Equality, Diversity & Inclusion (EDI)

There is no one complete set of agreed definitions for terms like equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI), and an organisation will create their own definitions which are relevant to its context and activities.

A starting point for defining the areas of EDI are included below.

• Equality: Equality means making sure that every individual has equal opportunities. By being conscious of and actively challenging bias or prejudice we make sure no one is treated less favourably because of who they are or what makes them different from other people. This requires a proactive approach to make reasonable adjustments that address the visible and invisible barriers people face.
• Diversity: Diversity means having differences within an organisation or setting. Diversity recognises we are all different in many ways. People with differing identities, backgrounds and experiences should all have equitable access to resources and decision-making. Some people prefer to use the term ‘representation’ to focus on how organisations should be reflective of the society we live in and the communities we serve.
• Inclusion: Inclusion means being proactive to make sure people of different backgrounds, experiences and identities feel welcomed, respected and fully able to participate. It is not only about creating a diverse environment but also about making sure that a culture exists where individuals can be their full selves.

The quote “The opportunity of a lifetime needs to be seized during the lifetime of the opportunity” is attributed to Leonard Ravenhill. This is all very well, but it is dependent upon the ability to take the opportunity.  Our society has massive inherent inequality which limits the number of people who are able to take any opportunity.

EDI policy is the official method of trying to address the problems in our society that arise throughout our social structure.

Equality is impossible to achieve unless everybody starts from the same point.  By definition, this cannot happen. Our social structure is underpinned by wealth or geography or personal aspects and attributes such as gender, size, physique, looks, race, religion, sexuality, intelligence and ability or personal attitude. Basically, no two people are the same. Each of these will have a definitive bearing on the ability of an individual to take any opportunity.

UK Sport has a Diversity and Inclusion Action Plan (DIAP) 2021-2026

The Sport England equality and diversity policy is to try to promote the following four broad ambitions:

These are our four broad ambitions:

• Participation levels – Closing the race gap in levels of participation in sport and physical activity for specific Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups that are behind national participation levels – similar to the focus we’ve had on closing the gender gap in recent years.
• Talented athletes – Supporting the identification and development of talented athletes, including those from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds.
• Leadership and workforce – Transforming both the executive and non-executive leadership and workforce within sport and physical activity, to make it representative of the population.
• Sport England organisation – Ensuring that, by 2026, our own organisation is representative of the population and the people it serves, at all levels within the organisation, by setting a new target to double the proportion of Black, Asian and minority ethnic background staff in Sport England. 

This means a minimum of 20% of staff to come from a Black, Asian or minority ethnic background by halfway through our 10-year strategy, Uniting the Movement. Although historically we have had had low staff turnover, we believe this is a realistic and ambitious target and we are committed to meeting it.

 Sport England and UK Sport commissioned a report on the progress of their “Diversity in Sport Governance” project .

This is a typical sports industry report with lots of comparison figures between 2020 and 2024, but with no meaningful, useful discussion. Plenty of pretty pictures and large writing. Probably took a lot of time to prepare and cost a lot of money to produce. Just to fulfil a tick-box exercise to ensure continued funding for Sport England and UK Sport.  

Equality

Equality is a principle that most people would like to see in practice. But I wonder whether people appreciate the difference between equality and equity.

 Equality is treating everyone the same, while equity is providing resources based on individual needs.

• Equality – Gives everyone the same resources or opportunities, regardless of their needs or circumstances. Equality is a fundamental human right that promotes fairness and social cohesion.
• Equity – Provides resources based on individual needs and circumstances to ensure everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. Equity recognizes that people start at different places in society and need different levels of support.

 Examples of equality v equity

• Picking fruit from a tree – Equality would be giving everyone the same ladder to reach the fruit. Equity would be providing a taller ladder for those who need it, or propping up the tree so everyone can reach the fruit.
• Watching an event – Equality would be giving everyone a box to stand on to see better. Equity would be giving everyone a box that’s the right height for them.
• Taking time off work – Equality would be encouraging everyone to take time off around Christmas. Equity would be encouraging everyone to take time off around their individual cultural and religious events.

Equity is important in many contexts, including education, healthcare, housing, and public spaces.

Elitist Britain 2019, external looked at more than 5,000 people in the country’s top professions and their educational background and concluded that “a lucky few” were given the most opportunities.

Cricket is one of the top 10 professions for independent school attendance, behind the likes of Cabinet members, military top brass and those sitting in the House of Lords – 43% of men and 35% of women playing international cricket for England went to private school.

Some 37% of male British rugby union internationals attended fee-paying schools, and about one in three Olympic medallists.

Across the wider population some 7% of people are privately educated.

