In 2020, the American EDI movement exploded into Canada. EDI is the latest fad every modern organization must reflect.
At a glance, EDI seems unquestionably true. It simply stands against unfairness, group think, and hatred of outsiders.
But it is not so simple.
Humanities professors have written about EDI for fifty years. Articles grew out of the 1960’s American civil rights movement and created a new area of expertise. Today, high-priced consultants retrain bureaucracies by expunging bad thinking and replacing it with new ideas.
According to EDI, an ideal board of directors should look like a middle-aged Benetton ad. Equity means equality of outcome. The consultants will say this is wrong and far too simple, but they will love the ad.
The Ontario Medial Association and Canadian Medical Association take great pains to prove they are on the cutting edge of EDI. No one need question their passion.
Is EDI New?
Unquestioned truth—especially when it fuels a social movement—should give pause.
EDI has rebranded ideas as old as Plato. However, EDI experts insist all thought prior to their own enlightenment suffers from unconscious bias (unless they say otherwise). EDI is truly new under the sun.
Equity is just the same old equality agenda. “Equality” risks someone saying everyone should get an equal chance to try out for the team. That is not good enough for equalitarians. Everyone should be on the team.
In The Republic, Plato presents a utopian society built on equality.
Children should be taken from their parents and put into a state home. Kids need an equal start, equal training, equal nutrition, and equal exercise.
Parents should also participate in their own group exercise classes, in the nude.
Some assume Plato was joking. Others disagree—he simply offered a solution which takes the problem of equality with proper seriousness.
The pursuit of equal outcomes is an ancient idea.
Rousseau: the First Radical
EDI also repackages Rousseau’s work from the 18th century.
Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains.
Rousseau said social institutions condemn people to suffer lives of unfair treatment. Today for example, boards choose people using systems which lead to unfair (unequal) outcomes.
Rousseau fuelled the French Revolution and inspired Marx, which led to dozens of versions of Marxism.
Modern progressivism also draws heavily on Rousseau’s thinking. We must reform society. Remove barriers which keep people poor, sick, and oppressed. Today is a painful transition from a benighted past to an enlightened future.
Sing Along Politics
John Lennon modernized Rousseau and riffed on Marx. Around the birth of the EDI research programme, Lennon wrote the Beatles’ hits Revolution, 1968, then Working Class Hero, 1970, and finally Imagine, 1971.
Lennon fumed that people loved his song but missed his message.
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace…
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
If we join the dreamers, the “world will live as one.”
Can We Ever Get Enough Equality?
Let’s assume EDI is an unvarnished good. It should be safe to ask:
Does equality (or equity) have limits? If so, what are they? How do we find them? Who determines those limits?
Can EDI cause harm? If so, what kinds of harm and to whom?
Should we use any means to attain such a lofty goal as EDI?
Can we ever have enough EDI?
Who Dares to speak?
Equality is self-evidently good and impossibly vague.
Robert Nisbet, the late American sociologist, tackled equality as social policy in 1975. Nisbet was a communitarian—a label shared with Hilary Clinton and President Barak Obama, but of a different flavour.
This 400-word quote dares to question the equality-of-outcome agenda (bold added).
“Equality has a built-in revolutionary force lacking in such ideas as justice or liberty. For once the ideal of equality becomes uppermost it can become insatiable in its demands. It is possible to conceive of human beings conceding that they have enough freedom or justice in a social order; it is not possible to imagine them ever declaring they have enough equality— once, that is, equality becomes a corner stone of national policy. In this respect it resembles some of the religious ideals or passions which offer, just by virtue of the impossibility of ever giving them adequate representation in the actual world, almost unlimited potentialities for continuous onslaught against institutions.
Affluence is a fertile ground for the spread of equalitarian philosophy. … the pains of affluence manifestly include in our age the pain of guilt over the existence of any and all inequalities. It is not enough, as we have been discovering, to create equality before the law—at least to the degree that this is ever possible—and to seek to create equality of opportunity. Vast systems labelled Affirmative Action or Open Admissions must be instituted. And then, predictably, it is discovered that even these are not enough.
The reason for this is plain enough. Equality feeds on itself as no other single social value does. It is not long before it becomes more than a value. It takes on, as I have suggested, all the overtones of redemptiveness and becomes a religious rather than a secular idea.
