Hi all.
This weekend I found myself reacting to Nigel Farage's essay arguing for the repeal of the Equality Act. It is worth saying upfront that my personal reaction to everything unfolding in the US recently has often been, "At least we have the Equality Act." Watching some of the debates taking place across the Atlantic has made me appreciate that, whilst our approach is far from perfect, we have a piece of legislation that attempts to provide a framework for protecting people from unfair treatment. It has never really occurred to me that this framework itself might become politically vulnerable.
Living in Essex, Reform UK are no longer a fringe political force. They are winning elections, shaping public debate and speaking to concerns that many people genuinely hold. Like many others, I know people who are worried about paying the bills, worried about housing, worried about their children's futures and increasingly distrustful of politicians and institutions. I do not think those concerns should be dismissed. In fact, I think one of the reasons Reform has gained traction is because too many people have felt unheard for too long.
Farage's essay makes a number of claims about modern Britain. It argues that institutions are biased against white people, that Britain is increasingly run in the interests of those who are not white, and that our laws have been deliberately constructed to produce these outcomes. The Equality Act sits at the centre of this argument. Reading it, I felt a growing sense of unease because the essay appears to present the Equality Act as though it was designed to privilege some groups over others. That is not why the legislation was created.
The Equality Act was introduced in 2010 to bring together a patchwork of legislation that had developed over decades. It did not emerge because politicians decided to create a hierarchy of citizens. At its heart sat a fairly simple principle - people should not be treated unfairly because of certain characteristics they possess. The intention was protection rather than preference or privilege.
This protection applies far more broadly than many people realise. A white person can bring a race discrimination claim. A man can bring a sex discrimination claim. A Christian can bring a religion discrimination claim. An older worker can bring an age discrimination claim. The legislation was not designed to advantage one group over another. That is because the mechanism of the Equality Act is protection from unfair treatment, not the allocation of superior rights to particular groups.
I posted on this topic last week defining it as a storytelling problem. Those of us working in HR, leadership, culture and inclusion have spent years talking about diversity, inclusion, belonging, allyship, intersectionality and equity. These have been valuable conversations and we haven't always succeeded at defining inclusion as something for everyone.
When some people hear the words diversity and inclusion, they assume the conversation is about somebody else. They do not hear their daughter returning from maternity leave. They do not hear their husband who has developed a disability. They do not hear their mother who is being overlooked because somebody has decided she is too old. I've spoken at length about men being excluded from gender diversity conversations (we even have an event every year about it!).
I am also increasingly aware that many people now conflate the Equality Act with every diversity and inclusion initiative they have ever encountered. Workplace training, employee networks, pronoun discussions, targets, quotas and organisational policies are often bundled together as though they are all part of the same thing. Some of these initiatives have been enormously helpful. Some have been less effective (and quotas are illegal in this country). Disagreement with a particular workplace initiative is not the same thing as repealing legislation designed to protect people from discrimination. The Equality Act is legislation. DEI initiatives are organisational choices. They are related, but they are not the same thing.
I have a simple question. If your neighbour asked you what the Equality Act does and why it matters, could you explain it without using the words equality, diversity, inclusion or protected characteristics? I am not sure enough of us can. That concerns me because I believe this legislation matters because it offers protection to ordinary people.
Perhaps that is the challenge in front of us. If we believe the Equality Act is worth preserving, then we need to become much better at explaining why. If we cannot explain the Equality Act in language that resonates beyond our profession, we should not be surprised if support for it continues to erode.
So I have a genuine challenge for the storytellers, agencies, campaigners and communicators reading this. How would you explain the Equality Act to somebody who has never read it, does not work in HR and is worried about making it to payday?
Rox x