3 Comments

Yelena—this is really interesting, and something I've been doing a lot of thinking about since teaching at Missouri State. I have a couple thoughts, but I'll preface this with the obvious: that I'm not your target demographic (nor am I the subject of what's being written about here), so take all of this with a grain of salt :)

I agree with you that we shouldn't push women (or other minority groups) into the workforce "solely for diversity purposes." I think there's a fine line between wanting a more diverse workforce & wanting a workforce defined by its diversity, and it's hard to find the balance. Similarly with the corporate lifestyle, and it not being "always the best place for women"; the rights fought for & won by feminist movements should celebrate the *freedom* of women to be in the workplace, not the *mandatory* entering into the workforce by women.

In my view, one of the broader issues has to do with the "corporate initiatives" you mentioned. Admittedly, I'm new to the private sector; but it's easy to see, in the United States, the level of corporate greed—or, at the very least, the priorities that dictate corporate ideology. Putting that aside, though, it can get tricky if we prioritize corporate initiatives based on someone's "personal beliefs." That feels like the heart of DEI initiatives: some people, especially white men who have dominated the corporate world, have disagreeable (or outright racist/sexist/etc.) personal beliefs, which is what DEI initiatives are trying to reduce or remove entirely.

I'd also like to push back a little on the idea of diversity (or DEI broadly) being a "woke trend." I know it's trite/boring to quote dictionaries, but I'm this far along. Merriam-Webster defines "woke" as "aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)." Dictionary.com defines it as "having or marked by an active awareness of systemic injustices and prejudices, especially those involving the treatment of ethnic, racial, or sexual minorities." Neither of these things are inherently negative, but when we look at how the word "woke" has been co-opted by the media at large, especially right-wing media (especially right-wing political leaders), we can see that things are often called "woke" when they're *at all* associated with liberals, or Democrats, or social justice in any capacity, or just anything that the "right" (or the specific person saying "woke") doesn't like! (This is not to say that liberals/"the left" don't do similar things—I'll be the first to admit that many liberals, especially chronically online liberals, are overly quick to call things [or people] racist, sexist, etc.)

There's certainly an argument to be made for what is or isn't "woke," and how that concept/ideology has transformed discourse around certain topics. But in my view, something like DEI (or affirmative action, etc.) being called "woke" can muddy the waters a little bit. If a boss, let alone a CEO or other executive, thinks that women are weak/fragile/unable to do the same job as men, wouldn't that company benefit from some DEI initiatives? Moreover, wouldn't that boss/CEO be more inclined to call DEI initiatives "woke" in order to push back against them? Ron DeSantis recently pulled $2B of state funds from **BlackRock** (the least "woke" company imaginable) because of ESG & "woke capitalism." There's no world where DeSantis doesn't know what ESG is, but because of the framing of "wokeness," he's able to make these political moves that are supported by the larger media sphere & voter base.

I hope this doesn't come off as too aggressive or disagreeable. You and I agree on essentially all of this. My main point is that even if DEI could be called "woke" (and it certainly is called that by many people), the overall benefits of these initiatives outweigh the negative connotations people associate with social justice initiatives broadly.

Expand full comment
author

Those are really good and well thought out points Mark! I do agree that certain words or phrases tend to get picked up by one party or another or by the media and they take on a life of their own, "woke" being such as an example of that. As much as I'd love to think of DEI initiatives as a genuine social movement embraced by corporate America and not at all associated with "wokeness" - or if you prefer, call it a social trend, that's hard to accept given what's happening in the news right now. Back in 2020/2021 when all of this was trending and every major corporation was hiring a Chief Diversity Officer mostly due to public / social pressure, corporate America got on board. But an impending recession in 2023, and all of a sudden the winds shift and it's back to: generate the best return for shareholders vs. good press for staying up social trends and demands. It's like the corporate version of maslow's hierarchy of needs: in good times when money is flowing and markets look promising, social issues rise to the top, but a poor economy and markets falling, social issues go out the door and money become a priority so the company can survive and meet investor expectations. Another example of this: back in 2020 and 2021, corporations were commenting left and right on social issues. Now, it's silence. Same issues in the news, but all of a sudden, most corporations have shifted into survival mode and priorities change when that happens.

Does the benefit of increasing diversity through DEI initiatives outweigh the negative connotations? Honestly, I don't know. In a way yes, it's needed and probably gets more diverse representation in the corporate world than if there was no DEI initiatives in the corporate world, but getting hired and then actually thriving and growing and moving up within a company is an entire battle. That goes to my point that often DEI initiatives seem to be more check a box, meet a number, take a training and move on versus a real substantial shift in corporate culture that makes all backgrounds feel welcome to the table where decisions are made and growth happens.

Expand full comment

Great points, Yelena. One of the reasons why I've enjoyed my work for the past 9 months or so is because of the amount I'm learning—not just directly from my work, but from the people I have interactions with. Like I said in an email before, I never expected to care about tax legislation until I read From the Hill! That also applies here. When I was teaching, I (and my students) weren't really thinking or talking about the corporate response(s) to big social issues; it was more focused on a) the issues broadly and b) the social response(s).

I love the comparison to maslow's hierarchy of needs. You're right—when times are good, we have much more freedom (financially, emotionally, mentally) to think about & prioritize social issues; but when things are tough (or looking like they will be), it doesn't surprise me that the social issues take the back seat.

It feels like the whirlwind of 2020/2021 might end up being just a flash in the pan. There certainly felt like a lot of momentum toward big, structural change related to various systemic issues in our country, but then it just sort of... died out. And that rippled outwards and onwards over the next 18 months. Now, like you said, here we are, and it's silence from most big corporations. (If anything, some have become less sympathetic to things like remote work, by requiring people to come back to the office; or the massive layoffs across the board [including, I'm sure, CDOs])

Completely agreed on your last point, the expectation vs. reality of DEI initiatives. I'm not sure what the path forward looks like, although at least people are thinking & talking about it nowadays (though, depending on the recession & the severity of it, we may see even less talking about it in the future)

Expand full comment