Men’s and women’s football were the two lowest professions looked at for the study in terms of independent school attendance.

Sports are keen to promote equality, but so much participation relies upon the athlete or their family/support network is able to finance sufficient activities. There are performance pathways in most sports. But these require considerable investment, thought to be around £100,000+ over 10 years.  This is a considerable barrier. 

I would suggest that before trying to absorb these other associations, Table Tennis England should get a grip on running the sport in this country. Our job as the National Governing Body is to promote the game of table tennis IN ENGLAND. Thus, the membership in England has little interest in GB Table Tennis, if it is going to dilute the service that it should reasonably expect.

Diversity

The theory behind the importance of diversity on boards is that it can lead better decision making, increased innovation, and improved financial performance. All of this is on the basis that Board Members are willing, able or allowed to exercise the skills that they appear to bring to a Board. 

However, the pursuit of diversity may not promote inclusion or equality in the way that the theorists would expect.  If there is a specification that applicants should have certain attributes or experience, by definition this excludes candidates that do not have those attributes or that experience. So, paradoxically, the pursuit of diversity can bring exclusivity and inequality.

Also, there can be very few people who would be happy at the thought of being the “diversity hire” It cannot be comforting or satisfying to know that they only got appointed because they were – a gender, a colour or race, a religion or disabled or disadvantaged in any way

Equally, the pursuit of diversity also leads to discimination against socially normal people, ie the vast majority of people. 

Diversity is multi-faceted and complicated.  While the presence of different “races” can contribute to diversity, it’s important to understand that “race” is primarily a social construct with no solid biological basis, meaning the concept of “different races” enabling diversity is complex and should be considered within the broader context of cultural and individual variations, not just physical appearance; true diversity encompasses a wide range of characteristics beyond just race, including ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic background, and more. 

Key points to consider:

•  Social construct: Most scientists agree that “race” as a biological category does not exist, and the concept is primarily used to categorize people based on social and cultural factors, not genetic differences.
• Genetic diversity within groups: More genetic variation exists within a single “race” than between different “races”.
• Cultural diversity: While race can sometimes be associated with cultural differences, culture is a much broader concept that includes language, customs, religion, and more, which are not solely determined by race.
• Focus on inclusion: The goal of diversity should not just be to include people from different “races” but to create an environment where everyone feels valued and respected, regardless of their background.

Inclusion

The term “inclusive” refers to the practice of ensuring that all individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, identities, or abilities, are welcomed and valued in a particular environment, group, or activity. Being inclusive means actively seeking to involve people from diverse backgrounds, including those of different races, ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, abilities, ages, and socioeconomic statuses.

In a practical sense, inclusivity can involve:

• Representation: Ensuring that diverse voices and perspectives are represented in decision-making processes.
• Accessibility: Making spaces, programs, and resources available and usable for everyone, including those with disabilities.
• Respect and Acceptance: Fostering an environment where differences are respected and celebrated, and where individuals feel safe to express their identities.
• Equity: Providing equal opportunities and addressing systemic barriers that may prevent certain groups from fully participating.

Overall, inclusivity is about creating a sense of belonging and ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to contribute and thrive.

When looking at inclusivity, we could consider the case for transgender athletes.  Ideally, we should be offering competition opportunities to everybody. However, in most female events, the transgender athlete is likely to have a physical advantage. This makes the competition unequal.

There are parental concerns about biological males being accepted by Table Tennis England (TTE) into girls and women’s competition, and selection for England. There is a rather obvious and large disincentive for girls and parents to join the performance pathway and spend 10 years and £100k+, if they think a bio male may come along and take their place. It contradicts the Women &Girls’ ‘participation increase’ policy.  This disincentive is real by anecdotal evidence.

Of course, gender dysphoria can sometimes be a serious medical condition deserving of our respect and support (and self-id often not),but it is difficult to accept bio males could be allowed to compete in W&G sports competition.

In sporting terms (fair competition, safe spaces for women), there seems to be a conflict between promoting Women and Girls policy and current TTE policy on transgender.

I have read a lot of the Sport England and UK Sport literature. Each sport can choose for itself. This is a recent phenomenon as the concept of a bio male player being allowed had never entered the TTE mindset. However, recently, TTE (someone) has slid self-id into policy. I was told in 2021 it was ‘guidelines”, and now it looks like it is policy. The very real future impact appears not to have been considered. 

The transgender issue also touches upon safeguarding and safe spaces for women. At a recent VETTS event, there were complaints from women being uncomfortable about a transgender athlete being in their changing/wash rooms. It is difficult to see how we can accommodate this to suit everybody. But do we risk losing several women players to accommodate one transgender athlete.   

