#20 - Unseen Bias: How prejudice in DE&I Circles Can Influence Our Words and Actions Without Us Even Realising

Shedding light on how unconscious bias weaves itself into our daily interactions and conversations with a particular focus on those working in Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DE&I).

Sep 27, 2024

This issue explores how language can expose unconscious biases, even for those of us who see ourselves as dedicated allies to marginalised and underrepresented communities. By applying deeper critical thinking, we can better understand how our thought patterns influence our words and commit to doing better.

Deconstructing bias: What is bias? And why are we biased?

The word ‘bias’ has immediate and predominantly negative connotations.

We all have biases, and in some instances, they help keep us safe. For example, experience has likely taught us that motorcycles are more ‘unpredictable’ than cars as they can weave in and out of traffic, so we’re less likely to cross the road when we see one approaching.

Research suggests there are over 150 different forms of bias, from unconscious bias to the lesser-known phenomenon of functional fixedness. Functional fixedness is the limitation of only seeing objects working in a particular way. It can also be applied to people, making us view others as lacking roundness or depth.

Our brains are exposed to overwhelming amounts of information every second of the day. We’re physically incapable of processing it all, so our brains develop shortcuts and frameworks to help us cope. These frameworks allow us to navigate the world, keep us safe, and make ‘informed’ decisions. While our biases may help us make educated decisions at a supermarket shelf, they can become problematic when related to other people’s identities.

Our views on societal groups and communities are subjective and impacted by the amount of information we possess. This information is derived from personal experience, cultural norms, media portrayals, or the perspectives of those we are close to. When our exposure to these groups is limited, we are at a heightened risk of harbouring biased views, including stereotypes.

While bias is inevitable, it’s important that we make a concerted effort to ensure these do not negatively impact those we come into contact with. Here are some of the ways in which we can actively challenge our biases:

Acknowledge that bias is part of the human condition
Diversify your media and information sources that may be limiting your worldview
Avoid making assumptions and projecting preconceived notions
Pay attention to your reaction/bias linked to someone’s protected characteristics to ensure you’re not discriminating against others
Avoid becoming defensive when positively challenged. We should all be in a state of constantly unlearning.

Deconstructing language used by DE&I experts

I’ve framed this conversation around DE&I because, in my experience, the individuals engaged in this work are brilliant, well-intentioned, conscientious, and progressive thinkers who aim to create meaningful and transformative change.

That said, I chose this topic to highlight the ongoing nature of this work. Participation in DE&I, for myself and everyone else, requires continuous effort. Allyship is not a destination—it’s a lifelong process of growth and reflection.

The following statements will be deconstructed to demonstrate why the sentiment requires reconsideration to dispel underlying biases.

Statement 1: We need the business to be ready so that anyone Black, Asian, gay, neurodivergent or with one leg and striped skin feels they belong!

Why does this require a reframe? At its core, this is a well-intentioned statement. It’s advocating for an environment where everyone should be welcome. It also subtly sets up individuals who do not have a majority background as ‘other’ and as aberrations. It’s best to leave comments such as “someone with striped skin” aside and instead focus on ensuring the workplace is psychologically safe to receive those who may come from diverse backgrounds.

Key takeout: Be mindful of our language to ensure you do not ‘other’.

Statement 2: "We can’t let the pendulum swing too far!"

Why does this require a reframe?
Statements like this imply that there should be a limit to diversity and inclusion efforts, suggesting that too much focus in these areas could be harmful. However, by their nature, diversity and inclusivity are limitless. This mindset reflects a gatekeeping mentality as if there’s a point where being "too inclusive" is ”problematic. Expanding talent outreach to underrepresented communities is not only non-controversial but also essential to finding the best talent. Failing to do so would be a missed opportunity.

Key takeaway: Diversity and inclusion are not just ideals but business imperatives. The work is ongoing, and we can always strive to be more diverse and inclusive.

Statement 3: "We want to diversify the workforce, but we can’t lower the bar."

Why does this require a reframe?
This statement assumes that talent from underrepresented communities is inherently subpar, reinforcing the idea that their underrepresentation stems from a lack of ability. It also overlooks the structural and systemic inequalities that may prevent talent from these communities from applying for roles or succeeding in traditional interview settings.

