The Kafka-esque woke identity trap, part 2
Does someone need to be a member of an identity group to successfully work with them?
As mentioned in my previous post, “The Kafka-esque woke identity identification trap”, I recently got an email from an agency where I’m registered (but have never gotten any work from), announcing the exciting news that we could (optionally!) add “identification” to our profiles.
What kind of identification, you ask? You might think it would be identification that had something to do with the work clients need, like professional qualifications or certifications. Nope, it’s “identification” of personal characteristics, like ethnicity and sexuality. But not all of them, mind you! Only certain identities count:
We believe in the importance of diversity, equality and inclusion in our roster. As well, clients may request to work with a specialist who identifies as a person of colour, a member of the queer community or an Indigenous person.
So, if you belong to one of the fashionable identities (or identify as doing so? Is that the same as actually being, say, Indigenous, or can I “identify” as such even if I’m not?), you should put this on your profile, because this is a very important qualification for work. But if you belong to a non-fashionable identity, that doesn’t qualify you for anything, other than possibly being counted out for that job you really wanted.
They will never come out and directly say that, of course, because that would make their discriminatory intentions clear.
I wrote an email registering my objections to this policy, to which the HR person responded, in part:
From time to time clients request specialists with specific types of backgrounds and experiences because they have a deeper understanding of what messaging will connect with a specific audience.
For example, a client requested help with a Pride themed logo for their brand and wanted to work with someone who is a part of the queer community. We've also had clients who represent First Nations groups who would like to work with Indigenous specialists wherever possible. In both cases they are looking to work with specialists who understand the nuances and experiences of their communities. This doesn't always matter to the clients, but sometimes it makes all the world of difference.
So is this true? No, not really. This agency handles marketing, creative, and programming types. To do this kind of work, you absolutely do not need to be part of a specific “community” or have “specific types of backgrounds and experiences” other than those that confer the skills required to do the task.
Let’s take the cited example of the designer of a Pride-themed logo. In order to create a design, you need to have a creative bent, understand design principles, know graphic design software, and be able to work with the client to understand their needs and come up with a design they’re happy with.
You may not initially know much about the client, their requirements, or the “community” they’re targeting, but learning all that is part of the process.
I work with clients all the time who represent “communities” I’m not part of. For example, one of my clients is a religious education organization, of a religion I don’t belong to. Another client is an advocacy front for policies I frankly disagree with. I do accessibility testing to evaluate how websites and apps work for people with disabilities I don’t have. And on and on.
The idea that you must belong to a certain “community” to do work tangentially or even directly related to it is absurd.
But the absurdity is highlighted even more by a question I sent back to the HR lady:
How far does that go? Let's say you have a client which is a veterinary clinic. Does the graphic designer have to be a pet owner? Or a client who is a church. Does the designer have to be a Christian?
I’m still awaiting a response.
But the fact is, it is only certain “identities” and certain “communities” who are thought to have this special knowledge and qualifications. It is the fashionable identities, of course.
This is the woke splintering of humans into “identity groups”, favouring some over others, and insisting that no one who belongs to a non-favoured group can possibly understand the experiences of someone who belongs to a favoured group (but it apparently doesn’t work the other way round).
It comes cloaked under the guise of compassion; as the original agency email began, “We believe in the importance of diversity, equality and inclusion.” The end results are the exact opposite of diverse, equitable, or inclusive, and I’m beginning to believe the real goals are as well, no matter how they are painted.
You learn pretty fast where the limits of diversity and inclusion are when you're trying to help your white, straight, male teen with disabilities to find a job