Access and Inclusion
Given the recent dismantling of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) in the United States of America and its global impact, I wanted to take a moment to talk about policies that promote access and inclusion. As psychologists, we work with marginalized communities that would be disadvantaged without inclusive policies and anti-discrimination laws, and that are often still disadvantaged when these policies work as intended due to implicit bias built into our society. These policies do not give them an unfair advantage by any means; they merely aim to level the playing field (which is what we call equity).
We live in a Eurocentric and patriarchal society that favours the voices of abled white cisgender heterosexual (cishet) males over others. It's easy enough to verify that this is the case by simply reflecting on the scientists most people can name through automatic recall. If you are trying to think of names right now, most likely you are thinking along the lines of Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, and Albert Einstein, almost like these names have become part of our collective subconscious. Kudos to you, though, if you thought of the likes of Mary Anning, Alice Ball, and Barbara McClintock.
Power structures inherent in our society perpetuate the myth that white cishet men are the most capable and intelligent of us all and are automatically worthy of respect, even deference. These myths subsequently lead to assumptions that anyone who is not a white cishet man must be less capable, which result in concerning yet widespread practices like the gender pay gap. A cultural issue is essentially preventing more than half of the population from enjoying the same privileges enjoyed by a select group.
Implicit bias is a strong influence on our actions and decision-making. An applicant can miss out on even being considered for a job interview based on their last name; a teenager may be excluded by their peers for wearing a religious head covering; and a female-presenting person in a larger body may be admonished based on the assumption that they lack the willpower to "live a healthy lifestyle" and placed straight on a diet when visiting a doctor rather than be referred for further testing of alarming medical symptoms. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) by Harvard University shows just how much subconscious attitudes and stereotypes influence us: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatouchtest.html
Access and inclusion policies, therefore, are better framed as a human rights issue than a "woke" political move. Without access and inclusion policies, our dyslexic and low vision clients would be expected to "just read" but not be given the means to do so (e.g., audio versions of text, magnifier, braille). Our clients from culturally and racially marginalized (CARM) backgrounds would run an increased risk of being excluded from scholarships based on assumptions made about their abilities and economic circumstances, with cishet white male applicants prioritized regardless of skill or circumstance. Our autistic clients would run an increased risk of not being chosen for a job as an executive believes they would need too much "hand-holding", with the job subsequently going to an abled applicant with similar qualifications but a lesser skillset.
These risks are still present even with anti-discrimination laws and DEI policies, but they are reduced by prompting institutions to at least consider diversity in their decision-making. It does not mean that people are no longer chosen based on merit, or that people are solely chosen to meet a "diversity quota". These are unfounded fears that are generally propagated by cishet white men who feel threatened, and are unable to see how a diverse workforce benefits everyone regardless of cultural background, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. A homogeneous workforce inevitably leads to groupthink, which stifles creativity and can result in dangerous decision-making (the Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster being a famous example).
Social psychology has studied phenomena like implicit bias and groupthink in depth, and provides us with a solid evidence-base for why inclusive policies matter. These policies are essential as human rights and anti-discrimination laws on their own do not seem to sufficiently combat implicit bias, especially as decision-makers are generally white cishet men who benefit from being elevated above others and prefer being surrounded by likeminded peers who confirm their Eurocentric worldview.
Clients engaging psychological services generally do not fit neatly into the default, as systemic influences impact access and inclusion of people of colour, indigenous peoples, trans and queer people, disabled and neurodivergent people, migrants, and religious minorities. As our clients subsequently experience greater stress levels and have to engage in more self-advocacy to access what abled white cishet men are given freely, they are prone to experiencing mental ill health.
DEI (levelling the playing field) is therefore essential to ensure equal opportunities for all, counteract groupthink, and encourage creativity. It also promotes greater wellbeing for a larger portion of the population and better quality control and long-term outcomes for scientific programs and corporations. Removing DEI policies reduces the quality of available products and services and will ultimately be more costly for businesses, people, and the planet.
