LSE - Small Logo
LSE - Small Logo

Karina Robinson

January 17th, 2025

Did identity politics give diversity a bad name?

1 comment | 10 shares

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

Karina Robinson

January 17th, 2025

Did identity politics give diversity a bad name?

1 comment | 10 shares

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

A huge backlash is keeping many diversity and inclusion initiatives from thriving, and the culprit may be identity politics. By separating people into different categories and using complicated language, the movement has become exclusionary. Karina Robinson writes that a nuanced approach is needed to pivot D&I away from acrimony. She offers three suggestions to bring back civility, respect and compromise.


Diversity and inclusion (D&I) has become exclusionary. Through categorising and specialised language – microaggressions and bropropriate, to name but two words – we are failing in the primary mission: to give everyone an equitable chance to compete in the workplace.

President-elect Trump’s win was in part a backlash against the excesses.

During the US presidential election, the BBC reported the words of Nicole Williams, a white bartender with a black husband and bi-racial children in Nevada, a swing state that voted for Trump.  “We’re just sick of hearing about identity politics,” she said. “We’re just American, and we just want what’s best for Americans”.

…in the West it is seen as acceptable to insult a whole cohort by calling them “male, pale and stale”.

Similarly, Angela Merkel writes in her autobiography that she found it difficult to define herself as a feminist. “Was it my unwillingness to be pigeon-holed…that held me back?” Yet the former leader’s record of supporting policy initiatives like the various German Equality Acts is outstanding, while in the Chancellor’s office she ensured half the leadership positions were occupied by women.  

“For me,” she writes, “the struggle for greater levels of participation by women had never been a fundamental struggle against men.” Meanwhile, in the West it is seen as acceptable to insult a whole cohort by calling them “male, pale and stale”.

Merkel, a scientist, also changed her position on quotas, which she had disapproved of in her earlier career: “The facts had convinced me that it was impossible without them. And even with them it was difficult enough.”

Her nuanced approach is perhaps a starting point to pivot D&I away from acrimony and towards solving what Andy Haldane, CEO of think tank the Royal Society of Arts, calls a “Great Division”: fractured societies and rising discontent and insecurity.

Uncomfortable conversations on the subject, encompassing a wide range of views, are a necessity. Otherwise, we are in danger of giving up entirely on a movement that seeks to not only make society fairer but also boost productivity – a structural problem for the UK and Europe.

Assume good intent. Most people when they open their mouths are not looking to come out with misogynistic or racist words. 

A recent report by Oliver Wyman pointed out that “the drive for gender equality faces serious headwinds today but the reasons for investing and empowering women are as urgent as ever. Closing the gap in employment between men and women could raise global GDP by 20 per cent.”

As far back as 2017, McKinsey’s Delivering through Diversity study of 100 listed companies in 12 countries showed that companies in the top quartile for racial and ethnic diversity are 33 per cent more likely to have above-average profitability, while the stream of reports from other consultancies continue to demonstrate that diversity is good for business.

Without economic growth, divisions will widen. But expecting the status quo to deliver a broader and larger talent pool as well as more engaged employees is unrealistic. That is why some form of D&I measures are still necessary, for despite the arrival of AI, most developed economies are being held back by unfilled jobs.

To cite two behavioural examples, women are probably going to continue underestimating their ability to perform at a higher level and thus will need to be nudged to apply for promotions; gay employees at Apple, where CEO Tim Cook is openly gay, are more likely to feel that advancements will be based on merit, with no negativity around their sexuality, than if they worked at firms with no LGBTQI+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, plus) at the senior management level.

It will be difficult to achieve a new balance, one of civility and respect and compromise. But here are three suggestions for starters.

First, assume good intent. Most people when they open their mouths are not looking to come out with misogynistic or racist words. Walking on eggshells for fear of being cancelled is counterproductive and becoming evermore common.

Second, reducing human beings to being only a race, a class, or a sexual preference takes away from our shared humanity. “Labels are for soup cans. We share more commonality than differences,” says Pips Bunce, a former banker at Credit Suisse, born Philip Bunce, who advocates for LGBTQI+ rights and now runs Humility Hub, an equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) consultancy.

Third, xenophobia is a deep-seated human instinct. Accept that the fear of the other, of the stranger, goes back to primeval times, but overcoming it is a 21st century responsibility.

“Our world is being reshaped by difference, by polarisation, culture wars and AI,” says Grace Lordan, director of LSE’s The Inclusion Initiative.

She adds: “We need inclusive leaders like never before.” Those leaders will need to find a new way of dealing with the backlash against what is perceived as a tyrannical policy by some, and an ineffective policy by others, while applying D&I measures that are proven to work.

At the end of November, Walmart, the US’s largest private employer who has been criticised by D&I supporters for withdrawing from some of those policies stated that it was “willing to change alongside its associates and customers who represent all of America.” It vowed to continue “to foster a sense of belonging, to open doors to opportunities for all our associates, customers and suppliers and to be a Walmart for everyone.”

Rather than protesting those changes, it would be more productive for supporters of D&I to focus on learning lessons from the backlash and work hand-in-hand with moderate critics in creating a new narrative that supports the workforce aspirations of all.


Sign up for our weekly newsletter here. 


  • This blog post represents the views of its author(s), not the position of LSE Business Review or the London School of Economics and Political Science.
  • Featured image provided by Shutterstock.
  • When you leave a comment, you’re agreeing to our Comment Policy.

About the author

Karina Robinson

Karina Robinson is Co-Founder of The Inclusion Initiative at the London School of Economics and CEO of Redcliffe Advisory.

Posted In: Diversity and Inclusion | LSE Authors | Management

1 Comments