I have been uneasy about the current EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) movement. I understand the concept. However, EDI is not a good word selection at all. I prefer ETA (empathy, tolerance and acceptance). I dislike the word ‘equity’. The many proposed suggestive approaches are logical. Therefore, they do not smell right. They smell just hypocritical, tightly linked with the Western Christian view. Monotheism. Single truth. Trusting the belief of the existence of one united view for correctness and fairness. Justice.
When the majority justifies something as correct, opposed minority opinions based on unorthodox logic, intuitions or emotions will be suppressed. We all are afraid to be seen as a lack of common sense or rational thinking. I have always had a healthy skepticism of logical interpretations. Logic is always constrained by languages, social contexts, religions, and communities sharing common perspectives. I always start feeling uneasiness when people logically explain their correctness and fairness. Logic is an excellent tool for communication. However, it always swings with time and belief. There is no universal logic, thus no universal justice, that works everywhere forever.
The problem of ‘equity’ is that ‘equity’ demands someone’s decision on which difference should be considered as the issue of equity and what compensation should be provided. Who should decide them? How long should we offer? ‘Equity’ is justifying unfairness for the sake of fairness that the authority decides. Why can we not tolerate unfairness? The more we emphasize equity, the more it conflicts with fairness. Justice is a moral word—the worst word to be used between two social systems with distinct value structures. There is no middle ground when two groups conflict based on their justice. Both can logically defend themselves and offend the other.
The problem of ‘diversity’ is that ‘diversity’ is the consequence, not an action. In addition, this word includes the same problem of ‘equity.’ Who decides what characteristics are considered for ‘diversity’?
Then, ‘inclusive’. ‘Discrimination’ should not happen. But is ‘inclusive’ the good word for an action? In my personal experience, the stronger an inclusive force in a group can unintentionally generate an exclusive force, too. This is the tricky part. ‘Inclusive’ should be a consequence as well. But once we use it as an actional word, it creates a counteractive force. Ultimately, ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusive’ should be the consequences, not the actions.
Unfortunately, uniformly enforcing logically justified views with the power of authority often ends up with nasty consequences. Once logical justification is implemented, it cannot tolerate gray zones. It tries to put a clear line of black or white for fairness. Ideology begins. Then, the problem of ideology is demanding uniformity. It cannot tolerate the existence of other conditions. What an irony this is! As the nature of logic, logic cannot accept fundamental diversity. ‘Diversity’ in logic cannot tolerate real ‘diversity’ outside of the logic. Only logically defined ‘diversity’ is the ‘diversity’ authorized. In the end, this is not the real ‘diversity.’
Interestingly, the Quebec government is emphasizing the implementation of EDI. However, simultaneously, they are facilitating highly exclusive policies for using French. Is this a joke?
A vision is important for an individual and a group of people. However, a vision does not always work as a goal. We need to recognize there are two types of goals: an attainable goal and a consequential goal. There are two fundamental issues. First, is the goal for one person or a group of people who can make their own decisions? Second, is the route to the goal known or unknown? I can give you an example. You are alone in a theatre. Then, sudden fire alarm. Your goal is to leave the theatre ASAP. This is achievable. However, if the theatre is full of people, what would happen? Everyone’s goal is the same: leaving the theatre ASAP. Everyone will rush to the doors. Jammed. Only a few would survive. Fire training provides the route to the goal of escaping all people. Everyone needs to know and accept the trained procedure is the best way to escape from the theatre. Importantly, this may not be the fastest for some individuals, but it is the fastest as a whole. Smooth escaping as a whole would never be achievable by emphasizing leaving the theatre ASAP to each individual as an actionable item.
When we act as a group, a nested upper layer emerges, a group above individuals. The best of the upper layer (in the previous case, all people in the theatre) is not identical to the best of individuals. Even if we know the final goal and how to achieve it when an attainable goal to individuals (i.e. leaving a theatre ASAP) is emphasized, the consequential goal will be compromised. We can draw a logical strategy only when we fully know the path to achieving the goal and everyone agrees.
Look at team sports like basketball. A vision of all teams and players is winning the trophy. Star players are important but not the only factor in winning. If everyone knows how to win, all players can compromise themselves to win as a team. However, there is no perfect winning formula. As individual players, what they can do is maximize their performance.
Interestingly, the best way to achieve the best performance as a team and individuals is to maximize others’ performance. Even after this, we do not know if winning is not guaranteed because of opponents. After all, only the winning team can tell retrospectively what worked best for them.
ETA (empathy, tolerance and acceptance) is an attainable goal for individuals, and EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) is a consequential goal as a group. ETA is achievable as individuals, but EDI is not. When EDI is emphasized as the goal of each individual, things will turn ugly because everyone has different values and understandings of EDI. The authority (or someone) needs to define and justify what is equity, diversity and inclusion and what to offer. Is this reasonable to you? Then, how about this? The authority determines what characteristics should be considered and not considered as the targets of EDI. How about if not considered? Should the minority beg the authority to be regarded as EDI? This will cause competition of EDIness because it is beneficial. Is this the intention? Of course not. But inevitable.
We often set up a goal for a group. We hope we know how to get the goal. We logically strategize how to get there. But often, we do not know how to reach the goal because many goals are the consequence of interactions between internal and external environments. The logically justified planned path to the goal sets actionable items. We move forward. This approach only works under these three conditions: 1. the concept of the goal is well-shared, 2. the environment is stable (therefore often only works for very short terms), and 3. actionable items of individuals are not uniform but uniquely designed to each individual.
Logic always makes exclusion. Logic often works like a command. Back to the theatre case. Following the trained exit strategy creates the first one to come out from the theatre and the last one. Are you willing to risk your life for others? There are many strategies for a smooth exit from the theatre. But only one is selected. Once it is selected, others cannot be used and should be excluded.
Do we know how to achieve EDI? Is this a short-term goal? I do not think so. EDI is a culture of a group and should be an equilibrated condition. Ironically, it is difficult to achieve if you aim as a group. If you individually focus on ETA, EDI is consequentially achieved. Notably, the path to accomplish the consequential goal will never be a simple straight path. Retrospectively, it can be a single path, but it should be highly winding because each step in the path is an equilibrated state.
ETA is an attainable goal for individuals. If everyone is educated and encouraged to show empathy, tolerance and acceptance, EDI could be achieved as a consequence in a group. It lasts as a culture of the group. However, it would never happen if we pushed the action of EDI with logical justification.