I’ve sat in meetings where DEI was reduced to a bullet point on a PowerPoint slide “diversity, equity, inclusion” in bold font while every single decision-maker around the table was white. The message was clear: DEI looked good on paper, but power wasn’t shifting in the room.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) didn’t begin in HR manuals or corporate initiatives. It was born out of struggle.
In the U.S., the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination in jobs, education, and public life. In the UK, the Race Relations Act of 1965 marked the first legal attempt to address systemic racial inequities. These early frameworks carried a radical promise: to remake institutions so opportunity was no longer determined by race, gender, or class.
But here’s what must be made clear: it was not Black people who coined the language of “DEI.” The term was created and formalised by institutions universities, corporations, consultancies as they sought to manage, package, and contain demands for justice. Yet today, people of colour, particularly Black people, are blamed as though DEI was our invention, as though we designed it to give ourselves an unfair advantage. That distortion hides the truth: DEI was shaped by institutions to make racial justice palatable, to dilute radical struggle into bureaucratic language.
The Persistence of Gatekeeping
Organisations like to say, “We have a DEI strategy.” But the lived reality looks very different.
-
Gatekeeping by white professionals: Hiring panels and promotion boards remain overwhelmingly white. Networks are closed. Referrals flow to those who “fit the culture.”
-
Recruitment bias: Most recruitment agencies are white-owned and white-staffed. Their practices from candidate shortlists to interview design carry bias long before candidates even enter the building.
-
Promotion bias: Even when people of colour make it through, their success is undermined with whispers of “diversity hire.” Their credentials are questioned in ways white colleagues’ never are.
This is how institutions can claim progress while gatekeeping stays intact.
Here’s the irony: even DEI itself has been gatekept.
-
In FTSE 100 companies, 62.5% of DEI leadership roles are held by white women. Only 29.2% are held by ethnic minority professionals.
-
Across FTSE 100 boards, just 19% of directors are ethnic minority, with executive and chair positions still overwhelmingly white.
-
The Colour of Power report (2020) found that out of the UK’s 1,099 most powerful roles, only 4.7% were held by non-white individuals, and just 1.5% by Black people.
Think about that. The roles meant to dismantle inequity often go to those already close to power. The jobs designed to “open the door” rarely go to the people still shut outside.
Even once inside institutions, people of colour face barriers stacked at every stage.
-
Networks: Career progression depends on visibility and sponsorship within mostly white circles. Access is uneven by design.
-
Subjectivity: Promotions hinge on “confidence” or “leadership style” elastic measures that mirror the biases of those in charge.
-
Tokenism: Some appointments are symbolic. Representation without real power.
-
Weaponisation of DEI: The cruel twist is that DEI itself becomes a weapon. Success is discounted: “She only got that because of diversity.”
-
Early barriers: Graduate schemes and pipelines filter out ethnic minority candidates through “neutral” criteria, creating disadvantage long before DEI initiatives can intervene.
These aren’t glitches in the system. They are the system.
The Rhetoric vs the Reality
Which leaves us with the uncomfortable truth:
-
What is DEI actually doing? Producing workshops, policies, and glossy reports while the distribution of power barely shifts.
-
Who benefits most? Often, white professionals especially white women who gain career routes through DEI leadership, while people of colour remain underrepresented.
-
What has really changed? Very little. Decades of initiatives have brought incremental progress at best, stagnation at worst.
DEI was meant to dismantle structural inequity. Instead, it too often shields institutions from critique.
Where the Rhetoric Ends
The numbers don’t lie. People of colour remain vastly underrepresented in leadership. Pay gaps persist. Promotions stall. Even DEI leadership is disproportionately white.
At some point, the rhetoric has to stop.
Because after decades of “strategies” and “commitments,” the reality is clear: for people of colour, DEI has not delivered. The system looks almost exactly as it always has.
References
No comments:
Post a Comment