are heavily politicised to give the ‘right’ answer.
The simple answer here is to ask yourself 2 questions: who benefits and why? Who suffers loss and why?
If you’re a wokist you’ll be skipping like a spring lamb knowing advancement is a function of your victimhood.
If you’re an honest employee you know your skill, endeavour and experience counts for nought.
Now, look again at those ‘results’.
Pew Research claim to be independent. A quick glance at the website for Pew Charitable Trusts (who fund them) shows they are very much dependent on the cult mentality currently gripping the upper echelons of society:
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en
“Plastic reduction. “Breaking the Plastic Wave” found that, of all potential actions, reducing plastic production and consumption would yield the biggest reduction in plastic pollution, along with the greatest opportunity to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing plastic production should, therefore, be a priority measure in the treaty.”
Somebody is paying for infantile nonsense such as this. Taxpayers probably.
This website is an absolute goldmine of wokery garbage.
Here’s another corker:
“Millions of large animals die every year in the U.S. from collisions with vehicles. The cost to humans is also significant, with tens of thousands of motorists injured annually. Wildlife bridges and underpasses are highly effective at reducing these crashes, improving safety for animals and humans alike. They also facilitate essential wildlife movement, making herds more resilient in the face of drought and other changes in their habitat.”
Bloody hell: “millions of large animals” and “tens of thousands of motorists injured annually.”
Why don’t some of the “tens of thousands” feature occasionally in the MSM?
Garbage but I dare say plenty are drawing a living from this tosh.
The part of the question that I take issue with is “Focusing”. I think it is important that we accept homosexuals and Trans people as what they are, but we should not be required to change anything to suit their situation or objectives or be forced to accept advertising or publications that persuade people to join their group. If we are encouraged not to attack people in this group verbally or physically, I think that is right, and I think people should have the right to be what they want without being abused. The problem is some young people think it is fashionable to be in that group and might be encouraged to have irreversible surgery before they have matured sufficiently to make a decision that would effect the rest of their life