Consulting/Advisory - Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Change
FORTNIGHT NUGGETS
SUMMER
Glows flow blind, hear light,
From primrose on leafy covers,
My laughter, colorful showers of flowers,
One bud a fizzy burst,
Of lily appetite for life,
All else bow to minds,
That see like the sunflower,
Aches in summery scents make,
Jasmine screams it’s summer,
Once, danced I naked,
Like queen of the night,
To talking drums of complex nectars,
Many sounds sunny, bright, I’m alive,
Foxtrotting green patterns on violet paths.
My drunken tears are pink daffodils,
Bring joy in lovely, scorched sand,
And face, like blue skies gardenia,
Faith is the shimmery sun of summer.
Crave its mastery,
Like hibiscus rhythms scattered,
Let peace plant spark dullest times.
- Delia Nzekwu
IS EDI LOSING ITS LUSTRE?
With the fervent calls for EDI having seemingly peaked in early 2022, EDI efforts now seem to be waning as some organisations try, and rightly so, to reimagine and tailor EDI to their specific needs. Some others, unfortunately, have bumped EDI right down the bottom rung of the ladder of their corporate priorities.
Criticisms that see nothing good about EDI and call for its abolishment, particularly calls from beyond our borders, are also chipping away at the fundamental value of inclusion, at intentionality, and not helping matters.
Some of the strongest criticisms against EDI are that (i) it is divisive – pitting one race against another through indoctrination that fosters reverse racism, (ii) it compromises, trades off merit and fair competition in the quest to meet quota targets, (iii) diversity through proportionate representation is difficult to achieve because of limited labour market availability and (iv) its return on investment, especially on behavioural change is near impossible to fully quantify and continued investment difficult to justify.
There is no doubt that there are misconceptions about EDI, not the least, perceiving it as synonymous with “anti-racism” and relegating its other indicators - the one most often forgotten, “accessibility” and the inclusion of persons with disabilities. In addition, some EDI instructional materials could use some revision to improve aptness and their relatability.
EDI, however, is no magic bullet. For instance, expecting many years or decades of conditioning to disappear with one or two EDI trainings is unrealistic but change through learnings can not be underestimated. Importantly, “merit”, depending on how defined, is at the very heart of equity or equal opportunities for all as espoused by EDI.
EDI could benefit from constructive criticisms to help improve policies, procedures and training materials. The question is: how do we erase the misconceptions around EDI and make it truly accountable to our needs?
