Johnny C. Taylor, Jr., SHRM-SCP’s Post

If not political, then why remove Equity from DEI? I feel like SHRM is doing (and maybe paying?) whatever it can to be in the room where it happens. But proximity to power isn't actual power. You want to affect change? You want to guarantee that "all individuals have the opportunities to enjoy the dignity of work"? Then don't acquiesce for the sake of neutrality. If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything.

Dropping equity from DEI? DEI is owned by science, not SHRM. Did you know that power imbalances and chaos are the biggest causes of workplace harassment and is implicated in discrimination? Read my paper on my profile for a summary of research. Your business has an outsized voice on HR in spheres of public opinion. Dropping Equity invites power imbalance, tokenization, marginalization, and quite frankly is a cowardly move hedging in case Trump and conservatives pushing for Project 2025 wins the election… isn’t it? It’s probably best to drop SHRM as a consultant for anyone caring about diversity and inclusion, for there can be no diversity or inclusion without equalizing power (i.e., share of voice) and quite frankly the fact that this change made it this far and was approved by leadership is a frightful move toward tyranny and oppression. Please follow the science, not your fears. DEI is well researched, has convergent validity, and is supported by scientists around the world. Besides the pursuit of equity is what created executive orders increasingly protecting workers from discrimination. Perhaps SHRM should find some new executives and board members, this is an embarrassment and turns the clock backwards to the 50’s.

In addition to correcting the “equity” debacle this week, I would like SHRM’s leader to address the seemingly endless and alarming waves of layoffs of talent acquisition professionals during the past two years.

So explain why Johnny C. Taylor, Jr., SHRM-SCP you removed the E - meaning equity from Inclusion, then dug a hole and buried Equity? Equity is economics not inclusion. Equity is not looking over the fence on a box it is pay equity. Paid Maternity leave and access to the profit center within the organization fiber. See equity is the golden parachute 🪂 that women and people of color do not have access to. HR is uniquely positioned to drive the discussion around Equity. HR controls pay…HR controls compensation packages. HR knows where all the equity is hidden and the money is unfairly divided. I can be included…there’s the one person over there, who is under paid, doing the same job. So please fully explain the political decision to white wash Equity…it’s political Project 2025 wants equity removed SHRM has fallen in line.

SHRM left the room. In 2018, you led Trump’s HBCU committee. It’s apparent he didn’t listen. Dropping equity falls in line with trump’s views, The Heritage Foundation, Gov Youngkin…. I can continue but it should be clear. I’m not optimistic.

I would like to see a more concrete plan, including examples and data, behind the equity move from IED. I agree that policies should take precedence over politics; however, politics is deeply ingrained in society - it’s the reality. How can we move forward in a way that bridges divides? Bringing people to the table and centering belonging is so important, alongside getting to root cause, understanding actions, and eliminating any misunderstandings. While I don’t disagree with much of what you say, the approach to promoting Equity under Inclusion lacked transparency, support, and a sense of unity for those who bring so much to that table. How, exactly, is SHRM wanting to center itself as a bridge towards civility, discussion, and solutions?

With the hits I see on all women all over the world in the last few years, I would love to see SHRM take a very strong stance on leveling the playing field for women in the workplace. In particular for me personally, I spent the first 5 years of my daughter's life spending more on childcare than rent and the rest of her adolescents struggling financially, emotionally and in my career because there was and is no balance between what a mother needs to do for her child and what she needs to do to support her child. For example, initiatives like paid maternity leave as a matter of law and more flexibility for working parents (of all persuasions) would be life changing for many in the workforce and is certainly doable. Even eventualizing inhouse daycare and aftercare at the companies we devote our work to; after all, for most people today, more time is spent at work than at home with family. Logically, if these things came to be, there would be a huge spike in productivity in the workplace...if you are not worrying about how to make it all work every day there is room for more productive thoughts and growth. My two cents on creating a world of work that works for all...

It’s not what your country can do for you is what you can do for your country it still takes A Coherent and focus leader to be in charge.

The timing of this message following SHRM’s removal of the equity pillar within Diversity and Inclusion programming is uncanny. SHRM has been, and continues to be, wildly influenced by political recourse and cash flows. It’s a shame that a certifying body of professionals remains at the whim of political power. Under the guise of “civility” and uniting voices, SHRM has managed to polarize HR professionals even more, while simultaneously chilling real conversations around the criticality of equity. Without a modernized approach, led by an empathetic and human-centered leader, SHRM will continue to lose relevance and influence across HR professionals.