Like other historic religious ideas, and also ideas of political character, equality has an inherent drive that carries it well beyond national boundaries. The proper abode of equality, like any other redemptive idea, is all mankind, not simply this or that parochial community. We are already in the presence of this universalizing state of mind in discussions of equality. It is not enough that classes and groups in the United States, or in the West, should become equal. The entire world, especially the Third World, must be brought in. …
But it is the nature of providential ideas like equality that they are stayed by neither fact nor logic. They acquire a momentum of their own, and I can think of a few things more probable than the spread of equalitarianism in the West—not despite but because of its manifest irrationality as the sovereign objective of national and world policy.”
(Nisbet, Twilight of Authority, 1975, p 184-5.)
Talkin’ Bout a Revolution
Some say we are in the midst of a progressive cultural revolution. Old ideas are suspect: potentially biased and therefore bad.
Tyranny rarely starts with a call to embrace obviously tyrannical thought. It starts as a pursuit of good intentions. Then it justifies any means to achieve its own ends.
Ask Questions
Good things welcome critique without threat of reprisal. Truth improves with testing. Beauty shines when seen beside lesser things.
Has any senior leader dared to question EDI, other than asking how to expand it even further?
Questioning accepted opinion is rarely safe, always risky. Questions often make things better—science rests on this assumption.
Until people have courage to ask simple questions, the equalitarian agenda runs unopposed and unimproved. Boards that look like Benetton ads are just the beginning.
Equity = equal outcome.
Aristotle stated that the worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.
Diversity of everything other than of thought , philosophy., skills…. it is certainly not best that we all think alike.
Inclusion over division, hatred and intersectionality .
Rousseau was wrong , humans are not born free…they are born utterly vulnerable and dependent…as Solzhenitsyn pointed out, “humans are born with different capacities.If they are free they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free “.
Great quote by Solzhenitsyn, Andris. Brilliant.
In fact, your whole comment is great. I didn’t remember that about Aristotle. And your rebuttal of Rousseau was spot on.
Thanks so much for taking time to share a comment! You are always good for at least one great quote or idea from the classics. Love it!
Cheers
No two humans are ever equal even at birth. I look at the privilege my kids have thanks to the work and sacrifice of their grand parents and even great grand parents. Time is an event that expands inequality and the longer old money aggregates the more concentrated wealth ,and thereby power, becomes. It is the nature of things; until a disruptive force is applied. Revolutions come and go. There will always be strife as the human spirit seeks to have the freedom of choice and will. There are some that are quite happy to live in a cage protected by government, but there are always those who can never be tamed in such a way.
I fear we will have another revolution, and the old power/money will show its strength in quashing the neuveaux riche and the masses will feed on their bones.
For now, we will continue to buy our safety and freedom with the wealth redistribution schemes and governments will keep printing money to keep the masses from violently overthrowing them. But, as we have witnessed in the past, eventually all socialists run out of other people’s money and when the bill comes due, there will be blood spilled.
Very interesting comment, Ozzy. I suspect you speak about revolution as someone who has seen, or who knows someone close who has seen, revolution up close. 🙂 (Not that revolution is a funny thing … just a smiley face at how that sentence turned out)
Your comment about old power/money — the Laurentian elite, if you will — reminded me of something a CEO once quipped about medicare. He said something like, “We’d never be able to attract businesses to Canada if we didn’t have nationalized medicine. Businesses couldn’t afford to pay employees’ health insurance premiums on top of all the taxes. Our economy couldn’t sustain it.”
Medicare is a massive wealth redistribution program: 1) from the public to doctors and nurses, 2) from the public to corporations, and 3) from the general public to the poor and sick.
Thanks so much for reading and posting a comment!
Cheers
Shawn,
It always concerns me somewhat when politicians feel strongly that something MUST change and damn the consequences. The life cycle of a politician does not conform well to long term societal benefit.
As Andris said, equality is about outcomes. What is it we hope to achieve? What are the end goals? Do we want a Board that looks like the Benetton ad but has no skills? Is the outcome that which is superficially visible. Or is the outcome good, intelligent policy and management. Are we focusing on equality of inputs and assuming that the outputs will transfer thru?
