Why Removing Equity from DEI Is a Step Back for Disability Inclusion

Two hands, one from the top left and the other from the bottom right, grasp a large, yellow letter 'E' against a grey background, symbolizing the tug-of-war over the concept of equity in DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives. Credit: Annelise Capossela/Axios

Recently, I've been reflecting on the troubling trend of companies removing 'equity' from their DEI initiatives, a move now endorsed by the SHRM. This shift is particularly harmful to the disability community.

Equity ensures that everyone has what they need to succeed. For disabled employees, this might mean accessible workplaces, assistive technology, or flexible work arrangements. SHRM's decision to drop 'equity' from its strategy undermines these critical supports. The Wall Street Journal's Ray Smith reports the organization is "moving away from equity language to ensure no group of workers appears to get preferential treatment." However, this perspective ignores the unique barriers faced by the disability community and other marginalized groups.

Removing equity from DEI efforts sends a concerning message: that the specific needs of marginalized groups are less important. This is not just a theoretical issue; it's a tangible setback. A recent piece by Bloomberg's Khorri A. Atkinson explored the impact on colleges and universities that have already begun eliminating hundreds of DEI-related jobs, impacting support for historically marginalized students. In the workplace, this trend could mean fewer accommodations and less understanding of the unique challenges faced by disabled employees.

Moving through the world with various disabilities, I’ve experienced firsthand the difference that equitable policies make. Equity isn't about giving some people an unfair advantage; it's about leveling the playing field. Without it, disabled employees like myself are left at a significant disadvantage.

We need to recognize that inclusion without equity is incomplete. Equity should be uncontroversial. It just means equality of opportunity. “Who are the people that find 'equity' confusing?" Deb Muller, the CEO of HR Acuity, told Axios’s Emily Peck. This is why the removal of 'equity' is so alarming—it risks undoing years of progress and harms those who rely on these measures the most.

I urge my fellow advocates and allies to speak out against this shift. It's crucial that we maintain a holistic approach to DEI that includes equity. We need to push for policies that recognize and address the diverse needs of all employees.

What are your thoughts on SHRM's decision to drop 'equity' from their DEI strategy? How do you think this will impact the disability community and other marginalized groups?

When DEI gets downgraded to I&D

How AI Can Make Disabled People Stronger Advocates

Recently, a neighbor in my apartment complex became increasingly irate anytime Canine Companions® Pico and I would pass her door. She claimed his incidental shedding as we walked past was done intentionally, and she didn't appreciate his ruining her welcome mat, which she had placed in a public hallway. Her disdain became so pervasive she was unwilling to engage in civil discourse.

When I raised my concerns with the property manager, I was met with the suggestion that I relocate if we couldn't find a "peaceful solution." It was a frustrating and exhausting experience.

I went into advocacy mode. I knew the laws. I knew I could address the situation from the perspective of the ADA, housing laws, and even state fire codes. But I just didn't have the energy. I thought briefly about dropping the issue completely, but I knew that would be to my detriment as the situation was ongoing.

And then it came to me: AI is my friend.

I turned to AI to craft a letter to my leasing office, documenting our meeting, their response, and the concerns I still had. I worked with the AI in much the same way I would engage with a friend or colleague at first. Imagine explaining what happened to them over text. I didn't think about it too much. I simply documented what happened as best I could without being overly concerned with whether I was doing it "right."

As I progressed, I wanted something with a bit more force, something harder for management to dismiss. So I tweaked my approach. I asked the AI to cite relevant local laws that might strengthen my position. Almost instantly, I was presented with research pertaining to building safety, means of egress, and fire codes, as well as a bit of legal language.

No system is perfect, and I still did my due diligence in verifying the accuracy; nothing will ever replace the human element and the lived experiences that shape advocacy work. But I had a very strong foundation in record time. The hours and aggravation saved, the research placed right in front of me in the blink of an eye? I couldn't help but think of the old Mastercard commercial.

Comcast Internet: $50 a month

Subscription to ChatGPT-4: $20 a month

Energy saved as AI helps you advocate? Priceless.

AI is the ultimate life hack, and I can't wait to see what's next. This technology is here, and used wisely, can be the ultimate energy saver. Yes, it's only as good as its inputs and the questions we ask, but that is the very nature of the human brain too. When we ask better questions, we get better answers. By leveraging these technologies, disabled people can continue to do the advocacy that fuels us without feeling burnt out by the nitty-gritty. For those just starting on their advocacy journey, the playing field is instantly leveled. The question isn't "Should we be using this technology?" Rather, the focus should be on how.