A government study found that young Black male graduates in London are up to four times more likely to be unemployed than their white counterparts. This debunks the myth that racial diversity issues arise from a shortage of qualified candidates and dispels the notion that we operate in a true meritocracy. Denying these realities is, at best, naive and, at worst, willfully negligent.

Key takeaway: Treating everyone equally is not the same as treating everyone fairly. This should be a core principle in your DE&I practices.

Statement: "What worries me is that specifically looking for a [Black/Asian/Latinx] candidate will discriminate against a white candidate who could have gotten the job!"

Why does this require a reframe?
This concern also stems from a gatekeeping mentality, albeit in a different way. Hiring someone based solely on their race would constitute positive discrimination, which is (rightfully) illegal in the UK. However, positive action ensures you select the best candidates while addressing imbalances. For instance, if you're seeking to balance gender representation and have two equally qualified candidates, hiring a woman to improve that balance is lawful. The same applies to other protected characteristics and underrepresented communities, such as those from working-class backgrounds.

The idea that a candidate from an underrepresented group has "stolen" the role is predicated on the assumption that the role inherently belongs to someone from a majority group—a problematic belief. This narrative often surfaces when people feel uncomfortable discussing race and prejudice, finding comfort in the flawed notion that we operate in a true meritocracy and that we are all absent of any prejudice. There is substantial evidence to show that meritocracy is merely an illusion.

Key takeout: Get comfortable with being uncomfortable.

Are there any others that you would add? Please add them to the comments, and I’d happily deconstruct them with you.

📻 LISTEN to the Culture Study Podcast, where host Anne Helen Petersen takes a scholarly approach to everyday contemporary culture, focusing on topics often dismissed as frivolous or low-brow. From Why Do We Get So Mad at Celebrities? to Why Do Clothes Suck Now? the podcast offers insightful, nuanced, and progressive takes on subjects that many of us think about but probably don’t discuss for fear of judgement. If you're still mourning the loss of The High Low, this podcast might fill that void. Plus, there is also a fantastic Substack to complement the episodes.

You can listen to the Culture Study Podcast on Apple and Spotify.

📚 READ: A Day in the Life of Abed Salama: A Palestine Story by Nathan Thrall

Nathan Thrall, a Jewish American journalist based in Jerusalem, regularly writes for The New York Times, The Guardian, and The New York Review of Books (NYRoB). In 2021, Thrall published an article in the NYRoB titled A Day in the Life of Abed Salama, which centred around a heartbreaking event where a school bus overturned in the West Bank, killing and injuring many children on board.

Thrall uses this tragedy to explore the daily inequalities Palestinians endure; in this instance, it is brought to life in the most heartbreaking way as parents and bystanders scramble to seek medical care for the children—care determined primarily by the type of government identification they held.

This book expands on Thrall's 20,000-word essay, delving into the life of Abed Salama, a father caught in the aftermath. It paints a vivid picture of the human toll on ordinary lives caught in a decades-long struggle for self-determination.

It’s hard to recommend a book like this when the world feels so bleak, but its strength lies in its ability to humanise those often overlooked. It brings much-needed texture and nuance to a crisis where basic humanity is frequently forgotten.

If this feels too much to read right now, consider watching an interview with Thrall on CNN from November 2023. He discusses the politics of the region post-October 7th, offering a compassionate and essential perspective for anyone hoping for peaceful reconciliation for everyone who resides in the region.

A Day in the Life of Abed Salama: A Palestine Story: Anatomy of a Jerusalem Tragedy is available in paperback from all good bookstores and can be requested at your local library.

📺 WATCH this TikTok from Linguistic Professor, Nicole Holliday, as she explores how the pronunciation of USA presidential nominee Kamala Harris’ name has become a shibboleth. A shibboleth is a Hebrew word that means "ear of corn" or "flood." In a Biblical story, the word was used as a password — a means to figure out who was part of your group and who wasn't. If we fast-forward to today, it still has that sense of identifying someone as a member of a group. The TikTok isn’t very long, so I won’t say anything other than that if you’re interested in language and political messaging, it’s an easy but highly insightful watch.

You can follow Professor Holliday here.

The Language Matters Memo

Discussion about this post