Good riddance to what exactly?
Image of the above-the-fold page B4 from printed Globe and Mail, March 10, 2025
If my understanding of traditional journalism is correct, headline writing is specialized task, such that the journalist/contributor doesn’t create the bold-print framing of their piece. The headline of a very thoughtful piece in Monday’s Globe read: “Good riddance to the firms that dumped DEI.” In the current climate, I think I can be forgiven for assuming that such an article would argue for a consumer boycott of firms that ditched DEI practices, i.e. Good riddance to companies that bow to political pressure.
I am glad that I read the whole article because Rob Csernyik resists the temptation to boil down this very complex area of business and society. The questions the Mr. Csernyik raises are provocative and instructive. Here are a few that I think he was getting at:
How effective were the efforts that have been discarded (and will we miss them)?
There was an entire industry created around training (the article notes catered lunches) to discuss the effects of bias, whether individual and unconscious, or systematic and pervasive. The working hypothesis could have been: if we raise awareness to these deficiencies and inequities, people will be motivated to do something about them. In terms of effectiveness, it is easy to track attendance to a training session (especially if it is mandatory, as was the case for publicly traded companies). It is harder to gauge crucial hurdles in the communication chain:
Were you paying attention (or were you distracted/disengaged)?
Did you understand the message/argument (or did you miss the logical connections)?
Did you agree with the conclusions (and, perhaps, felt there was no way to engage in a critical dialogue)?
Comparing and contrasting such mandatory “health and safety trainings” like WHMIS, we are dealing with a level of nuance and complexity that goes beyond relaying legal requirements and scientific expertise.
From my involvement with DEI activities, (including catered lunches), the activity of engaging employees in discussions about these important topics can be very effective (more on that below).
How serious are we about our efforts to further DEI objectives?
One of my quiet joys in reading is adding to my vocabulary. This article gave me the term “queerwashing,” without needing to look it up. If Toronto’ Pride Parade lost sponsors due to the backlash against DEI practices (which MAY be the case), are the efforts to further rights of marginalized communities really affected? Sure, sponsor dollars help to enable such activities, but we can’t be sure to what extent we were enabling performative support (i.e. The “sponsor” doesn’t actually care if things improve, but it is important for them to be seen to be doing something.)
As much as intent can be an important part of the equation, what Mr. Csernyik gets at is the necessity for some rigour on determining “where are we headed with this?” Once that is determined, we can do a bit of triage about groups and individuals who are:
Actively supporting movement in that direction
Happy to go along, but will not be actively pushing
Resistant to movement in that direction (OR support movement in an opposite direction)
Resistance and inertia are different things. That distinction may be expose the “queerwashing” elements or at least make them harder to rationalize. Once we have a direction, we can start to discuss what progress looks like. This means that we don’t have to jointly agree on where we are starting this journey (or even if this journey is starting now or has been ongoing), we just have to agree that progress is possible and desirable.
How can we critically assess what actual improvement looks like?
This sentence struck me: “The desire to track the success of these efforts is not pointless oversight, it’s part of the belief in the mission.” The earlier triaging gets at the “belief in the mission” by setting the mission up such that we will only have trouble with those whose beliefs are counter to the mission. (Our clarity begets theirs.)
Part of critical thinking can be drawing distinctions. That oh-so challenging acronym, DEI, helps start the discussion that will include things clarification on:
Diversity: Gender can be part of that, but is not the only part. Should we introduce gender neutral washrooms? Should we gauge level of acceptance or comfort with them? What about diversity of thought? Can we look for instances of people disagreeing with proposed ideas?
Equity: Access to opportunities can be part of this, but not the only part. Should we make sure that the short-list for every internally filled posting includes people with demonstrable differences? Should we put work into clarifying job bands and ensuring the compensation is commensurate across genders?
Inclusion: This remains a feeling, but is no less important than the other two. The measure or scoring attached to this feeling will be an important discussion. If people don’t feel included, will they say so on a survey? How useful is anonymity in such situations? Does the Venn diagram with Diversity give us something observable, i.e. if we include you and you voice concerns, this shows progress. Hmmm.
If this sounds like a lot of effort, recall, “these efforts are not pointless oversight.” The attempt to pull some tangibles from the various moving parts allows for some objective assessment (and reassessment) and hopefully some progression in the direction of the mission (or down the road) toward improving areas on which we have decided to focus. The overall direction only needs to be clear enough for us to identify some possible milestones. That effort is a necessary investment in executing on the mission.