EDI is not the same as DEI

Erica Dunmow, District EDI Officer, explains the difference between UK EDI and US DEI policies.

You may have heard reports on the news and social media of people dismissing equalities legislation as unfair to the majority population. Also, some people are using the letters DEI rather than EDI for the UK, and this is not helpful or accurate.

The tendency to dismiss equalities recruitment policy as unfairly favouring minorities, has mainly come from the USA, and arises from a key difference between UK EDI and US DEI policies.

That key difference is that UK Equalities legislation and processes do not allow competed for appointments to be given in preference to someone from a minority. The post must be given on merit to the candidate who scores highest on the Person Specification requirements.

So, Positive discrimination in favour of disadvantaged candidates is illegal in the UK, most recently restated in the 2010 Equalities Act, but allowed in the US.

The only time a minority candidate can be specifically appointed in the UK is if the nature of the post requires it – a Genuine Occupational Requirement (GOR).

So, thinking about recent controversy over academic worthiness, it can probably be argued that a professorship in black theology has a Genuine Occupational Requirement for the candidates to be black theologians, and it can be so advertised.

Alternatively, if an open recruitment were to be made, a requirement of the post in the Person Specification might be 'experience of formulating theology in a Black majority church or similar context'. The lived experience of that as a Black person would almost always score more highly than a white person's experience. That would then have to be weighed against other requirements for an academic post, such as 'a wide and detailed knowledge of Black theological writing and ideas'.

Positive action – e.g. in terms of processes that are inclusive and proactive such as advertising in certain channels to ensure minorities are aware of posts and can apply – is allowed in the UK.

The UK approach (which was argued about pretty vehemently before it was settled) was taken precisely to avoid any suspicion of unfairness or that a person might be appointed to a post on anything but carefully assessed merit.

It feels to me as if people who have come into positions making appointments since the 1980/90s/early2000s, when the EDI practice was being formulated and introduced in the UK, have maybe forgotten that key difference between UK EDI and USA DEI, or never been taught it.

So firstly, we really mustn't use the term DEI about the UK situation, and think it means the same as EDI.  Nor must we appoint people to advertised posts unless they are clearly the best candidate assessed against open criteria.

They are different policies and different approaches.

We need to understand, implement and defend UK's EDI policy as distinct from the US DEI approach. EDI is I believe a safer (although slower) way than the US DEI framework, to make sure that more people from within all nine of the protected characteristic groups, gain employment and positions of authority where they are clearly the best candidate for the post, by merit and not favour.

Erica Dunmow

EDI Officer, Sheffield Methodist District