All progress is built on the shoulders of those that came before, and if we don’t like those shoulders we stand on, then we are reinventing the wheel and starting from a place of paucity. The current popular trend of “cancel culture” threatens to erase and cause to be forgotten important lessons and ideas of the past. “…Baby with the bath water”, and “those that forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat…” are quotes that come to my mind to warn us of the zealousness of this new cultural phenomena. I’m sure Plato and Aristotle may have kept slaves… perhaps their books and ideas need to be burned as well.
By what criteria is it decided we are equal enough? By who’s measurement. Human nature prevents the existence EVER of there being a true utopia. Always, there are those that want change and improvement. Who knows… In some future society, perhaps our efforts at EDI will be cancelled as well…!
Fantastic comments, Rob.
Inputs vs outputs … Arrogance of assuming we didn’t need anything before to get where we are … excellent
Thomas Sowell wrote about people having one of two visions, in his must-read book: A Conflict of Visions. Those with a constrained vision see life as required trade offs. Perfection remains aloof. We improve one thing only to have something else require attention due to our efforts. Other people have an unconstrained vision. They believe man has no limits — we can perfect anything if we try hard enough and believe deeply enough. This second group of people call for bold political action. “There’s so much work to be done!” To which the first group replies, “Dear God — please make them stop trying to help reform us!”
Thanks again for taking time to read and post a comment!
Cheers
Sowell: There are no solutions, only trade-offs.
Love it!
Hmm. A middle-aged able, cis, white male questioning the benefit of equality and EDI. Huh, never seen that before.
Hello Stephanie,
Thanks so much for this. Since your comment is directed at me and not at the argument, I’ll simply let it stand without response either way. Others might comment on it.
If you ever want to engage on the topic or the content of the argument presented in the post, I’d love to hear from you again!
Be well,
Shawn
Thank you for the measured reply Shawn, as you have nicely revealed here, the topic is the discussion not the individual. You and I and others, as seasoned board members in various organizations, seasoned negotiators and leaders have much experience and wisdom to share, the race towards a Benneton board with zero experience but beautifully photogenic and superficially politically correct, makes one shudder at the path forward.
Just random thoughts from a seasoned political veteran.
Random thoughts but well said, Carole. Thank you so much for sharing them.
Pursuing the Benetton Board (descriptive diversity) in no way assures us we will have people who think differently or have different ideas and experience (substantive diversity).
Thanks again! Great to hear from you.
Cheers
Therein lies the problem on the left.Theres no argument if you cancel the person making the argument.Then there’s no need to counter the argument.The echo chamber of the left is getting smaller,I believe,and reasoned people are asking questions and having discussions.Those with blinders on will see less ….
Thanks for replying, Ram! Great point.
Attack the speaker; ignore the argument; silence debate. History repeats itself.
I have to admit I got lost in this conversation Shawn. The difference between equity and equality is blurry above.
I truly believe we need more equity, where equality is much harder to achieve or even desirable.
In the graphic you put above, this is aptly put. Equality is giving every person the same lift or tool so that there is a perception of fairness. You need to see over the fence? Here is a one foot step. You are all better off. Problem is that the taller kid in the picture still benefits more. Equity is offereing up the booster that individuals need to just participate. Some need more of a boost, others less. It is tailoring what is necessary to allow every human to achieve their full potential. This is what we do every day in medicine. We advocate most for the patients who need it most. We tailor the treatment to the problem and the person. The same should be said for getting a great mix of people in a Board room, or on a soccer team, or a in first-year medical school class. It’s about removing barriers to participation. In the perfect world, to add to the graphic above, real equity involves not offering stools of different heights to allow the big and the small to each be able to see over the fence, it means getting rid of the fence completely.
Each of us owes it to the other to ensure that there are as few fences in front of us as possible. And then we can celebrate the diversity of thought, opinion, and creativity that comes from having more perspectives around us. We are individually better because of it. And society takes a BIG leap forward.
More equity, I say. Equality will take care of itself if that happens.
Thanks for this !!
Darren
Hey Darren.
Thanks for taking time to read and comment! Really appreciate it. Although the post was mostly about asking questions, I love that you have opened the bigger discussion. Excellent.
I agree that rebranding old ideas with new terms adds confusion. Equity is the new, more specific message which equalitarians have wanted from the start: equality of outcome … everyone gets to play soccer or go to medical school, as you say. It would have been simpler for them to just say ‘equality of outcome’, but using ‘equity’ is more efficient. All good.
