The importance of socioeconomic diversity
When diversity is discussed today, people usually talk about race, gender, and sexual orientation. Many universities and companies have set up diversity programs in these areas, as is much needed. However, another factor that is also critically important is often neglected — socioeconomic background.
Many diversity programs mistakenly conflate two different problems — discrimination and the opportunity gap. We need to differentiate between these. For example, if a woman is qualified for a job but is not hired because of her gender, this is a discrimination problem. If a woman cannot afford to access the education that would allow her to apply to a job for which she would otherwise be qualified, this is an opportunity problem. The latter, therefore, can be but is not necessarily related to her gender. Today the primary facets of the discrimination problem are race, gender, and sexual orientation. The opportunity problem, however, is not limited to these factors and is also driven (perhaps more directly) by a disadvantaged socioeconomic background. People from lower socioeconomic backgrounds need to expend much more effort before they can even access the same opportunities as those born into more privileged settings.
To be clear, I am not arguing that race, gender, or sexual orientation do not impact people’s opportunities — they absolutely do. What I am arguing is that socioeconomic background also does. It is a substantial factor that can both create and tear down major obstacles for people. Thus, this should be considered in conjunction with the other factors when determining who needs support. To illustrate, consider student A, who is from an underrepresented group and comes from a family in the top 1% of earners in the U.S. They have attended elite private schools throughout their life and have significant resources at their disposal — both financial and social. On the other hand, consider student B who is not from an underrepresented group but grew up in poverty with a family who struggled to put food on the table. Let alone going to college, even preparing for college was very challenging because they had to take care of their siblings since both parents worked double shifts in low paying jobs. Is it likely that student A faced some sort of discrimination in their life due solely to their race, gender, or sexual orientation — yes. Is it likely that, even with the access to tremendous social, cultural, and economic capital throughout their life, such discrimination created obstacles above and beyond the obstacles faced by student B? I would argue no, it is not. As a result, it is a problem if diversity programs do not consider socioeconomic background when selecting the individuals to whom resources and support will be provided. While there may be a correlation between race and income, it still makes sense to consider socioeconomic background to be more targeted in our efforts.
There is no question that we need diversity programs to increase the presence of historically subjugated groups in the workplace, especially within decision-making bodies. This is needed so that their presence and integration within governance bodies is normalized and so that decision-making can benefit from the diversity of thought. Just as we need more diversity of race, gender, and sexual orientation at the highest levels of decision-making, we also need more diversity of socioeconomic background. Otherwise, we risk further homogenizing decision-making bodies. Many employers seeking to increase their “diversity” still appear to hire individuals who fit the diversity factors but carry the characteristics associated with higher socioeconomic backgrounds. Since there is likely to be less diversity among people within the same socioeconomic class than that among people within the same racial, gender, or sexual orientation groups, the result is that while we may be trying to get rid of the “white men’s club” we are instead creating a “diverse but grew-up-privileged” club. We are further narrowing the echo chamber among the affluent echelon of society. We are increasing income inequality.
Granted, a possible reason for this is that it is more difficult to ascertain one’s socioeconomic background and establish criteria for what is considered disadvantaged in this area because it can be subjective. However, this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try addressing the issue and attempt to develop solutions that come as close as possible to fixing this divide. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be talking about it. In the presence of limited resources and an appallingly widening income gap, we need to be more targeted in designing programs that are intended to equalize opportunities and help those who need it most.
