With politicians across the globe pledging to fight DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) in the workplace, the term ‘woke hiring’ is once again making headlines.
Equal, or Invasive?
The sentence ‘We’re particularly keen to hear from ethnic minority individuals, those with disabilities, or those undergoing gender reassignment’ now haunts modern job hunters.
Every application I have ever filled out has contained the invasive questions: Are you transgender? What race do you identify as? How would you describe your religious beliefs? Were you eligible for free school meals? And so on. These questions make me feel uncomfortable at best and outraged at worst. ‘Why do you need to know that?’ I want to reply. ‘Do my skills, my experience, my grades not suffice?’
If you are as irked as I am, read on. Employers have to ask these intrusive questions because of the 2010 Equality Act, which requires companies and public bodies to publish information on the composition of their employees. When you submit a job application, employers use your responses to the demographic questions to monitor DEI efforts. Theoretically, this should help maintain diversity levels within certain industries, particularly those where the workforce has a reputation for being male and pale. But there are arguably far better ways of achieving this than with a medley of inappropriate questions.
Inclusive, or Exclusive?
It is rather ironic that many ‘inclusive’ roles inadvertently exclude a huge percentage of the population. Over the last few years, I have witnessed a rise in the number of professional opportunities that are exclusively open to certain groups, like apprenticeships that only ethnic minorities can apply for, scholarships solely available to Black students or Muslims, or job descriptions that state people of colour or disabled applicants will be prioritised.
A study from Adzuna reveals that teaching is currently advertising the highest number of diversity positions in the UK. After doing a little digging, I found evidence of this type of special selection within politics, law, TV, film, policing, publishing, journalism, production, modelling, social work and insurance. Although reverse discrimination occurs at managerial levels as well, most of these examples are early career roles.
Let’s look at the evidence. British Intelligence agencies MI5, MI6 and GCHQ sparked nationwide outrage in 2024 by barring white people from applying to their internships. Earlier this year, Westminster City Council made headlines for admitting in a job advert that they will use ‘positive discrimination’ by selecting a candidate from a ‘Global Majority’ background over a white candidate. And it has recently emerged that NHS trusts have been advised to prioritise ethnic minority applicants on interview shortlists.
However, there are numerous issues with hiring candidates based on demographic factors. Matthew, a recent graduate, wanted to apply to The Guardian’s paid work experience programme, but the scheme is only open to BAME or disabled individuals:
‘You have no way of doing it if you are from the background most people are in this country,’ he told GB News. ‘The general goal of getting people from underrepresented backgrounds in the newsroom is not a bad thing in my view, but they should also offer a range of other opportunities.’
With 82 per cent of England and Wales being white and approximately 76 per cent of the UK being able-bodied, these inclusivity targets alienate the majority of the population and reduce the number of employment opportunities available. Candidates are essentially being judged for aspects of their identity that are outside of their control, which ‘creates a new form of inequality.’ Woke recruitment simultaneously discriminates against supposedly privileged candidates whilst also damaging underprivileged applicants’ self-esteem. When we successfully apply for a job, we want to know that we earned our place through good grades, our career achievements, and our hard work. Otherwise, what was the point? But for DEI hires, this concept is thrown into jeopardy, forcing them to constantly question whether they were employed for their merit or simply to boost their employer’s diversity targets.
Noble, or Self-Serving?
Maybe I am just cynical, but what immediately struck me when researching supposedly ‘diverse’ employers is how self-serving their DEI policies are. They are inclusive, but only to a certain extent. It is incredibly rare to see these particular companies encourage those who are invisibly marginalised (i.e., gay, neurodivergent, Jewish, working class, survivors of domestic abuse, etc.) to apply for their vacancies. Unless you’re BAME or physically disabled, the message seems to be ‘Don’t bother.’ You could argue that this approach helps to increase the number of visibly underprivileged employees within the workplace and, in turn, makes a positive contribution towards representation. But I don’t think this tells the whole story. These companies are hiring certain candidates to feature on their billboards and websites to say: ‘Look how noble and how inclusive we are!’ Instead of being motivated by a genuine desire to elevate the underrepresented, they are just making a smart business move.
And it seems that regular employers are not the only guilty party. According to Annabel Denham, deputy Comment editor at The Telegraph, our current Labour government is doing this too. Considering that the party has never had a woman at the helm, Denham believes that ‘nothing could dissuade Keir Starmer from handing [Rachel] Reeves the keys to Number 11,’ making her the first female Chancellor of the Exchequer. As a woman, I deplore the idea of someone being appointed to such a pivotal position simply because they are female. Even though I appreciate the role Reeves will play in inspiring future generations of women to become economists, I also understand the importance of appointing a candidate with the right credentials (rather than an exaggerated CV) when the success of our entire economy hangs in the balance.
The solution to combating bias in the recruitment process is not woke hiring. Perhaps using unique numbers to identify applicants, which, unlike names, cannot be discriminated against, will make hiring decisions fairer. Phone interviews could be another method to test candidates’ ability to respond to questions in real-time, without the risk of being judged on their appearance. Whatever method ends up being used, employers must find a way to select the best candidates for the role. This is, after all, the whole point of having a rigorous selection process that filters your unique skills against a company’s requirements.
DISCLAIMER: The articles on our website are not endorsed by, or the opinions of Shout Out UK (SOUK), but exclusively the views of the author.
