Meta and Amazon have announced they are ending their diversity measures. This follows on Meta’s decision to end fact-checking on its social media platforms. This is in response to ‘a shifting legal and policy landscape’ – perhaps a coded way of referring to the election of Donald Trump. Walmart and McDonalds have also ended diversity initiatives following Trump’s re-election. Two financial firms, JP Morgan-Chase and BlackRock have withdrawn from groups concerned with climate change.
For the far-right concern with equality and diversity, as with the environment, is simply an example of firms being ‘woke’ and no longer in keeping with the spirit of the times.
Affirmative action programmes (referred to also in many countries as ‘equal opportunities programmes’ or ‘equality, diversity and inclusion programmes’) did not occur just because capitalist corporations decided to be more enlightened in terms of how they treated their workforces. They came about as a result of two powerful social movements: the Civil Rights Movement, which challenged racial segregation in the USA in the 1960s onwards, and the Women’s Liberation Movement, which arose from the late 1960s and challenged rigid gender roles, sex discrimination in education, employment and public life, and redefined the identities of women and men.
These social movements, and later the Disability Rights Movement and movements for Gay Liberation, were radical movements which changed both identities and social conditions. Activists in these movements took part in consciousness-raising, public demonstrations, sometimes at risk to life, campaigns for legal reforms and initiatives within labour unions and many other organisations to end discrimination and achieve greater equality.
The concept of affirmative action arose from these social movements. Affirmative action goes beyond providing equality on the basis of equal treatment now. It recognises the impact of past discrimination and continuing structural inequalities on life chances and opportunities. The idea is expressed by the metaphor of a race in which one contestant is burdened by a heavy backpack for the first half of the race. Equality cannot be achieved just by removing the burden; there is a need for specific measures, such as outreach programmes, additional training programmes and sometimes the use of quotas in selection.
Affirmative action programmes started with an analysis of the existing workforce. It then compared it with the labour pool from which the employer could recruit. If there was under-representation it then set up an affirmative action plan. The plans included goals and timetables for recruiting more workers from under-represented groups.
Monitoring
Affirmative action programmes rested on equality monitoring. This meant monitoring populations in workforces and educational programmes by race and sex, comparing with target populations from which the organisations could recruit, and setting equality targets. Equality monitoring was also used for checking progress towards equality targets. This aspect of affirmative action may have been particularly hated by the right, because they objected to the extent of race and sex inequality being exposed. It is also a pet theme of theirs to see form-filling as unnecessary bureaucracy. So, equality monitoring and targets were high on their list for disposal in bonfires of regulations.
So, what happened in the USA and other countries in the 1970s and 1980s when affirmative action/equal opportunity programmes were introduced? They were welcomed of course by the social movements promoting race and sex equality, they were also supported in many cases by labour unions, and many employers came to see the benefit of these programmes. They accepted arguments that unfair discrimination wastes talent and demotivates employees. They bought into the business case for equality and diversity policies. (In the public sector it was sometimes referred to as the quality case, on the grounds that equality and diversity policies provided a better quality of service for the general public.) In the case of the USA, the fact that the affirmative action programmes included Vietnam War veterans also helped gain public support for affirmative action.
Under attack
Affirmative action programmes have been under attack since the late 1970s. Their critics argue that affirmative action is reverse discrimination. Over the decades, US courts have struck down quotas and prohibited ‘race-conscious’ measures in college and job selection. The left needs to recognise the role affirmative action programmes played in the twentieth century in opening job opportunities to women workers and workers from ethnic minorities.
So why are some business leaders now abandoning equality and diversity programmes altogether and bowing down to the far-right critique of these programmes? Have they decided these programmes are unpopular with some politicians and sections of the electorate and will lose them business? We should remember that during the first Trump presidency, when Trump imposed bans on Muslims from some countries travelling to the USA, this ban was opposed strongly by some leading private sector executives on the grounds that they were employing excellent people from these countries and that this interfered with their right to appoint the best person for the job from an international labour market.
Tension
What is happening in the USA at the moment shows the tension between those sections of the MAGA base of the Republican Party who are racist and sexist and regard any job selection process as ‘unfair’ unless white males come first in accessing the best quality jobs, and the broader interests of the US capitalist class, which lie with recruiting from a wider pool of prospective employees or, we could say, exploiting all workers equally, irrespective of race, sex or any other characteristic. There are similar contradictions in the case of immigration where the MAGA base wants immigration stopped, while capitalist employers seek to exploit migrants and undocumented workers as a source of cheap labour and for some more skilled and highly qualified jobs wish to recruit from an international labour market.
Working people and their labour unions should defend equality, diversity and inclusion programmes and anti-discrimination laws. The right of a worker not to be discounted as a potential worker, not to be denied the right to apply for a job, and the right to have a job application taken seriously, irrespective of race, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, religion, age and nationality or national origin, is a right the labour movement should defend. The right of disabled people to obtain reasonable adjustments in education and employment is vital for equal opportunities and social inclusion. This means that employers should treat disability issues as civil rights issues, not as a welfare issue.
Equality and diversity programmes and the ending of unfair discrimination unite workers. It unifies the working class if jobs are desegregated. Equal opportunities in education and employment and pay equity are vital for women to live our lives fully and enable women to play our full part in labour and socialist movements. That’s why the mobilisation for the anti-Trump demonstrations on 18th January has attracted support from so many women, both older women who remember the world before equal opportunity laws and programmes, and younger women who want to maintain equal rights.