ALARM BELLS RING: WHY WE CAN’T DISMISS OR REDUCE OUR D&I EFFORTS

Here at Pride Inclusion Programs, we have probably been under attack more than most for our stand on inclusion, particularly relating to LGBTQ+ inclusion.  Public Sector members have been inundated with Freedom of Information requests.  Talk shows and news channels have been flooded with misinformation about what we actually do.  Snippets of our training content have been posted online, taken completely out of context to reinforce harmful messaging that we would NOT endorse.  Members of our team have been personally intimated and vilified online.   

Woke and anti-trans activists have taken great aim at our programs, our staff, our members and our work.  But it’s not just our programs that have been in the firing line. Anti trans / LGBTQ+ rallies in streets have induced violent clashes, seen libraries shut their doors to Drag Time Storytelling and LGBTQ+ parenting books removed (albeit temporarily) from shelves.   As a result our survey results are continuing to show an annual decline in the number of LGBTQ+ people who are out at work, or open about their gender diversity.    It is little wonder why.

These trends are not unique to LGBTQ+ inclusion efforts here in Australia.   At our conference in November, we will be speaking with Nancy Kelley, ex CEO of Stonewall in London about how they tackled the same challenges.   Globally sponsorships have also taken a nosedive as International Head Offices are being asked to disengage from D&I spend, LGBTQ+ sponsorships specifically.

What is even more alarming is an emerging trend internationally for organisations to re-think their D&I strategies altogether – are they really needed?  Can we not just incorporate inclusion more broadly into our people strategies?  Can we not eliminate diversity pillars and take on a holistic approach that focuses on collective outcomes removing the need for resource groups or strategies that focus on specific aspects of D&I?

So why would this be alarming to us?

• Removing individual pillars to reinforce an umbrella approach removes the need to understand and help address the unique challenges of diverse groups.  The unique challenges faced by one diverse group will not be the same as those faced by all diverse employees.  Intersectionality will also be lost as the complexity of diversity becomes incapsulated in a one size fits all approach.
• For LGBTQ+ employees in particular, the potential invisibility of LGBTQ+ inclusion and the lack of a dedicated LGBTQ+ strategy or network reeks of days prior to all that has been achieved in this space to date.  This can potentially see even more LGBTQ+ people go back into the closet or seek alternative workplaces that still reinforce inclusion. 
• There are organisations in the US that are not only pulling back on individual pillars of diversity, but diversity altogether. Will we see that happen here as well?

Adding to all of the above stated risks, there is now a positive legal duty for employers to create a psychologically safe workplace for all employees. Under the Federal “Respect At Work” Act (2022) employers are required to take proactive and reasonable measures to eliminate sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and victimisation in the workplace. This specifically calls out LGBTQ+ people by referencing sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, and pregnancy. 

The Australian Human Rights Commission recognises that LGBTQ+ employees are more at risk of sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace; the Respect@Work Council specifically calls this out on the Respect@Work website. This is, of course, is consistent with Australian Workplace Equality Index (AWEI) findings published annually.

The new legal obligation poses the complementary challenge for organisations to manage the risk of non-compliance in this area. Compliance needs to be a part of our risk mitigation strategy.  Like all identified risks, failure to mitigate opens the door to potential damages and penalties, let alone the risk of reputational damage.

So how do we comply with these legal duties if we pull back on the critically important work of diversity and inclusion? Is this not the essence of understanding our employee base? Is this work not necessary to create an environment in which people are safe to engage, are respected and able to thrive? Is not the respect for, and inclusion of individual differences a key driver of an organisations ability to sustain a safe, respectful and inclusive culture? Psychological safety can be a KPI of our D&I work. 

Health and wellbeing is intrinsically tied to a sense of belonging and opportunity.  Psychological safety is critical and, as mentioned, a legal obligation.  Diversity and Inclusion has long surpassed its “warm and fluffy” label, it’s now become the means by which we can ensure the safe environment and culture of inclusion that should be the minimum expectation/right of all employees.

If anything, our current environment is calling for us to step up our Diversity & Inclusion work. 

We have the perfect business case for D&I right now.  We need to protect our organisations from the growing angst and the emerging impact of the “anti-woke” agenda by continuing, if not reinforcing our diversity and inclusion work. Yes it requires work, yes it requires understanding some of the unique challenges faced by our employees and yes it requires standing up for a renewed focus and vigilance when it comes to our inclusion initiatives.  It certainly does not call for a reactive watering down of what we currently do.

Obviously, our focus in on LGBTQ+ employees, but this applies across the board.

If you are interested in having one of our executive team talk to your leadership about the impact of the anti-woke agenda, please reach out to the team at Pride in Diversity.

Hear Nancy Kelley, ex CEO Stonewall speak of their experiences at the height of the anti-trans/anti-woke movement in the UK at the Pride in Practice Conference in Melbourne, November 26-27.  www.prideinpractice.com.au