We can agree to say that the problem is lack of diversity. But what type of diversity? The type of diversity that is hindered by imbalances of power and social hierarchies. We’re talking about a lack of women in men-dominated spaces, a lack of people of color in white-dominated spaces, a lack of people with disabilities in inaccessible spaces, a lack of LGBTQI+ people in spaces dominated by heteronormativity. The underlying systems for this lack of diversity are called patriarchy, ableism, racism and homophobia.

The problem is that these words are triggering words. No one likes to hear these words because they trigger negative feelings in us. They trigger shame, blame, defensiveness and guilt. They make us ask difficult questions and make us confront ourselves with equally difficult answers. Some of these questions include: why are women underrepresented in high level political decisionmaking spheres? Why are people of color overrepresented in low-skilled, low-status segments of the labor market? Why do trans* people continue to be excluded from most societal spheres? Who currently holds the political, economic and cultural power to decide who belongs and who does not belong? Power is a key aspect of diversity politics and we should not shy away from raising these issues. It should not be about blame or guilt, but about accountability and justice.

On the other hand, the word “diversity” is positive, it’s vibrant, it’s fun, it evokes progress, openness, tolerance. It creates a consensus: we need more diversity, we want more diversity, we should strive for more diversity. I understand the reluctance to speak about anti-discrimination, patriarchy and racism, and instead prefer the less loaded term “diversity”. People within companies engaged on the tortuous path leading to more diversity are aware that they are navigating tumultuous waters that can bring division, dissent and resistance. For this reason, they would rather take the easy entry door in order to have the staff and management on their side. But in the long run, avoidance strategies may bring us further and further from a unified society. Social change takes time, but it also takes courage, especially in the face of the current political tensions.

We should continue to strive for diversity and inclusion, but equity should occupy a more central place. The good news is, many institutions from the private and public sector already implement measures promoting equity. Diversity charter signatories commit to promoting diversity and equal opportunities for its staff. But concretely, what is equal opportunity? Equal opportunity is a state of fairness in which job applicants and employees are treated fairly, unhampered by structural barriers or prejudices or preferences – implicit or explicit - except when particular distinctions can be justified. Equal opportunity is based on the concept of substantive equality, a fundamental aspect of human rights law that is concerned with equitable outcomes and equal opportunities for disadvantaged and marginalized people and groups in society. Substantive equality is primarily achieved by implementing special measures (including diversity policies) aimed at ensuring that opportunities and resources are equitably distributed within society.

Whether it is framed as a justice issue (anti-discrimination) or as an economic issue (diversity for more productivity and market shares), anti-discrimination cannot happen without diversity, and diversity cannot happen without anti-discrimination. They are two sides of the same coin. In this sense, it is essential to promote synergies between civil society actors, companies and public institutions instead of creating two parallel fights for the same goals: unity, diversity, equity and justice.  So how can public and private institutions ensure that they pay sufficient attention to substantive equality, equal opportunity and equity?

Firstly, the underlying social hierarchies need to be addressed in order to treat the root causes of the lack of diversity and inclusion. Secondly, an intersectional approach to diversity should be promoted in order to avoid reproducing exclusions, hierarchies and competition between various diversity dimensions. Thirdly, a clear stance ought to be taken against discrimination, as diversity measures cannot be implemented if discrimination patterns are at play, including implicit bias. And last but not least, diversity can only be achieved if we ask difficult questions and that discomfort is what makes us grow, individually and collectively - as a society.

If we choose trust and honesty, we can help grow the commitment and efforts of thousands of companies, public sector institutions and other employers. Diversity management is being professionalized, measures are being implemented with a view to create impact beyond the mere visibility of minorities. Brené Brown told us in her book “dearing greatly” that we need to embrace vulnerability to be courageous. So let us be brave and step up the game when it comes to diversity.

Let us make ourselves vulnerable and accept our past mistakes and blind spots.

Let us take the challenge one step further and confront power imbalances, fears and discomforts and all the issues that the current diversity discourse tends to overlook or keep under the rug.

Let’s be brave, because none of us need to lose, we can – and will – all win from more diversity.

by Emilia Roig, Center for Intersectional Justice (CIJ), Founder & Executive Director