The world’s largest human resources association has removed “equity” from its flagship diversity program, sparking outrage from hundreds of human resources managers online, with comments calling it “outdated,” “shameful” and “cowardly.”
The Society for Human Resource Management Adopted the initials “I&D” — meaning inclusion and diversity — and dropped the “E” from its previous “IE&D” strategy.
“By focusing on inclusion first, we aim to address current shortcomings in our DE&I programs that have led to social backlash and growing polarization,” the company said in a LinkedIn announcement. Under its “inclusion” strategy, the company said it remains committed to promoting equity.
SHRM’s move is a sign that even hiring managers who have long encouraged diversity in the workplace are beginning to move away from diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. In the United States, such programs have faced growing backlash over the past year, especially from conservatives, after presidential candidate Donald Trump pledged to abolish DEI if elected in November.
Activists have attacked companies for their diversity efforts, including Best Buy and Johnson & Johnson. Downplay or remove Get the DEI from company filings. Tractor Supply Co. last month Eliminating the role of DEI After being targeted on social media by conservative influencers.
SHRM’s move drew angry reactions from some members, and a LinkedIn post about the decision generated nearly 800 comments, mostly from other human resources professionals, accusing the association of bowing to pressure.
SHRM CEO Johnny Taylor Jr. said the term “equity” is confusing and gets in the way of constructive conversations that can help members make their workplaces inclusive of all people and perspectives.
“There’s no common agreement on what that means,” Taylor told Bloomberg, citing as an example the debate over whether to aim for equal opportunity or equal outcomes for a diverse workforce. “We found that, lo and behold, we spend all our time arguing about acronyms and words instead of thinking about, ‘What are we really trying to accomplish?'”
According to SHRM, the organization has about 340,000 members in 180 countries, impacting the lives of more than 362 million workers and their families. The organization sets industry standard best practices and lobby for laws and regulations on issues such as benefits, employment, immigration and taxes. It also offers one of the industry’s best-known certification programs, which companies often subsidize for their employees.
Word salad?
This isn’t the first time SHRM has changed its diversity acronym. About a year ago, SHRM changed its DE&I policy to IE&D after a growing number of companies were sued over programs that were allegedly discriminatory against underrepresented groups. Taylor The changes explained In September, he said inclusion was the “most important, yet most difficult to implement” imperative.
Kim Lawler, a former senior HR executive at technology companies including Oyster HR, called SHRM’s theory “outdated” and “disappointing.” Frustrated by society, Ms. Lawler co-founded Peak HR, a training startup, last year.
“We can’t ignore the systemic injustices that marginalized communities have faced in this country for centuries and think that equity is going to happen on its own,” she said, adding that it’s SHRM’s job to explain what equity is. “When we hear people say DEI is harmful or DEI is problematic, we should fight that.”
she, Plea The petition calls on HR professionals to withdraw from SHRM and revoke their memberships. It also accuses the organization of prioritizing “corporate interests over the well-being of employees” in its advocacy and policy positions.
Joel Emerson, head of the prominent DEI consulting firm Paradigm, said the furor isn’t about the terminology itself: There’s no one “right” acronym, she said.
But, she added, “blaming all of the polarization on ‘DE&I programs’ and anti-diversity activists who want to dismantle every element of this work is not only insulting to the people involved in this work, but also calls into question the credibility and perception of the organization.”
From Taylor’s perspective, the strong reaction to his group’s move only shows how divisive the term has become.
“If politics were driving this, we would have abandoned this whole thing. It’s the path of least resistance, if you think about it,” Taylor said. “We know this work is important. It really is important. And what drives us is not rhetoric, it’s the desire to get this done.”
