Why DEI Matters – Even If You Think It Doesn’t

Who Loses when DEI Initiatives Disappear, and Who Wins?

I’m a huge adherent of DEI. I always have been. I think it’s an incredibly important approach to how we view society and how we should be doing business.

Now, some of you reading this might say, “But you would say that, Bear - you are, after all, likely a DEI hire yourself! You’re a big gay immigrant, you tick two big boxes there!”

Except, it’s not really that simple.

Because while it’s true that I am a big gay immigrant, I’m also educated, male, white, middle class, young, and physically fully abled. My advantages far, far outstrip my disadvantages. I’ve never been locked out of an opportunity because of my accent, my skin colour, lack of connections or presence of the wrong genitalia. I’ve never been told to change my name on a CV to get a foot in the door. I’ve never been made to jump through extra hoops just to prove I belong in a space. When I’m assertive, I’m not called bitchy, and when I complain about something, I’m not called entitled and dismissed as difficult.

And that’s where so many of the bad faith attacks on DEI completely miss the point. DEI isn’t about ticking boxes or handing out jobs to the most marginalised person in the room. It’s about recognising and acknowledging that barriers exist - barriers that people like me, and likely many of you, have never had to think twice about.

But, what is DEI?

DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion - three words that have somehow become far more controversial in certain circles than they really should be. This is despite the fact that their core principles are fairly uncontroversial when you break them down.

• Diversity is about ensuring a variety of perspectives and experiences in a workplace or institution. This could mean having voices from different ethnic backgrounds, genders, and socioeconomic classes at the table - not as a token, but because a wide range of perspectives leads to better decisions and more creative solutions that ultimately think a bit more outside the box than if it’s a table filled with middle aged, middle class men..

• Equity is about recognising that not everyone starts from the same place and ensuring that people have the support they need to succeed. It’s about fairness rather than sameness - acknowledging that treating everyone identically might perpetuate inequality, whereas addressing specific needs fosters true opportunity.

• Inclusion is about making sure that once people are in the room, they are valued, heard, and treated fairly. Inclusion ensures that diversity isn’t just a number or a box ticked; it’s an environment where everyone feels they belong and can contribute meaningfully.

None of the above is radical, and it’s also not about discrimination in reverse. It’s about trying to ensure that talent isn’t wasted simply because someone doesn’t look, sound, or come from the same background as those who have traditionally held power. The idea is simple: we all benefit from a society and workplace where opportunity isn’t restricted by arbitrary barriers.

What does DEI actually do?

Now, despite what certain commentators might want you to believe, DEI is not about giving unqualified people jobs over qualified ones. If you believe that, congratulations, you’ve been hoodwinked by bad faith actors who are trying to convince you that diversity is a threat (it really isn’t).

What DEI initiatives actually do is remove unnecessary barriers. They:

• Ensure hiring processes aren’t biased against people with non-English names.

• Support women in male-dominated fields to progress at the same rate as their male colleagues.

• Recognise that disabled employees may need accommodations to do their jobs effectively.

• Challenge systemic disadvantages that mean some children start life with fewer opportunities than others.

Take the UK’s blind recruitment policies, which remove names from CVs in early hiring stages. These aren’t about "favouring minorities"; they’re about ensuring that every applicant is judged on their skills, not subconscious bias, or in other words, true meritocracy.

Or consider flexible working policies, which benefit parents, disabled workers, and carers - not because they’re "special" but because rigid 9-to-5 structures were built for a very narrow segment of the population, and by allowing flexibility within this approach, you might just give people who would be otherwise unable to the opportunity to build a career when they may previously not have been able to.

What happens when we get rid of DEI?

Donald Trump’s executive order scrapping DEI initiatives across the US federal government is a clear sign of where certain UK politicians would like to take us. The idea that simply acknowledging systemic inequality is too "woke" for public institutions is absurd - but it’s effective messaging for those who benefit from keeping the status quo intact.

If you want to see what removing DEI looks like, just take a look at what happened in the US when states like Florida started gutting their DEI efforts:

• Drop in minority hiring across public institutions.

• Lack of support for disabled and neurodiverse workers, forcing some out of jobs.

• Women’s advancement in leadership roles slowing down as mentorship programmes were scrapped.

All of this is an important lesson for us in the UK, with Reform openly calling (on what feels like a day to day basis) for the dismantling of DEI initiatives, a move that would disproportionately harm the very people many of their supporters claim to stand for.

Working-class people - especially women and disabled individuals - are some of the groups most heavily affected when DEI efforts are abandoned. These policies quite often underpin flexible working arrangements, disability accommodations, and social mobility programmes that ensure opportunities aren’t limited to the privileged few.

Without DEI, barriers that disproportionately impact those from less advantaged backgrounds grow unchecked. For example, fewer women would advance into leadership roles, widening the existing gender pay gap. Disabled workers might find themselves locked out of jobs altogether due to a lack of accommodations, and social mobility initiatives aimed at helping working-class children would falter. The truth is, DEI policies don’t only protect minority groups - they level the playing field for everyone who hasn’t been born into wealth, power, or privilege (which, to remind you, 80% of Reform MPs were).

The truth of the matter is that when you stop actively working to remove barriers, those barriers don’t just disappear. They get bigger, entrenching inequality in ways that hurt society as a whole.

Who Actually Benefits From Ending DEI?

It’s certainly not working-class people - because DEI often includes social mobility initiatives aimed at ensuring that talent isn’t just drawn from the same elite private schools. Consider the Sutton Trust’s work in the UK, which highlights how children from disadvantaged backgrounds are often locked out of opportunities to advance simply because they don’t have the same connections or resources as their wealthier peers. Without DEI, initiatives like these that work to level the playing field would disappear, leaving the same handful of elite institutions to monopolise talent pipelines.

It’s not small businesses, which benefit from a wider talent pool and diverse perspectives. Companies like John Lewis (not a small company, I know), for example, have shown that inclusive hiring and equitable policies not only improve employee satisfaction but also drive innovation and customer loyalty.

And it’s certainly not the general public, who deserve institutions that reflect and serve everyone, not just the privileged few. When public institutions, like the NHS, embrace DEI principles, they ensure that patient care is informed by a variety of cultural and lived experiences - something that directly benefits the UK’s increasingly diverse population.

The only people who benefit from DEI’s destruction are those who never needed it in the first place - the ones who already had every advantage but feel personally aggrieved at the idea of extending fairness to others. Whether it’s the old boys’ networks that dominate politics and media or those clinging to outdated hierarchies, these groups fight against DEI because it challenges their unchecked power.

The backlash against DEI isn’t really about fairness, meritocracy, or even cost-cutting, no matter how much Rupert Lowe might want to convince you it is. It’s about power - who has it, who gets to keep it, and who they want to keep out. It’s about maintaining systems that favour the privileged while masking those benefits behind claims of meritocracy or tradition.

And if your first reaction to hearing "diversity, equity, and inclusion" is rage, you might want to ask yourself:

Why does fairness feel like a personal attack?

Is it because fairness requires you to question how much of your own success was made easier by advantages others didn’t have?