“Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced” (James Baldwin, 1962). New York Times, January 14.
Delia Douglas
There has been much discussion, and a great deal of confusion, around the terms EDI – equity, diversity, and inclusion, and their relationship to social justice and (anti)racism. So, this month’s blog considers these relationships and explains why the terms EDI and Anti-Racism cannot be used interchangeably.
Earlier this month, the UM Office of Equity, Access, and Participation hosted an event called “Ableism in the Academy: Who’s Listening?” One of the panelists, Dr. Wesley Crichlow, an African Canadian Critical Race Intersectional Queer Theorist at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, stated that he does “equity work with a racial justice lens,” and he “advocates for Critical Race Theory (CRT) because he recognizes the limitations of EDI work, and it’s flaccid reassurance of racial justice.”
Dr. Crichlow’s description of his approach speaks to, and builds on, conversations we have had in previous blogs. To recap, we have discussed how CRT is a purposeful intervention – one that explicitly names race. This identification is important because it means that we can explicitly identify the existence of racism. We have also discussed how the Disruption of All Forms of Racism Policy, is aligned with CRT in a number of ways – beginning with an acknowledgement of the continuing significance of race and the prevalence of racism(s) in many systems in Canadian society, including health care. In addition, because most policies dilute, marginalize, or invisibilize the various practices, procedures, and structural arrangements that sustain racial inequality and normalize racism, this is an important consideration because if a policy does not take race into account in a meaningful way, then racism can remain “invisible” or can be deemed to be nonexistent, and therefore allowed to persist and potentially escalate.
Employment Equity and EDI – What do race – and racism – have to do with it?
Despite over 3 decades of a federally legislated Employment Equity (EE) policy, related diversity talk, and national narratives of inclusion, the proportion of some of the four equity-seeking groups (e.g., “women,” “persons with disabilities,” racialized minorities, and Indigenous peoples) within Canadian universities remains appallingly low. Canadian post-secondary institutions remain overwhelmingly white in terms of administration, faculty, curriculum, and culture. With few exceptions, equity has meant gender equity, with the majority of hires being white-abled women. The pattern of privileging some equity groups over others has resulted in racial and racist outcomes that maintain the current state of racial inequality and the attendant structures and logics of settler colonialism.
While it is true that EE did not move the needle, it is also the case that its replacement, EDI, has amplified rather than addressed, many of the systemic barriers that persist. The limitations and ramifications of the pervasiveness of EDI have been well documented. In essence, rather than moving towards more robust, transparent, and responsive strategies and practices, in most institutions, EDI has largely masked and supported white supremacy. This is due in large part to the fact that EDI was not designed to address racism- systemic or otherwise. Building on James Baldwin’s insights – if racism is not named, then it cannot be “faced” or addressed.
Language matters
To reiterate, language is a site of struggle.
We often hear of the need to increase diversity within the university, but what does that mean? We talk about celebrating diversity, but how does diversity talk challenge, or address structural exclusion, selective inclusion, historical disadvantage, and questions of injustice? With respect to diversity initiatives, the focus has primarily been on representation and that all too familiar photo op. At issue is that visual representation does not signal racial justice, equity, or belonging. The term diversity is amorphous and has become whatever an organization wants it to be – it is important that we distinguish between white diversity and racial diversity. For example, in a majority white cis male workforce, where Black, Indigenous, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ and disabled folks are under-represented, the organization becomes “diverse,” by hiring queer or non-binary, white men and/or women. Without critical interrogation of its meaning, diversity has frequently been disconnected from any action to activate change in response to existing inequalities and the under and over-representation of various marginalized groups.
When the focus of achieving diversity centres on representational diversity alone, one may be seduced into conflating the appearance of equity with tokenism (see the attached graphic of the “problem woman of colour in the workplace”). In this situation, tokenism refers to the idea that bringing in 1 or 2 “solves” the problem of under representation and is evidence of progress. However, without deeper consideration of the organizational culture and structural arrangements that caused the inequities in the first place, the “one” will be left to deal with the attitudes, hostilities, expectations, and dynamics that have protected and sustained structured inequalities and exclusions.
Consider the example of the underrepresentation of Indigenous and racialized minority women. Their/our absence is indicative of how people do not enter and participate in the university as equals. Critics of EDI have pointed out how it is a mistake to view “inclusion” as a process wherein those on the “margins” are able to simply “fit” into the criteria/systems/organizations defined by the “centre.” Simply put, the goal is not to have those in power remain at the centre and “welcome” those who have previously been excluded into existing structures and organizations. The goal is to identify the norms, values, hostilities/barriers/structured exclusions so that they can be disrupted and dismantled.
Similarly, with respect to the term inclusion, there has typically been little to no discussion of who has been excluded and why – thus, the response is to bring “more” diversity into an organization and have them align with prevailing norms/values, etc. without interrogation of how and why particular people have historically been excluded/marginalized/tokenized within existing institutional structures has meant that systemic discrimination continues.
The prominence of the EDI shift has meant that in many spaces other kinds of vocabularies such as social justice and anti-racism are no longer used, or at least are no longer central to policy debates and workplace practices. These terms have complex histories, which are bound up with the history of different political movements. This is one of the reasons why it is important to explicitly address systemic exclusions, and to expand EDI to explicitly attend to racial equity, anti-racism, social justice, and belonging.
Marcia Anderson
One of the core principles of the right to the highest attainable standard of health is that the needs of those who are furthest behind should be prioritized and centered. This principle should be applied in any arena where there are gaps – that is, where there is a lack of equity. What this does is change the conversation from “This system works perfectly fine for us, what is wrong with you why it isn’t working for you?” to “This system has never worked for you because it wasn’t meant to. How does the system need to change to see and value your humanity, expertise, and both past and potential future contributions?” As Janice Gassame Asare notes:
“For DEI and anti-racism work to be effective, less effort must be spent trying to coddle and center whiteness. More energy must be put into uncovering the specific needs of the most marginalized groups in order to understand how to implement support systems that promote safety and wellbeing.”
The Rady Faculty of Health Sciences Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion has recently changed its name to the Office of Equity, Access, and Participation. This communicates the return or perhaps the emergence of human rights and social justice-based action that focuses on structural and systemic interventions in pursuit of racial justice and equity. As we try to disentangle the conflation of EDI and anti-racism because of the barrier to meaningful action that has presented, we are in a continuous pursuit of new approaches that honour anti-racism action as foundational to the achievement of equity.
Resources
Anand, N. (2019, May 21). ‘Checkbox diversity’ must be left behind for DEI efforts to succeed. Stanford Social Innovation Review.
Asare, J. G. (2021). Why DEI and Anti-Racism Work Needs to Decenter Whiteness. Forbes.
Henry, F., Dua, E., Kobayashi, A., James, C., Li, P., Ramos, H., & Smith, M. S. S. (2017). The equity myth: Racialization and Indigeneity at Canadian universities. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.
Lomax, T. (2021). DEI dreaming: Confusing inclusion and tokenism. The Feminist Wire.
Smith, M. S. S., & Bray, N. (2018). Equity at Canadian universities: National, disaggregated, and intersectional data. Academic Women’s Association.
The “problem woman of colour in the workplace.”
Video: What systemic racism in Canada looks like. (2020). CBC. (10 minutes).
World Health Organization. (2022). Human rights key facts.