EDI (Equality, Diversity and Inclusion) training has become, as Asif Sadiq notes in his 2023 TEDx talk (1), a multi billion dollar industry. At this stage, there is sufficient research and discourse on the topic to reflect on whether EDI training is effective at true change-making within Higher Education, and whether there are other approaches which can offer real impact alongside/instead of it.
While there are rightly many critics like Sadiq who suggest that EDI training is ineffective at accomplishing its stated goals, it is vital to debunk those who might argue that EDI goals in and of themselves are not worthy. In a 2022 video for the Telegraph (2), Professor James Orr painstakingly shoves a microphone in front of as many non-white students and staff members at the University of Cambridge he can find who will back up his assertion that (to paraphrase) free speech is under threat from ‘woke’ charity Advance HE. He argues that institutions, in striving to gain prestigious awards from Advance HE, put traditional values of academia — like enquiry and debate — under threat, and create an “oppressive environment”.
It is my view that the standard he in fact wishes to maintain is an outdated tradition of exclusivity which empowers academics and guest speakers to espouse what would, in many other contemporary spaces, be considered hate speech against marginalised groups. His slick, well produced video has the veneer of reasonable debate, but the brief cameo from notorious far-right icon Jordan Peterson should tell us all we need to know about his stance.
Returning to Sadiq’s TEDx talk from 2023 offers such much more valuable perspectives on EDI training. Sadiq notes that
“[EDI training] is not driving the change that we want to see. We’re not achieving the success that people want to feel in the workplace”. (1)
He argues that most of this kind of training is biased — built on assumptions about certain groups of people, and in fact, does the opposite of inclusion. He reflects that truly valuable EDI training would, in fact, be more localised, collective, and collaborative — changes which I believe would truly push the sector out of its comfort zone, and might actually start to build meaningful change and learning that is context specific.
Where I somewhat disagree with Sadiq is his assertion that EDI training should draw on the stories of its participants. In 2020, Channel 4 aired a documentary ‘The school that tried to end racism’, in which a group of young teenage students participate in the classic ‘One Step Forward’ exercise (3). Arao & Clemens (2021) (4) note that:
“…We no longer use the One Step Forward activity as part of our facilitation practice, primarily because we are troubled by its potential to re-victimise target group members”
It is my view that exercises like One Step Forward, and any group setting which forces participants to self-disclose personal anecdotes based on their lived experience of race (or any other marginalisation) only serve to further oppression. There are alternative methodologies that Sadiq might consider, which bring lived experiences into play, but do not make participants vulnerable, like Persona Pedagogies (Thomas, 2022) (5)
“It is proposed that using a persona pedagogy, there is less risk of exposure or identity threat, and greater participant engagement. Persona pedagogy involves developing personas with a range of intersecting identities and applying them to oneself with a range of scenarios to make a positive difference to inclusion practices within organisations. Persona pedagogy can be used for protecting one’s identity by minimizing revelation of their personal identity and thus minimizing identity threat.”
To conclude, I do believe that EDI training is important, but requires a radical transformation to be truly effective. Sadiq also rightly reflects that everyone has a different learning style, and that a half day intensive session (which is so often how this training is delivered) will not necessarily be effective for many. For true change to happen, an individual commitment to lifelong EDI learning is necessary. Likewise, Gurnam Singh (2023) states:
“…following the public execution of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement and the explosion of an EDI industry, I do wonder if by focussing on definitions and models, we are simply feeding what I call ‘performative anti-racism’. I now believe that theorising racism, though important, is nowhere near enough; the only genuine way to grasp racism is to develop a realisation of it, which goes far beyond intellectual understanding.”
How this realisation is to take place — this lifelong journey of individual learning — is the duty of institutions to seed and inspire, and individuals to continually foster, and we will only get there by creating, what Arao and Clemens (4) describe as ‘brave spaces’ for this learning to occur.
References
- Sadiq, A. (2023) Diversity, Equity & Inclusion. Learning how to get it right. TEDx [Online}. Youtube. 2 March. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR4wz1b54hw
- Orr, J. (2022) Revealed: The charity turning UK universities woke. The Telegraph [Online]. Youtube. 5 August. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRM6vOPTjuU
- Channel 4. (2020) The School That Tried to End Racism. [Online}. Youtube. 30 June. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I3wJ7pJUjg
- Arao, B., Clemens, K., ‘From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces’ (2013) in The Art of Effective Facilitation: Reflections From Social Justice Educators. 1st edition. Sterling, Virginia : Washington, DC: Routledge. (P138)
- Thomas, C. 2022. ‘Overcoming Identity Threat: Using Persona Pedagogy in Intersectionality and Inclusion Training’. Social Sciences 11: 249. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11060249
- Singh, G. (2023) Authentic anti-racism: from intellectual curiosity to embodied critical consciousness. Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/authentic-anti-racism-from-intellectual-curiosity-embodied-singh-sumfe/?trackingId=IFQza2yiTo 2VEGGSfyJ A (Accessed: 12 June 2024).
