The world’s top HR association cuts ‘equity’ from its diversity program amid DEI backlash
The world’s biggest human resources association dropped “equity” from its main diversity program, drawing anger from hundreds of talent managers online with comments such as “backwards,” “shameful” and “cowardly.”
The Society for Human Resources Management said it will be adopting the acronym “I&D” — or inclusion and diversity — and removing the “E” from its previous “IE&D” strategy.
“By emphasizing inclusion-first, we aim to address the current shortcoming of DE&I programs, which have led to societal backlash and increasing polarization,” it announced on LinkedIn. It said it remained committed to advancing equity under its “inclusion” strategy.
SHRM’s move is a sign that even hiring managers who’ve encouraged diversity in the workplace are beginning to shy away from DEI, or diversity, equity and inclusion. Backlash against these programs in the US has grown over the last year, most notably from conservative figures, as presidential candidate Donald Trump pledges to get rid of DEI if he’s elected in November.
Activists have also been attacking companies for their diversity initiatives, leading the likes of Best Buy Co. and Johnson & Johnson to downplay or remove DEI from corporate filings. Tractor Supply Co. said last month that it would eliminate DEI roles after it was targeted on social media by a conservative influencer.
SHRM’s move drew angry reactions from some of its members, with its LinkedIn post on the decision garnering almost 800 comments, mostly from other HR professionals who rebuked the association for acquiescing to pressure.
SHRM CEO Johnny Taylor Jr. said the term “equity” is confusing, and getting in the way of productive conversations about making its members’ workplaces more inclusive of all people and points of view.
“There’s no common agreement about what it means,” Taylor told Bloomberg. As an example, he pointed to a debate about whether to try target equity of opportunity or equity of outcome for diverse employees. “We found that, my gosh, we’re spending all of our time debating the acronyms and the words instead of saying ‘what are we really trying to achieve?’.”
SHRM says it represents about 340,000 members in 180 countries, impacting the lives of more than 362 million workers and their families. In addition to setting the standard best practices for the industry, the group lobbies for laws and rules around issues like benefits policy, hiring, immigration and taxes. It also offers some of the sector’s best-known certification programs, which companies often subsidize for their employees.
Word Salad?
This isn’t the first time SHRM has changed its diversity acronyms. About a year ago, as more companies were being sued for programs that were allegedly discriminatory toward non-marginalized groups, SHRM changed its policy of DE&I to IE&D. Taylor explained the change in September, saying inclusion was “the most crucial yet toughest to implement” imperative.
SHRM’s rationale is “backwards” and “disappointing,” said Kim Rohrer, who’s held senior human resources roles at tech firms including Oyster HR Inc. Last year, she co-founded PeakHR, an HR training startup, in part out of frustration with the society.
“You can’t ignore the systemic injustices marginalized communities have faced for centuries in this country and think that equity will just happen,” she said, adding it’s SHRM’s job to explain what equity is. “When we hear people saying that DEI is harmful or DEI is problematic, we should be fighting against it.”
She’s among almost 400 people who’ve supported a petition calling for HR professionals to divest from SHRM and cancel their membership. The petition also accused the organization of prioritizing “corporate interests over employee well-being” in its advocacy and policy positions.
Joelle Emerson, who leads prominent DEI consultancy Paradigm, said the uproar isn’t about the term itself. There isn’t just one “correct” acronym to use, she said.
But, she added, “to place all blame on polarization on ‘DE&I programs,’ and none on anti-diversity activists intent on dismantling every component of this work, is not just offensive to people who do this work, it calls into question the credibility and awareness of the organization.”
From Taylor’s perspective, the strong reaction to his group’s move is just an indication of how divisive the term has become.
“If politics were driving this, then we just would’ve abandoned this whole thing. I mean, think about it — that’s the path of least resistance,” Taylor said. “We know this work is important — it’s really important — and what is motivating us is a desire to deliver on this, not debate words.”
