Diversity and Generative Communication
From a Generative Communication (GC) perspective, “diversity” goes well beyond physical or cultural differences to include the rich diversity of thought, past experiences, and perspectives born of our diverse backgrounds and attributes. While this can be the source of conflict and disagreement, GC reminds us that it is also, undeniably, the source of new thinking and positive change if we learn to welcome, listen for understanding, and respect our different ways of seeing and being in the world. Diversity of ideas and viewpoints can drive collective growth, understanding, and change that benefits the greater good.
Generative Communication:
- requires people of diverse backgrounds to have the courage and freedom to speak freely about perspectives that may clash with societal norms (including those who challenge diversity programs, as we will address shortly)
- calls for open and honest debate, freedom of thought, and diverse viewpoints
- encourages conscientious people in established—more privileged—groups (i.e., businesses and schools) to intentionally create safe and inclusive spaces that attract diversity in all its forms and inspire people to speak freely
- invites people in established groups to offer skill-building opportunities to respectfully grapple with their diverse backgrounds and thinking
- recognizes the fundamental dignity of every human being and fosters individual choice that encompasses the complexity of human aspirations and capabilities
- calls for individuals to examine and acknowledge the multifaceted nature of their privilege, which can include factors like socioeconomic status, education, and family of origin
- calls people to think beyond the tribal identities to which they “belong”
- Invites people to take personal responsibility for their decisions and actions, underscoring the importance of self-awareness in contributing to societal change, given that meaningful change starts with the self
When Did Diversity Programs Gain Momentum in the US?
Work places and educational institutions began to embrace the idea of diversity in the late 1970s and 1980s, partly due to 1) affirmative action and equal rights policies that the federal government had instituted in the 1960s and, 2) the advancing science of biodiversity and its critical role in sustaining life in natural ecosystems and the parallels social scientists noticed in human systems. Many organizations began to offer training to managers and employees, highlighting the value of diversity in their workplaces and communities.
These efforts evolved into Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)1, organizational frameworks to promote “the fair treatment and full participation of all people” regardless of their identity vis-à-vis gender, culture, ethnicity, religion, disability, class, age, and so on. Diversity offices were established to expand knowledge and skill development as well as to encourage diversity awareness in organizational policies and decisions.
Challenging Diversity Programs
Recently, the intent and effect of DEI programs have come under scrutiny. Some are openly challenging the “extremist” position of manipulating circumstances to benefit the few. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, since 2023, state legislators have introduced at least 65 anti-DEI bills which would prohibit colleges from having DEI offices or staff, ban mandatory diversity training, ban the use of diversity statements in hiring staff, and ban the use of race or ethnicity in admissions decisions. Six states—Florida, Texas, North Carolina, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah—have signed bills into law.2
Texas lawmaker Brandon Creighton, following the July 2023 passage of a bill in the Texas legislature that now prohibits DEI offices and associated activities at the state’s public colleges and universities, had this to say: “A ban on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) offices, training, and policies demonstrates the state’s commitment to fostering true diversity and merit in higher education . . . The ban will ensure free inquiry, meritocracy, equal opportunity (and) genuine innovation. Moving forward, Texas will prioritize the advancement of the most qualified individuals and endorse policies that promote diversity and equality for our great state.”
(NOTE: Politics is a natural part of Generative Communication as it is any human communication. The difference is that GC acknowledges the inevitability of power relations as part of the complex interactive dynamics of life as it is happening. Look for more about this in a future blog. 😊)
A recent article in the New York Times highlights the collective anti-DEI point of view: “America Is Under Attack: Inside the Anti-D.E.I. Crusade” (New York Times, January 2024)
Diversity Challenges call for Generative Communication
Corporations initiating diversity training and related programs in past years juxtaposed with recent challenges of diversity programs call out for a Generative Communication point of view.
Prompted by the New York Times article referenced above, I recalled a diversity program my then-employer’s human resources development department was charged to develop and present throughout the corporation—several decades ago! We called the program “Unity Through Diversity.” Its primary objective was to call employees’ attention to individual and workplace biases toward people “different” from the dominant workforce, whether by race or ethnic origin, economic background and status, educational level, ease of mobility, or something else. We were to build awareness of the value of diversity in our workplace and encourage employees to be respectful and inclusive of people different from themselves.
It was easy to recognize the value of diversity in healthy ecosystems in nature—resiliency, adaptability, stability, sustainability—and draw parallels for the value of diversity in social systems, not only resiliency and adaptability, but innovation, creative problem-solving, and a fuller understanding of our complex world. Every employee was required to attend the two-hour program. I was wholeheartedly invested in the message and the research, although I suspected the immediate mandate was prompted by observed or experienced discrimination.
Imagine my surprise and horror when, several years later, an employee who transferred into my department filed an EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) charge against me with the State Labor Relations Board. I was forced to reflect on and confront the reality of my own unconscious, unintended biases. I had to acknowledge that my lifeview and experiences as a white midwestern woman in the 1980s, fighting to be taken seriously in the male-dominated public utilities industry, was surely blind to another’s experience of discrimination that was undoubtedly present in the workplace.
I can see how I could’ve done things differently. With a courageous conversation, perhaps I would have had an opportunity to listen, grow and better understand another perspective. I look back and see my responsibility for having missed an opportunity to proactively invite an honest exchange to sort things out, to co-create understanding and resolution—to initiate what I now call Generative Communication.
I was officially ‘cleared’ of wrongdoing, but I’ve learned and grown from my life experience. I strive to pay attention and challenge my biases, which I recognize are embedded in myself, others, and the institutions all around us.
Valuing DEI Programs
Generative Communication assumes that “communication” includes a wide range of interactions that occur in the spaces between diverse entities within the interdependent web of life, thereby serving as an engine of life as it unfolds in each interaction. Diversity in human systems includes background, age, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, culture, religion, geography, disability, socioeconomic status, area of expertise, level of experience, thinking style, and skill set. Diversity assumes differing points of view and disagreements—even disagreements about the value of DEI programs in our workplaces and schools!
How hopeful and exciting it is to imagine Generative Communication, grounded in cognitive diversity that stems directly from our diverse backgrounds and experiences, as the power to change the quality of our human interactions and improve our capacity to innovate and solve problems in our increasingly complex world.
Diversity creates a tapestry of interwoven human intelligence.
1Other variations include diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging (DEIB),[7][8][9] justice, equity, diversity and inclusion (JEDI or EDIJ),[10][11] or diversity, equity, inclusion and access (IDEA, DEIA or DEAI).[12][13][14]
2National Education Association: Since 2023, state legislators have introduced at least 65 anti-DEI bills, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, which would prohibit colleges from having DEI offices or staff; ban mandatory diversity training; ban the use of diversity statements in hiring staff; and ban the use of race or ethnicity in admissions decisions. Six states—Florida, Texas, North Carolina, North Dakota, Tennessee, and most recently, Utah—have signed bills into law. As a result, Florida, Texas, and Utah are closing multicultural and LGBTQ+ centers, shuttering the flow of info and resources on topics ranging from financial aid to sexual assault, and banning college staff from working on those issues.
2 Comments
Beautifully done, Mary!
Thank you Sue Ries Lamb! Your comment, coming from one as experienced and erudite as you, means a great deal as a continue to advocate for more generative communication in our world.