I love what you said here: “In the perfect world, to add to the graphic above, real equity involves not offering stools of different heights to allow the big and the small to each be able to see over the fence, it means getting rid of the fence completely.”
I agree with you: we should remove fences. Arbitrary barriers to participation are unfair and often put in place to benefit some privileged group/demographic.
Removing fences seems to be the opposite of how you started:
“Equality is giving every person the same lift or tool… You need to see over the fence? Here is a one foot step. You are all better off. Problem is that the taller kid in the picture still benefits more. Equity is offering up the booster that individuals need to just participate. Some need more of a boost, others less. It is tailoring what is necessary to allow every human to achieve their full potential.
This is what we do every day in medicine. We advocate most for the patients who need it most. We tailor the treatment to the problem and the person. The same should be said for getting a great mix of people in a Board room, or on a soccer team, or a in first-year medical school class.”
The tension lies between removing a fence (an arbitrary barrier) versus providing a box (an arbitrary benefit).
Champions of equality suggest we need to provide customized benefits to each person, based on his/her needs, so that everyone can play on the soccer team or get into medical school. I see two problems with this. 1) Who controls/makes decisions about those benefits? We would need a very wise and powerful entity to decide the kind and amount of benefit, as well as deciding who qualifies for benefits. Everywhere this has been tried, it leads to human suffering, not flourishing. 2) The argument implies that everyone could play soccer or practice medicine if we helped them enough. Most of us could never play professional sports. Same applies to the professions.
Cosmic unfairness has grieved humanity for several thousand years. You are better looking and taller than me. That is not fair. Furthermore, your benefits are not something we can fix — I cannot make you ugly or shorter. So, I can either focus on my own life and stop worrying about how much better you did on the genetic/socioeconomic lottery, or I can see myself as a loser in the lottery and resent you.
The whole equity movement cannot exist without convincing people that all differences are 1) arbitrary (they could have been otherwise) and 2) fixable. This gives rise to the library shelves full of papers on unconscious bias. The fences exist — we just cannot see them!
Finally, thanks so much for bringing in the medical analogy. Doctors treat disease. We use evidence-based treatment. I’d argue that you being better looking and taller than me is not the same as me having cancer or sepsis. But even if we grant your analogy, perhaps would you not support an evidence-based approach to treating equity? Shouldn’t we try to define the ‘disease’, experiment with ‘treatments’, and adjust quickly? Equalitarians have defined the disease, prescribed treatment, and bristle at anyone who asks even the most basic questions.
So, let’s ask questions. What problem — exactly — are we trying to fix? How do we propose fixing it? How will we know it has been fixed? Does the treament have limits? What are the risks and benefits of treatment?
Thanks again for posting! I love the pushback and willingness to help me see where my argument is weakest.
Be well,
Shawn
PS I wasn’t being facetious about you being better looking and taller! 🙂
PS. Someone else shared this short video clip with me. We need people on the political left and the right to define their limits. Peterson (rightly) says that ideas about racial superiority are wrong/too far/heinous, and those on the right have said so. We need the left to explain where its own ideas go too far. No one on the left as done that (as far as I know). Cheers.
All good points Shawn.
Love lively interactive conversations on interesting and important topics!
I disagree with one thing though… I always thought you were taller!! LOL (kidding!!).
D
Oh excellent … I figured you’d be okay with discussion! Just like old times.
And too funny!! 😀 The abuse — make it stop ! 😀
Please keep pushing back. Seriously. It helps me, AND it helps to remind/show others who drop by that it’s okay to disagree on ideas and still maintain relationship.
Thanks for making me smile! (and think)
Cheers
Learn to love ad hominems, in a way they are flattering.
Ad hominems are a substitute for debate indicating that the person uttering them don’t have an intelligent response to offer so they attack the person, the speaker , as opposed to the debating points…it reflects their anger and frustration.
Ha — great point, Andris. Thanks
The irony is that imposing an appearance of diversity (race, gender, age) may result in a paucity of diversity of ideas, experience, and values.
Exactly. But how will we know? Does anyone care? Should we care?
We have made the idea of descriptive diversity the only idea that matters and the only one worth pursuing.
Thanks for posting!