There is a hypocritical element in allowing transgender athletes to compete. It is accepted if they are unlikely to win.  Objections come when unfair advantage is suspected.

Our role is to protect the future of sport, and promote participation and performance.

Meritocracy

Ideally, we should consider meritocracy.  Choosing the best person for a particular role or activity.   Navigating the intersection of meritocracy and diversity, equity, and inclusion is a complex endeavor. However, it is crucial to understand that these concepts can coexist. With a balanced approach, we can appreciate individual merit while fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion. It requires a commitment to systemic change, ongoing evaluation, and collaboration to create environments where everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed and ontribute unique talents and perspectives.

However, meritocracy is susceptible to pitfalls. It assumes a level playing field and often overlooks systemic biases and barriers that hinder full participation of certain individuals. Personal experiences or challenges some individuals experience outside of their professional achievements are often overlooked. Additionally, inequities in wealth and educational background become obstacles and influence access to resources, mentorship and career advancement. Implicit biases and subjective judgments can influence the perception of merit and lead to discrimination and favouritism.

A true meritocracy cultivates and values the best talent regardless of gender, race, disability, or socioeconomic status and reap the full benefits that the combined diverse talent has to offer. However, solely relying on traditional measures to determine scientific merit may result in selection bias toward limited social and professional networks.

True meritocracy, which requires diversity, equity, and inclusion, can only be achieved when barriers that prevent a level playing field are removed. Only then can that person’s knowledge, skills, and performance be the primary method of determining reward, promotion, or recognition. The intersection of meritocracy and diversity, equity, and inclusion requires thoughtful consideration and careful navigation to strike a balance between recognizing individual merit and promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion. There are several strategies that can help address the challenges and foster a harmonious relationship between these concepts.  

How effective is EDI  in business practices.

The independent Inclusion at Work Panel published a report in March 2024 on the state of equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) business practices in the UK

Participants were asked: 

• what D&I means to their organisation
• what they are trying to achieve with their D&I strategy or practice
• what barriers exist to positive impact?

There was consensus that D&I is a complex and sometimes sensitive workplace agenda, with competing definitions and unclear evidence. Although some participants cited examples of what ‘good’ does or might look like, measurable impact was scarce. 

Employers want to ‘do the right thing’ but cited barriers including:

• the size of the organisation and the resources available
• lack of time to test new ideas or have ‘good faith’ discussions with staff.
• little or no data
• lack of confidence
• fear of saying and doing ‘the wrong thing’.

Increasingly issues of freedom of speech and expression affect D&I debates in the workplace, exacerbated by recent high profile court cases. Non-legally trained managers and leaders are finding it difficult to navigate the Equality Act and associated duties. People mentioned fear of legal action, conflicting or unclear HR policies, and that definitions of bullying, harassment and discrimination are becoming ‘weaponised’ in employment grievances and pre-emptive HR or legal advice. A number of participants suggested that employers, in an attempt to go ‘above and beyond the law’ in their D&I efforts (albeit with good intentions) were inadvertently breaking the law.

All agreed that more, better, data and evidence would improve D&I strategies and interventions, and if this was in some way government-curated or endorsed, employers would have more confidence in citing it. Both quantitative and qualitative insights from the experience of others were said to be valuable. Participants reported that quantitative data would help employers set aspirational targets for recruitment, retention, progression and pay. Qualitative data, such as that from staff surveys, would help employers make contextual choices suited to their size, maturity, sector, and workforce demography. All cited the difference of capacity and needs in large corporations compared to small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

Summary

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion are all things that all right-minded people would like to see in place.

It is typical that these aspirations are being put forward by agencies, such as Government, UK Sport and Sport England, that do not actually have to make them happen or work. Or indeed, truly understand the terms and the fact that they are likely to be mutually exclusive. The perfect world where all three can be achieved at the same time does not exist.

It may well be that Equality, Diversity and Inclusion may fall into a simlar triangle to good, fast and cheap.

Good is the only side of this triangle that should never be sacrificed because a quality result is always expected when something is worth doing at all.  If a job is worth doing, it is worth doing well.

If we are considering a similar triangle in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, I wonder which element would be prioritised as they are all desirable.  Unfortunately, they are likely to be mutually exclusive.  Pursued in isolation, each of the elements will be unlikely to accommodate both of the others.

The knowledge that Table Tennis England and indeed other sports are still looking to apply EDI principles in recruiting is a concern.  In principle, it would appear to be right.In practice, it is unlikely to be effective in obtaining and retaining the best candidtates.

The pursuit of any of the elements is nuanced and difficult to apply in many cirrcumstances. We will always end up compromising or needing to identify which element should be prioritised in any particular situation.

Unless by some miracle, we get a level playing field as a starting point.