After the surprise move that sent shockwaves through the HR industry when SHRM removed “equity” from its IE&D program, SHRM President Johnny C. Taylor Jr. cited people’s “confusion” around equity’s meaning as the reason for removing it, in a recent Forbes article. He insists the move wasn’t politically motivated and maintains it was made to streamline communication and avoid divisiveness. And he emphasized that SHRM is still prioritizing diversity and inclusion.
Added within its mix of initiatives, SHRM is also committed to its recent campaign on civil discourse, “1 Million Civil Conversations.” But will a focus on civility pave the way for equitable progress?
With its civility campaign, the world’s largest HR association emphasizes the importance of respect and dialogue.
“Practicing civil behavior establishes a safe and empathetic environment where individuals can contribute their best ideas, knowing they will be heard and valued,” according to a statement on SHRM’s website. “Civility is more than making others feel comfortable; it’s about creating a dynamic, diverse, and productive workplace where everyone can thrive.”
HRDA recently chatted with SHRM’s CHRO Jim Link about the association’s civility campaign at its annual conference. Link noted that “one of the key things missing” in the workplace, society, our homes, and even our government, is the idea that “civil discourse and dialogue is a good thing.”
“[I believe] it’s actually a bit of a lost art,” he shared. “And of course, there’s been lots of reasons for that. The loneliness and isolationism of the pandemic, the rise of social media, the ease of technology. All those things have contributed to that lost art in some way, but there’s no better organization in the world to re-bring that art to the surface again than SHRM.”
New SHRM research found U.S. workers witnessed more than 171 million instances of incivility in the workplace, and almost 40% of those incidents happen at work, of which 44% involve coworkers.
While respect and dialogue are crucial, many HR professionals see removing equity from the DEI framework as a dangerous step back, arguing in a LinkedIn post that SHRM cannot replace the focus on equity in creating a truly just and inclusive workplace.
“Civility without equity only supports those in power,” says Pamela Hardester, Senior Manager of Employee Support & Recruitment at Frontier Hospitality Group. “Who benefits from the removal of equity? Not the workers! DO BETTER.”
Julie Winslett, a nonprofit fund development consultant, referenced a NPR episode titled “When Civility Is Used As A Cudgel Against People Of Color.” “From the piece: “So the relationship between alleged civilizers and the people they’re ‘gifting’ with civility, Johnson points out, is ‘inherently undemocratic, unequal and racist,’ ” Winslett noted. “Even with a focus on Inclusion and Diversity, there is no need to eliminate Equity unless you truly don’t value it.”
Equity has become a cornerstone of DEIB initiatives, symbolizing fairness and equal access to opportunities. Removing it, some argue, weakens the focus on dismantling systemic barriers and fostering truly inclusive environments. As Dr. Nika White, President of Nika White Consulting, puts it: “If equity and justice aren’t the end goals, what is the relevance of DEI?”
“DEI is already under attack,” says Tiffany Castagno, CEO of CEPHR LLC, “and this sends the wrong message.” Castagno highlights the critical role equity plays in creating fair access to resources and opportunities, a cornerstone of a truly inclusive workplace. “You cannot have full diversity, inclusion, or belonging without creating equitable spaces.” Removing equity from the equation, she fears, sends a message that DEIB is a lesser priority.
Jacob Little, Head of Societal Impact at Cornerstone, believes it’s not possible to have inclusion without equity. “The only way an organization can reach its most grand goals is through empowering the unique individuals that make it run,” Little shared. “A commitment to equity—meaning a workplace is measurably fair—is a crucial component of achieving this. This is why we have always and will continue to take an equity-first approach.”
Others, like Amira Barger, Executive Vice President at Edelman, see SHRM’s move as “sidestepping” the hard work needed to achieve true inclusion. While some see SHRM’s move as well-intentioned, Barger warns of the “Red Rover Effect“—where initial support wanes when faced with the complexity of true DEI work. Removing equity, she argues, weakens initiatives and hinders progress.
Despite strong initial support, recent backlash against DEI underscores the need for better messaging in DEI efforts. While Taylor emphasizes the importance of clear communication, critics argue that removing the term “equity” muddies the waters.
“Language shapes perceptions and actions,” Dr. White emphasizes. “The removal of ‘equity’ alters SHRM’s message on fairness, risking confusion and dilution of values.”
As Barger points out, many confuse inclusion and equity. Inclusion is about creating space for diverse voices, while equity focuses on fairness and dismantling systemic barriers. “Equity and inclusion are not synonymous.”
Sabina Mehmood, Pay Equity Leader at Brightmine, notes that as leadership and “the world around us” may be impacting or shifting company priorities, it’s critical that HR leaders do not add to the “polarizing language” that continues to grow amid a turbulent political landscape.
“In focusing energy on shifting the language to meet a specific public agenda or stance, we are losing sight of the overall progress and standards that the HR community is trying to set,” Mehmood said. “As HR departments evolve their strategies and policies, it is crucial to focus on tangible actions that promote a culture of belonging and empower all employees to thrive. This requires continuous dialogue, transparency and accountability to ensure that HR practices authentically resonate with their workforce and positively impact the communities they serve.”
As the heated debate continues, will clear communication and a commitment to civil discourse create the way for fairness? Or will the de-emphasis of equity hinder efforts to dismantle systemic barriers and create a level playing field for all? Only time will tell.
One thing is clear: effective DEIB initiatives require clear language and a deep commitment to dismantling systemic barriers.
The post Equity Out, Civility In? appeared first on HR Daily Advisor.
