My takeaways from Sara Ahmed's The Language of Diversity start with the notion that diversity is commodified as a national property. Ahmed says societal forces view differences as something 'they' can have; thus, diversity is something 'we' can have (2007). Diversity, as a broad term, can mean whatever an organization wants it to mean to gain acceptance from public pressure to implement equitable policies. Ahmed shares that Diversity initiatives are often marketing schemes where organizations and higher education institutions use the term to generate public support and conceal their hidden agendas of continued systemic oppression. Theoretically, if we label something as diverse, we have achieved equality and assume an organization treats all individuals and stakeholders equitably with dignity and respect for humanity (Ahmed, 2007). Thus stakeholders do not check to see if actions uphold an organization’s “diversity” statement (2007).
Theoretically, if we label something as diverse, we have achieved equality and assume an organization treats all individuals and stakeholders equitably with dignity and respect for humanity
For example, I am a student in a higher education institution and utilize the student's accessibility and support services. According to Ahmed, my university can claim they are "diverse" for having a Disability Resource Department, now the Student Accessibility and Inclusive Learning Services department. However, having a SAILS organization does not mean that inclusion has been achieved ( Ahmed, 2007).
The term diversity is projected in large words in front of stakeholders, much like the giant green face of the Great and Powerful Oz projects his face in front of Dorothy and her friends.
We can see this in courses where accessibility tools are absent or denied. This supports Ahmed's claim that diversity statements do not automatically equal redistributive justice and often equal a lack of commitment from organizations to pursue initiatives to change systems of oppression. The term diversity does not immediately invoke change and maybe a curtain where the Great and Powerful Oz hides (MGM, 1939). The term diversity is projected in large words in front of stakeholders, much like the giant green face of the Great and Powerful Oz projects his face in front of Dorothy and her friends. At the same time, Oz, a small man, hides behind a curtain, grabbing levers and pullies for special effects to project a much more significant impact, like Ahmed's statement that the Institutions (Oz) did not take equality or affirmation action plans seriously, and have changed the language to be more palatable for conservative consumers.
Diversity statements look great and powerful and sound aspirational, but they are generally weak attempts to conceal the fact that institutions fail to ink theory to practice. The term diversity in Higher Education often conceals oppression rather than putting justice to action. The term draws financial support and drives passionate justice and equity warriors to employment and research, only to be let down by an unenforced system. Like the Tin Man, the term diversity lacks heart. Like the Lion, Ahmed convinces me that we only need the courage to change terms and effectively champion change. But many systems in the Emerald City of Higher Education lack the heart, brains, and courage combined to support and manage change and supportive language with sustainable and equitable action within each organization.
Diversity is a neat term that can placate marginalized groups under the guise that an organization is diverse and self-actualized when it is no longer 100% white-cis-male-heteronormative-colonial-imperialist ruled.
So, what really changed between 1968 and 2023 regarding the American civil rights movement? How would equality practitioners respond to the fact that the ideals of Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech still rings true because a reality of anti-oppression has not yet been realized? The lexicon has changed, but the message remains the same because, according to Ahmed, the goal has not been achieved. Diversity is a neat term that can placate marginalized groups under the guise that an organization is diverse and self-actualized when it is no longer 100% white-cis-male-heteronormative-colonial-imperialist ruled. It is diverse if there are non-white-non-cismale- non-able-bodied individuals within an organization. But that is all. When we look to the readings of Protocorreor and Carter, we see that in the institutions or work and economy, diversity initiatives have a similar lackluster effect (2022). Corporations can check off a box of hiring one or two disabled, female, Black, nonwhite, or indigenous people to consider themselves diverse and self-actualized. Dr. King did not have a dream that for every 100 employees at an organization, one was non-male, non-white. He had a dream that the social construct of race did not determine one's success and access to working spaces, education, leisure, and a life pursuing happiness.
Diversity is the difference between one culture, personal, social norm, and another. Diversity is not equity or reparative justice
Diversity is the difference between one culture, personal, social norm, and another. Diversity is not equity or reparative justice. The term diversity is used because people got sick of hearing that they were not achieving equality, affirmative action, or equity (Ahmed, 2007). Rather than continuing to pursue social justice, we changed the terms to appear like we have reached the mountaintop of successful human liberation, equality, and inclusion. Institutions appear to perpetuate the cycle of structural inequalities with false promises of a utopian Emerald City led by the Great and Powerful Oz (MGM, 1939). Policymakers and many stakeholders see the social, political, and economic disadvantages of non-white-ablebodied-non-cis-males as their fault rather than the result of systematic and structural oppression. Both Ahmed and Portocarrero and Carter point out in their own way that the work of creating a collaborative, inclusive, affirming, accessible work environment or education system is carried out by a few DEI practitioners within organizations over the last two decades (2007;2022). The poverty connection among marginalized groups is a systemic problem, not an individual problem. It is perpetuated in hiring cycles that focus on selecting a few "special" checkbox candidates to fulfill the diversity requirement (Portocarrero & Carter, 2022). They are then used as poster children of model minorities in the white corporate workplace to showcase how accepting and accommodating said workplace ‘is.’
