Suella Braverman thinks diversity training is what is dividing the country. But that’s not true.

Earlier this week Liz Truss announced she plans to scrap the diversity and inclusion roles in Whitehall to save £12 million a year, in a wider plan to save a total of £8.8 billion. Suella Braverman who has backed Liz Truss to become Conservative Party leader, has since come out and said she supports the decision to bin the training, because she claims they’re too left wing, are divisive instead of inclusive, and patronising instead of empowering. She also announced she had scrapped it in her department, claiming it was in fact, downright dangerous, and has propagated a political ideology when it comes to identity politics.

Her reasoning for this? In her words:

It's based on an assumption that me as an ethnic Asian woman from working class roots must be a victim, necessarily oppressed. That's a misassumption. And I think it creates division.

It's tearing up society, breaking down the fabric of our country. And I think it's a waste of money.

Let’s get into it then. First let’s look at the idea that diversity training is left wing and therefore “propogates a political ideology.” - let’s assume first of all that she’s correct. Let’s assume working to create an environment that respects everyone and treats them with equity is a left wing ideology. Would that not then mean that scrapping it completely is right wing ideology? If the existence of the training is left wing and that creates a problem in that it removes impartiality, is the removal of the training not right wing and also removing impartiality in the civil servants? Seems to me to be a bit of a catch 22 she was hoping people wouldn’t notice. I pose this: why would conservatives want to limit the education people can access? Because that’s what diversity training is, it’s simply education.

Could it be because studies consistently show that the more educated you are, the more consistently liberal you are likely to be? Could it be that at this crucial point for the Conservative Party where it is predicted if a General Election was held tomorrow, they’d lose considerably, they are wanting to limit anything that might further push people away from Conservativism? Could it be that education in all it’s forms isn’t actually dividing the country, it’s simply uniting them against the political party she aligns with?

And let’s talk about division. Suella’s take on this centres herself - she’s not a victim and therefore it’s not a problem. She’s not struggled in her workplace and therefore her workplace doesn’t need training. Does Suella’s experience outweigh whole communities then? Suella has been fine so we should ignore the over 60,000 cases of racism reported in UK schools between 2016-2021? Or how about the fact that unemployment rates in the UK are 3.7% but for Pakistani people that is 9.3% and for Black people that is 9%? Should we look at that in connection with the studies that show people with “ethnic” names have to send 60% more applications than those with white sounding names in order to get work? Or should we disregard that because Suella has done well for herself? Or how about the fact that despite having no biological reason, Black women are 4 times more likely to die in childbirth in the UK than white women. And even with technological developments, these figures aren’t improving. Shall we ignore that divide because Suella Braverman says it’s the Diversity training that is the problem? Or how about Black people being 8 times more likely to be stopped and searched by police even though white people are more likely to be found with drugs when searched?

Suella Braverman suggests that diversity and inclusion training is a waste of money because she personally doesn’t feel like a victim. But it’s not about her personally, it’s not about any one single person. And perhaps she is right - perhaps it is a left wing ideology, if right wing politics is about centering only yourself. Because the whole point of diversity and inclusion training is that it’s bigger than one person. It’s about creating systemic change. A study in 2019 found that the majority of ethnic minorities in the UK reported racial harassment in the workplace in the last 5 years. This isn’t because diversity and inclusion training was introduced, it’s because there’s a culture of discrimination in this country. Yes surrounding race, but also in terms of gender, sexuality, and class.

And the reality is this - training that essentially just says “listen to people, respect people, be polite - you don’t even have to fully understand things like pronouns and microaggressions, you just have to be decent to each other” is only divisive if you personally feel like you can’t be kind.

You don’t have to fully understand the ins and outs of microaggressions - there’s so many of them with deep history that stretches back hundreds of years, you don’t have to understand them. You just have to acknowledge that if people point them out, and make it clear that it’s making the environment you share dangerous - because the mental and physical health tolls of racism are dangerous - for them, that you’ll do your best not to engage in them again.

I’ll be 100% honest - I don’t fully understand gender fluidity. I don’t understand what people mean when they say on some days they feel more like a she, on some days more like a he, and sometimes just they. But I don’t have to understand it. Because at the end of the day, me saying “I spoke to Mona, they’re doing well” doesn’t make my life in any significant way any harder. And if I make a mistake around this area of identity I don’t understand, it’s no skin off my nose to apologise and ask how I can be a better human for them to be around. And that creates unity. That creates trust. That is how respectful, solid human connections are formed.

But if I refuse to do that? If I dig my heels in and refuse to be polite because I don’t care that I’m causing someone else distress, or that my words have hurt, or that I’m contributing to a culture that is costing people their lives then yes - of course that will lead to division. I find it interesting that if Child A told Child B their curly hair was ugly, and Child B got upset, no one would question why, Child A could try and argue a defence but we’d pretty much all be able to agree, it’s fair that Child B is upset and Child A should apologise because that’s the decent thing to do. But if Adult A tells Adult B their curly is unprofessional, or unkempt, or needed to changing for them to get the job, suddenly we’re having an argument about whether Adult A is right, or whether Adult B is being silly to be upset about it. What Suella Braverman is suggesting when applied to this explanation is that in a school, it’s not the bullies that cause the division, it’s the people who want to resolve the problem. And I think in that context we can all agree, it makes no sense.

I will however say this - I don’t think diversity training alone will solve the problems in the UK. We need people in positions of power across all industries that acknowledge that equitable work environments are beneficial for everyone. People that want a kinder, more decent society. People that care about people and not just themselves. But to suggest it’s the training that is causing the division, that it is the training that is creating the problem is not just totally incorrect, but wildly ignorant to the reality of life in Britain for millions of people.