Hey, my name is Danny, the ethical realtor. I want to talk about something called DEI. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. But that has gotten a little bit political in the last couple of years, so I want to try to leave the politics out of it and talk about it as a society, as a community, about what the purpose of it is, why we would want to do a thing like that and whether it’s working.

So the programs such as the DEI, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, one of the main reasons that these started to come into effect is because we have had a lot of studies about civil rights, especially since the 60s when the first Civil Rights Act occurred. Well, the first one was in the 1800s. But when the big civil rights movement happened in the 60s.

The Underlying Trend We Discovered

We’ve done a lot of studies now on bias, on the way people are treated in the workforce, in transactions in the real estate market, and we’ve clearly seen that there is a trend of people that are part of the mainstream culture getting opportunities and people who are not part of the mainstream culture not always being afforded those same opportunities. And so we have clear data on this long term, decades worth of data that shows that people are not being afforded the same opportunities simply because of the color of their skin or the culture they come from, or the gender they’re born with. Men and women.

There are also some disparities there that we’ve studied. And it’s complicated. I’m not going to say that it’s easy to understand and that it’s clear and that it’s the same everywhere. It is very complicated to figure out what causes these things, where these biases come from, and what is causing these trends of people either getting an opportunity or losing an opportunity.

And so, because it’s complicated, trying to solve the problem is not an easy thing to figure out. And so, one of the things they tried early on is they said there’s a thing called, affirmative action.

The Rules Attempting to Solve This

And basically they said, “Okay, so we’ve had this disparity where the main group has got a lot of opportunity, and this other group has not been afforded those opportunities. So why don’t we just put in a rule that says that you have to include some of those from the group that didn’t get the opportunity to kind of force the issue for a little while, and hopefully over time, that will become the norm. That everybody gets the same opportunities, and then we can adjust those laws.”

So they put in those rules and they did make some positive improvements. They did give some opportunities to people who didn’t get them because of these long standing trends, these long standing biases. And so there was some positive that came out of it. But to have a rule that says you have to include someone just because of their demographic, that also sort of feels prejudiced. It feels like now we’re taking away opportunities from someone else because the rule says we have to do it based on their demographic.

And so, it’s a flawed action. But I can see why they tried that out years ago, and why they sort of backed off on a lot of those because of how it’s perceived. And so more recently, jumping forward, we’ve done a lot of things in between then and now. But one thing that happened recently is there’s been a lot of movement over the last 10 or 15 years to do initiatives called this DEI diversity, equity and inclusion.

And the reason they’ve gone with these programs is based on the studies we’ve done since then where we’ve said, “Okay, we know that there was bias in the past, we know that there’s bias today. How can we make that a more fair environment? How can we make that a place where things are more equal, more opportunity for everybody involved?”

That it’s more of a merit based system where everybody gets opportunity. And when it comes to college applications or a job that they get the job based on whether they qualify for it, whether they’re able to do the job or whether they’re able to achieve the studies, the level of education to make that happen.

And so, the intent behind some of these programs is to take a lot of the studies we’ve done and kind of apply those in a way that will help the market reach equilibrium. So, we’re starting with a problem where there is a bias, there’s an unequal system going on where the people in the mainstream get more of the opportunities just because of what they look like or who they are. And there’s another group that’s not the mainstream, and they don’t receive those same opportunities based on their merits, just because of what they look like or who they are. So that’s a clear trend that was happening for sure. We have data science to back that up. So in the last 10 to 15 years we added new DEI programs.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

The reason they talk about diversity is that one of the things they’ve found is if you want to have people afford the same opportunities to different groups, one of the great ways to do that is to become familiar with them.

One of the reasons we have a bias is because we’re not familiar with a group. We feel like we don’t understand them just because they look different or because they have a different culture. We feel like because we don’t understand it, we’re not comfortable with it. And so, we accidentally treat them in a different way.

Diversity was intended to bring those groups in so that we get exposed to them so that we interact with them, so that we start to understand how human they are and how they’re more similar to us. The attempt was made to try to take our group and their group and integrate them, so that it becomes all of our group.

Equity is, of course, the idea that everyone should be treated equally. And then inclusion is also that way. Let’s include people into our group. That’s where the name of these programs came from.

Why Do We Do It If Sometimes It Can Feel Unfair?

So we’ve implemented some of these programs. And some of the parts of these programs look similar to the affirmative action that was done in the past, where they say, “We want to include a certain number of people from, say, a minority demographic. One where there aren’t as many in order to help create that diversity.”

So the idea is that once we get more of them into our group, then they will integrate and become part of our group. We’ll become more comfortable, and then people will be treated more fairly and more equally. If we are doing that in a way like where we’re forcing it in, that can feel unfair because we’re making a rule that says somebody of that group gets put in just because of the way they look or who they are.

Right. And that is a prejudice, right? Where we’re doing it based on not merit, but based on who they are. But they’re doing it because they know that if we integrate a few more and a few more, that it will level the group out in a way that everyone will be part of the group and will feel included.

Is It Working?

And so, the question that comes up is, are these programs achieving that goal? Are we bringing the groups together in a way that makes the opportunity more equal between them? Now remember, we started with clear data that the majority type of person was getting afforded more opportunities simply because of who they are. And the minority type groups were not receiving those opportunities simply because they didn’t fit in.

They weren’t treated the same way. And so with these programs, are we restoring that balance a little? Is it becoming more able to be based on merit because we don’t treat them differently based on who they are and what they look like? Is that happening? That’s the stat that we need to figure out with these types of programs.

It shouldn’t be a political decision so much as a cultural decision, right? It should be data based. We know what the problem is based on some of the data. And so is the program working? Check the data. Are more of those people being included, not counting the ones that are forced in by some of the rules that might still be considered prejudice?

And if that data is normalizing, then it’s working. And maybe that’s a good thing. And once it does get normalized, there would definitely be a point where we would be able to remove these programs because we don’t need them anymore, because the room is already diverse, it’s already equitable, it’s already inclusive. Are we there yet?

If we’re not, then maybe some of these programs still have merit. You know, maybe we can still move in that direction. But also we need to look at those results and say, if it’s not working, if we’re causing some of these decisions to be made based on a specific demographic where we’re putting you in because you’re in this demographic and so it’s not merit based, and it’s not changing the overall opportunity, then the system is not working. And then maybe we need to adjust.

What We Should Do With These Programs

And so, when I look at programs like this I try to look at what’s the result we’re going for, which is a fair market where everyone is treated equally and achieves the same opportunity based on what their ability is, based on merit. And if that’s what we’re going for then is the program helping with that?

If it is, great. If it’s not, then we adjust direction. But our goal is the still the same. We want a fair market where everyone has the same opportunity. When two people apply for a job, it’s based on their merits and not based on where they grew up or what they look like.

You know, those are the goals we’re looking for. And so, we can do more studies and say, “Are people being hired based on merit or are people being hired based on these other factors? Are there still some unequal hiring practices going on?” And if we look at the data, we’ll know if it’s working or if it’s not working.

And that’s the way we ought to treat these programs. We have that same goal, no matter who we hire, no matter which political persuasion we come from. The goal is to have an actually fair market where everybody is afforded that same opportunity. And so, I hope we can move in that direction.

It’s a little hard to make these decisions when they become so politicized. When it becomes part of a political movement instead of a movement toward the actual goal of the organization or of the program. So, let’s try to think of it that way. Let’s look at the ultimate goal. Let’s track the stats, see if we’re achieving what we want to achieve, and hopefully work together to create this wonderful fair market, which gives lots of opportunity to everybody who participates in it.

That’s where we want to be.