The United Nations (2018) states that meaningful work and gainful employment are fundamental human rights. However, this right is denied to over 60% of all disabled Americans seeking employment.
To begin, I will share that the population of people with disabilities prefers to use identity-first language rather than person-first language, with less consensus among those born intellectually impaired. Thus, I will be using identity-first language as this is the salient attribute of those living with disabilities and since society disables individuals by social constructs. The United Nations (2018) states that meaningful work and gainful employment are fundamental human rights. However, this right is denied to over 60% of all disabled Americans seeking employment. 41% of the disabled population is employed, whereas over 80% of non-disabled people have gainful employment. This is a starking disparity, yet most DEI policies in companies of all sizes (10-500 employees) lack specific hiring policies preventing discrimination against a person or disclosing their disability status. The study by Iwanaga, Grenawalt, Mpofu, Chan, Lee, Wu, & Tansey reviewed 96 peer-reviewed articles to study hiring praxis across sectors, including the disabled population(2021). Many individuals with disabilities want to work but face barriers to finding, securing, and keeping jobs. It concluded that Hiring practices that don’t invite people with disabilities, combined with the inaccessibility of applications, social stigma, and company policy and procedures for diversity and inclusion, leave disabled people at risk for significantly higher unemployment rates among qualified applications. Studies suggest that employer-led discrimination is a major contributing factor to the 39% difference in employment status of the disabled population compared to the non-disabled (Iwanaga, Grenawalt, Mpofu, Chan, Lee, Wu, & Tansey, 2021).
Reviewing The Disability Employment Puzzle: A Field Experiment on Employer Hiring Behavior– to look into Diversity policies and how they impact hiring practices concerning disabled-diverse talent acquisition (Ameri, Schur, Adya, Bentley, Mckay, & Kruse, 2018). This study sent cover letters and resumes to 6000 job postings for accountants using fictional applicants(Ameri et al., 2018). Two-thirds of each pseudo-applicant disclosed having one of three disabilities, and one-third had no disability disclosed in the application. Applicants with disabilities received 26% fewer reviews and engagements than applications without disabilities(Ameri et al., 2018). The study showed an unremarkable difference in discrimination depending on the two types of disability, ASD and spinal cord injury (Ameri et al., 2018).
What I can vouch for is that through my lived experience as a non-male-non-able-bodied person working in higher education and engaging in Higher Ed as a student, there is a lot of ideology and marketization of diversity and inclusion. Still, it is up to each department, professor, and teaching assistant to do the work of praxis to make spaces inclusive and affirming for all bodies and all minds. Suppose an ASL-speaking student is registered in SAILS at ASU and attends a class without a certified ASL interpreter on DAY ONE. In that case, the course is not engaging in active anti-discrimination and active diversity initiatives, as they have excluded a student from engaging in the coursework. Suppose a student is admitted to a university as a token African American scholar but treated with microaggressions and paid $0.61 to the Dollar of every white TA. In that case, the university is marketing diversity and acting on failed equality initiatives. Suppose I take a class and cannot read the textbook because the text has not been formatted for accessibility tools like screen readers, audio formats, or HTML. In that case, the class is not acting on diversity initiatives and is an exclusive space perpetuating systemic oppression based on disability status.
References: Ameri, Schur, L., Adya, M., Bentley, F. S., Mckay, P., & Kruse, D. (2018). The Disability Employment Puzzle: A Field Experiment on Employer Hiring Behavior. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 71(2), 329–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793917717474 Ahmed, Sara. 2007. “The Language of Diversity.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 30(2): 235–56. doi: 10.1080/01419870601143927Links to an external site. Iwanaga, Chen, X., Grenawalt, T. A., Mpofu, N., Chan, F., Lee, B., Wu, J. R., & Tansey, T. N. (2021). Employer Attitudes and Practices Affecting the Recruitment and Hiring of People with Disabilities: A Scoping Review. The Journal of Rehabilitation, 87(2), 4–16. Portocarrero, S., & Carter, J.T. (2022). Diversity Initiatives in the US Workplace: A brief history, their intended and unintended consequences. Sociology Compass, 16(7). 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.13001Links to an external site. Vidor, King, et al. The Wizard of Oz. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), 1939
Comments