One of the most frustrating things to me is the “black and white” diversity policy. Many organizations (including disability-related organizations) have formal diversity policies, applied in a very strict way. These are diversity-lite policies.
They will typically list 5, 10, or maybe 50 different characteristics that might apply to people. “We don’t discriminate against race, sex, age, or religion.” So, do they discriminate against nationality? How about disability? What about sexual orientation? How about political party affiliation? That’s the first problem with these policies - they always leave people out, no matter how inclusive they try to be. A truly inclusive policy cannot limit applicability to specific categories of discrimination. There’s the additional problem: Some policies say they don’t discriminate against, say, disabled people, yet require disabled people to be medicalized. The question often seems to be “Do we treat a population of people as likely freeloaders trying to get an undeserved handouts?” If the organization does, I guess it does make sense to have medical gatekeepers to validate the disability…
The second problem - just as large - is one where the remedies or accommodations are fixed and have complex “gateway” requirements. In some places - higher education for example - strict adherence to law (typically the ADA in the US) has created a very inflexible, unaccomodating atmosphere for some (please note that I very much support the ADA and recognize all that it has done, so don’t read more into this than is here). Rather than giving staff the authority to grant accommodation, even trivial accommodations or remedies have to go to the “central authority” to decide what is and isn’t okay for accommodation. The reason given is “fairness” - ensuring that nobody gets an accommodation that isn’t “legit”, and that everyone is treated fairly. Ironically, most places with formal policies that follow this model don’t trust their staffs (or faculties, in the case of universities) to be fair and aware of disability (or other diversity) issues, but rather imply that equal access is apparently something only a few can understand. I think that is probably the most damning part of these policies.
There is another model, though - one that doesn’t have, at the core, the idea that a central authority must grant remedy and accommodation. There is another model that doesn’t worry about whether or not someone independently granting remedy or accommodation is going to “open the floodgates” for “those types of people” (perhaps the ones intentionally excluded from diversity policies).
It’s a simple model: Keep the “central authority” to grant or deny diversity requests - but change their role in the politics of the organization. First, grant everyone in the company the ability to grant (but *not* deny) diversity requests that fall into their sphere of influence at the organization. That means, at a university, a professor can use his judgement to decide that a student does in fact need class materials provided in a format a blind student can read, such as electronically, based on input from the blind student - there’s no reason to require formal documentation of blindness, personal educational plans, or any such nonsense in response to the vast majority of accessibility requests - the need is obvious, the accommodation minor, and the threat to society as a whole is non-existent (other than allowing people to feel and be accepted, which, granted, is a big deal).
When there is an accommodation that doesn’t make sense to someone, or seems extreme (as will occasionally happen, but much more rarely than people who support the status-quo think), such as a potential employee suggesting he be hired only on the basis of his diversity status, that request should be passed up to the central authority. Only they should be able to deny a request, and only after very careful consideration. (note that I am not commenting on affirmative action - no affirmative action supporter believes that diversity status should be the only factor in being hired, and I’m not saying whether I’m for or against this; it sucks to have to disclaim everything I write, but I’ve learned from experience…ah, never mind my whining…)
But it is not just worrying about denying requests - the main focus of that central authority isn’t to decide what is and isn’t okay as an accommodation - rather, it is to gather information from the organization on inclusion and disseminate that information to the organization. They should be an advocate for people who are facing prejudice or discrimination, a part of the organization that will actually support diversity, not the organization’s structure (that differs from how most “central authorities” are currently arranged - keeping the organization’s structure from facing liability seems to be the main point today).
They should track and investigate incidents where diversity is not valued in the organization. And they should have the authority to deal with problems and when found.
Finally, they should encourage, not discourage, new diversity and new ways of supporting diversity. Rather than fear that some employee somewhere in the organization will take it upon himself to promote diversity in a new and unique way, they should be encouraging and actively rewarding this type of activity. So no longer do all requests have to go through the central authority - people doing the work of the organization are allowed, and in fact expected, to support a diverse organization.
I’ve worked for many wonderful organizations. Many do these things already - although, sadly, much of the time a supervisor granting even a trivial accommodation or remedy is violating company policy - and faces the risk of discipline simply for doing the right thing without being told to do that. To me, an organization that truly supports diversity would expect its supervisors to actively support company goals, including diversity - not just accept passive roles. Other organizations - with no diversity policy at all (typically small employers) have been exceedingly flexible, responding to my requests and needs without medicalizing or requiring proof. Perhaps they didn’t “know any better”, but to me, it is a whole lot more supportive for a request to use a pencil on some forms to be granted immediately than to require me to document my disability and seek a medical opinion on whether or not using a pen or pencil is easier for me. Supportive organizations don’t think I have a sinister reason for such a request!
Maybe one day we’ll see this as a “best practice” for organizations - support diversity at all levels, and empower all employees to be supporters of diversity.