Reports of the death of diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) have been grossly exaggerated. DEI still threatens to undermine equality of opportunity in Britain, as well as suggesting we are not focusing enough on genuine barriers to social mobility.
The UK Supreme Court and Judicial Committee of the Privy Council’s recently published fourth annual update to its Judicial Diversity and Inclusion Strategy is a case in point. As well as orchestrating a peculiar scheme which entails junior legal professionals from ‘under-represented groups’ mentoring a judge (with a strong focus on ‘diversity and inclusion’), it sets out objectives such as supporting an ‘inclusive and respectful’ culture. Part of this includes the replacement of historic artworks to ‘enable a more accurate and modern representation of society and the diversity of the people we serve.’
With the highest court of the land embedding racial grievance at the heart of its policies, is it any surprise that the Sentencing Council ended up producing discriminatory two-tier sentencing guidelines
As part of the 2021-2025 Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging Strategy, the report commits to the ‘Race at Work’ charter which was expanded back in 2021 to include so-called ‘allyship’. All staff are offered at least one diversity training activity a year – funded by the taxpayer. With the highest court of the land embedding racial grievance at the heart of its policies, is it any surprise that the Sentencing Council ended up producing discriminatory two-tier sentencing guidelines?
Despite claiming to be committed to inclusion, the annual update in question makes just one fleeting reference to disabilities. Its limited focus on social mobility is based on engagement with Big Voice London (BVL) – an admirable outreach project but one that ultimately focuses on pupils in the economic and cultural powerhouse of the capital. Under a section labelled ‘other characteristics’, data published by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) this summer found that lawyers from lower socio-economic backgrounds are less likely to succeed when applying for the Bench than those from higher ones.
A third of barristers had attended a UK independent or fee-paying school – while around 7 per cent of the population are privately educated. This year’s MoJ ‘diversity data’ looked at disability for the very first time – finding that candidates with a disability had a lower recommendation rate from application than candidates without one. While around a quarter of the working-age population has a declared disability, one in ten judges reported being disabled.
Having inspected DEI policies across a variety of industries since the emergence of racial, sexual, and gender identity politics, I have observed two trends in particular: the lack of emphasis on socio-economic disadvantage and the degree to which disability is virtually absent in many organisational strategies (despite being enshrined as a protected characteristic in the 2010 Equality Act).
DEI’s overriding emphasis on race at the expense of class when it comes to matters of equality is certainly not aligned with mainstream public sentiment. Policy Exchange’s ‘Portrait of Modern Britain’ report published last year found that nearly three in five people in the UK – 58 per cent – thought class was more important than race in determining whether a person would succeed in modern-day Britain.
The figure for ethnic-minority citizens was still not too dissimilar at 54 per cent. Specifically, 55 per cent of Black Caribbeans – an ethnic-minority group which is under-represented in the legal professions and have traditionally lower levels of trust in the criminal-justice system – believed class was more important than race.
While three in ten British people believe that race and biological sex play an important role in determining a person’s ability to succeed and do well in Britain today, this rate nearly doubles when they are asked about the role of networks and connections. The evidence suggests that the British majority – cutting across a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds – believe that socio-economic status shapes life chances more strongly than one’s race, sex, or sexual orientation.
The UK government and public bodies such as the Social Mobility Commission must ensure that educational success and young people’s development are primarily analysed through a class lens – not a racial one. This should also consider regional inequalities and the socio-economic dominance of the London city-region. There should also be a renewed focus among public bodies on the creation of opportunities for aspirational younger people living with disabilities. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) should launch a review on the degree to which existing DEI policies – across the public, private, and third sectors – factor in disability.
It is vital that modern Britain is a land of opportunity for all its citizens and that we strengthen the merit-based allocation of rewards. Irrespective of their background, talented and hard-working individuals should be able to access and make progress in the legal professions, as well as other spheres of British life.
But to enable many to maximise their potential, the importance of addressing class-based barriers must not be downgraded and we should remind ourselves that disability is a protected characteristic too. It is crucial that our public institutions are no longer ideologically compromised by BLM-style identity politics and do not succumb to ideas of ‘decolonising’ the workplace.
Practical measures rooted in meritocratic ideals should be the order of the day.
Comments