We know that for the longest time in human history, women were not afforded the same rights and/or opportunities as men. Perhaps the best example of this was the right to vote in political elections, which was only granted as recently as the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Equal employment opportunities for women was probably the next big issue to be addressed, and we have witnessed steady improvement in this area over the past few decades, largely as a result of affirmative action programs. While I believe there is a much more level playing field today than in years gone by, I’m sure many women who would argue there is still more to be done.
Affirmative action and/or equal employment opportunity programs appear to have been replaced in recent years by DEI programs. The acronym DEI stands for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, and refers to policies and programs designed to promote the representation and participation of all races, ethnicities, abilities, disabilities, genders, religions, cultures and sexual orientations. Such policies and programs often include ‘quotas’ or targets for participation rates; for example an organisation might have a quota that women account for 50% of the membership of the board and/or management team.
When I think about recent issues here in Australia regarding representation and participation, the most obvious ones that come to my mind are those relating to the LGBTIQA+ community, and people who identify as indigenous. The numerous ‘Pride Rounds’ that are celebrated by various sporting codes across the country, and the Voice to Parliament stand out among them, as do the ‘welcome to country’ ceremonies that seem to take place before any sporting event these days.
These initiatives might all be based on the best intentions, but anecdotally it would seem that the average Australian is becoming disenchanted with what appears to be the increasing preference given to certain minority groups over and against the overwhelming majority. Rather than people being more united, they are becoming more divided.
I’m of the opinion that all people are equal and all have the right to the same opportunities as one another, however I’m increasingly sceptical of the idea that you can legislate or make rules for that to happen. I recently heard that the AFL (Australian Football League) has introduced a social inclusion clause into its next broadcast agreement to diversify the presentation of matches. It has been reported both Channel Seven and Fox Footy had agreed to a clause which will run across the next agreement from 2025 to 2031 to have diverse voices, to have representation from minorities.
The immediate question that comes to my mind is what do the AFL mean by diverse voices? Does it mean a certain quota of female voices? A certain quota of indigenous voices? A certain quota of LGBTIQA+ voices? A certain quota of disabled voices? Where do you draw the line? Why can’t it just be the most informative, authoritative, engaging and entertaining voices in the sport, regardless of gender, race, abilities etc? It seems to me this will only create further division and disunity among people.
Two thousand years ago Jesus broke down the prevailing social barriers that separated human beings. He welcomed and included everyone – Jew, Greek, male, female, lepers, and social outcasts (tax collectors and sinners). In Jesus’ day a child was the least important member of society, a child had no power or status and was completely dependent. In a culture that was heavily focussed on the honour of its male members, Jesus taught his followers to humbly welcome even the least valued member of that society.
Jesus was teaching his followers the will of God, so to obey Jesus was to welcome God. Why can’t we simply welcome all people regardless of race, ethnicity, ability, disability, gender, religion, culture and sexual orientation, not because of some quota, legislation or rule, but simply because it’s the right thing to do?
