You may have heard the shocking and disappointing news: The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) has made a controversial decision to remove "equity" from its diversity, equity, and inclusion policy platform. I believe that SHRM has missed the mark and potentially set back years of progress in workplace fairness.
This move, allegedly aimed at focusing on more easily understood concepts, reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what DEI truly means. It's not just misguided—it's a disservice to the professionals SHRM claims to represent and support.
SHRM's Chief Human Resources Officer, Jim Link, argues that equity is a "distraction" due to a lack of consensus on its definition. He contrasts this with diversity and inclusion, which he believes people "inherently, deeply understand." This reasoning is flawed on multiple levels.
First, it assumes that people are incapable of grasping nuanced concepts. The idea that we should simplify our approach to workplace fairness because it's too complex for the average person is patronizing at best. It underestimates the intelligence and empathy of workers and HR professionals alike.
Second, it ignores equity's critical role in creating truly inclusive workplaces. Without equity, diversity and inclusion initiatives risk becoming superficial exercises that fail to address systemic barriers and biases. Equity is not a distraction—it's the foundation upon which meaningful DEI work is built.
Contrary to SHRM's assertion, defining equity isn't rocket science. At its core, equity means giving everyone what they need to succeed, recognizing that different people have different starting points and face various challenges. It's about leveling the playing field, not just opening the gates.
Consider this simple example: Let's say that my best friend and I both get injured (heaven forbid). I end up with a deep gash, but she breaks her ankle. Equality would mean we both receive treatment at the medical facility. Equity, however, ensures I get stitches while she gets a cast. Applying a cast to my arm or stitches to her ankle would be nonsensical and potentially harmful.
This is precisely what SHRM is doing with their stance—causing more harm than good. By dismissing equity as too complex or divisive, they're essentially advocating for a one-size-fits-all approach that ignores the unique challenges different groups face in the workplace.
SHRM's decision is a retreat in the face of growing pushback against DEI initiatives. At a time when organizations should be reinforcing their commitment to fairness and equality, SHRM is taking a step backward. This move sends a troubling message about the priorities of the HR industry's leading professional organization.
As CQ, DEI, and HR professionals, we must challenge this regressive move. Equity isn't optional—it's essential for creating workplaces where everyone has a fair shot at success, regardless of their background or identity. Let's continue championing workplace equity, even if SHRM won't. The future of work depends on our unwavering commitment to true diversity, equity, and inclusion.
You can read about SHRM's bad decision here.
Until next time,
Kimberly
Want to receive Kimberly's newsletters straight to your inbox? Subscribe here.
댓글