You raise important concerns in response to the Telegraph video and I too felt that there was an agenda behind the perspectives presented in the video. To start with, even the way James Orr emphasises his pronunciation of ‘dramatic’ when referring to changes being made made me feel very uncomfortable – as if the need for decolonisation in HE was hyped up and unnecessary. Later on in the video, he also discusses if Cambridge is a racist institution with Dr Vincent Harinam, who claims that there have only been 5 reports of racism in 5 years and therefore denying racism exists at the university. This totally ignored under reporting, acknowledging what channels there are for disclosing this information, or incidents that fall outside of the university to students; an extremely narrow viewpoint that does not prove anything, despite the presenter being a ‘statistician’. Furthermore this totally contradicts the sentiment shared in the minute before this exchange, in which Orr states that the Co Chair of the Race Equality Governance Committee from Advance HE claims ‘All universities perpetuate institutional racism’. So what makes Cambridge the exception? Your suggestion that exercises such as ‘One Step Forward’ only serve to further oppression is really interesting, and I admit it was a little heartbreaking watching some of the students reactions to the inequality of their positions. This is a welcome reminder that as teachers we must be so careful with potential identity threats to our students. Reflecting on Sadiq’s Ted Talk about how EDI training could incorporate collaboration and allow for difference in learning styles is a very valuable point. Your post really emphasises the need to continually learn through acknowledging EDI throughout our careers and consistently put this into practice; not just for one off or infrequent periodic reflection within EDI training sessions.
I was glad to hear you also felt that way about the Telegraph video! Uncomfortable was exactly the word. It felt like he had a real agenda, and his reporting was not balanced at all. As you say, his framing that the low level of reporting of racist incidents was ‘evidence’ of there not being a problem is profoundly flawed, and I am glad to have had the opportunity to reflect more on the complexities of statistics and reporting in this unit of the PG Cert.
I can echo both of your comments about the Telegraph film. The soundbite that raised my alarm bell was made by Orr early on: that AdvanceHE is pushing forward a vision of society “that vast swathes of the general public would reject completely”. The notion that basic, introductory training around Equality, Diversity and Inclusion is part of a culture war or an attack on free speech is a wild misinterpretation and exaggeration of the actual content and effect of these types of training.
Instead, EDI training serves a very basic and fundamental legal requirement of Higher Education to uphold the Equality Act 2010 and protect our students and staff from the worst cases of acute racism, bullying and harassment. EDI training may be ineffective, but I rarely get the sense that its incendiary or obtrusive. The types of ideas raised in this training are often far more diluted than those which appear in our students work in art & design contexts, which can be highly personal and emotionally raw. If there is a problem with EDI training, it’s perhaps, as you’ve identified, that we can’t expect this work to be neatly rounded off in a half day session.
As someone who’s role at the University is all around training, I’ve had a lot of time to consider the limitations and benefits of delivering learning across a range of formats (resources, film, e-learning, workshops, panels). In honesty, although I attend a great deal of training for my job, the majority of my personal growth and development exists well outside of training sessions themselves. The moments I find most valuable are conversations with peers, or at home alone reading. I don’t see EDI training as the space for the work do get done: it is instead a necessary form of box-ticking in a highly monitored and regularted environment. We can’t expect this type of trainig to solve our problems. Our Anti-Racism training at UAL isn’t delivered by employees of UAL or by teaching professionals. So its limitations in our own context are immediate.
Instead, I think the greatest potential for learning and growrth we have is from sharing our practice with one another. On that note, I really like your concluding remark around fostering brave spaces. We need to show up and initiate conversations around race and our practices that extend well beyond the spaces that are carved out and demarcated institutionally.
Totally agree with you about the fact that most ‘EDI’ learning can occur outside formal sessions — it’s exactly the same for me. I feel like most of what I have learned about the subject has come from my anarchist and activist friends, whose views are far more radical than anything typically presented in EDI training, which often seems quite watered down to me! The challenge, I suppose, is that not everyone gets these influences in other areas of their lives, or proactively seeks them out. How we plant that spark of inspiration in people is the challenge — so that they are motivated to learn more and make these ideas a part of their identity and practice.