Pooja S.’s Post

Kenji Yoshino and David Glasgow – the legal experts who led the first LCLD webinar on SCOTUS’s affirmative action decision last year – offer three criteria that make #DEI programs most risky, as well as solutions to help organizations maintain the core focus. #diversity #equity #inclusion #leadership #strategy

VERY interested article regarding the current state of DEI.

Let’s talk about this! In America, the basis of Our Constitution is due process, as best practices aimed at equality and fairness. We believe in competitiveness, diversity of markets, yet equitable and inclusive protections for small businesses and empowerment of minority experiences or opinions to oppose majority rule, status quo, and systemic thinking. Do you agree? DEI is a categorical imperative with empirical, mathematical, or statistical musts as well as critical, economical, ethical, and moral means and ends. #ProveMeWrong… https://lnkd.in/gJYNYUE3

Law360 features insights from Lowenstein Chief Officer of Inclusion J. J. Danielle Carr, highlighting best practices for advancing successful DEI initiatives and the importance of having employing highly trained DEI professionals who are well-versed in the science behind DEI to take the lead at navigating and addressing DEI issues effectively. Read the full article: https://bit.ly/3Sjczqd Read Danielle’s bio: https://lnkd.in/gRyShEt6 #diversityinlaw #diversityequityinclusion #diversitymatters #womeninlaw #diversityintheworkplace

Team, great HBR article on how to shift DEI programs in light of the current legal environment. According to the authors, rather than giving “preference” to some groups, organizations can explore DEI actions that are identity-neutral but remove bias from the workplace. For example: - Avoid protected characteristics such as race or sex. To accomplish this organizations can shift from cohorts to content, opening participation to all who are committed to the content - Shift the audience from a protected cohort to one that advances socioeconomic diversity

The 14th Amendment's promise is simple yet profound: no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." On the 70th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, we honor the round rejection of the misguided--and flat wrong--"separate but equal" doctrine. And if separate but equal is wrong, exclusion even more so is repugnant to our constitution. But inclusion by itself is meaningless; equity must accompany inclusion. And so I invite all to live the principles we profess to champion--true inclusion means inclusion of all, and equity means adding seats at the table and giving voice and authority to all at the table. #inclusionforall #strongtogether #dowstrong

In an article on Law.com, Lowenstein Chief Inclusion Officer J. Danielle Carr addresses the vital role of diversity, equity, and inclusion in law firms, debunking myths and advocating for inclusive practices that benefit all. Read the full article: https://bit.ly/3SxjoWr #diversityequityinclusion #diversitymatters #diversityinlaw #diversityintheworkplace #inclusion

https://lnkd.in/gECdMgK8 From my perspective, DEI (when it is executed well) is essential to the maintenance of healthy relationships both in the workplace and in private life in our society. I've noticed that individual people tend to work better when they feel seen, heard, and positively included in benefits, burdens, and constructive input. Every team is composed of several "I's" who will be different in character, perspective, experience, and skill-type. The trick of any operation, from business to program implementation, is to create social and physical conditions where those different individuals can more easily and pleasantly work together to solve problems we/they all share in common, so that we/they are equitably sharing in the burdens and benefits of maintaining our society's/firm's infrastructure to scale. That requires each individual on each team to feel seen, heard, and positively included in the team of teams we humans are that make societies work to maintain themselves. Keeping people defacto excluded through reversing or ignoring DEI will, in all likelihood, only lead to less effective operations, and places where larger numbers of people won't feel comfortable or safe working and living within. That can be seen in honestly reported experiences of people working without DEI being well implemented, fewer people willing to participate in the less pro-social enterprises when given with an equally valuable alternative choices, and emigration or exiting from the society or firm when presented with opportunities to do so. These can all be measured and observed to test for empirical merit, assuming it hasn't already been done. Without DEI, new opportunities can be missed to improve a firm's bottom line and the overall health of the society that those firms depend on for their bottom lines. People can become more genuinely engaged in the operations, improving productivity and generating social capital to help them weather more challenging moments with greater ease and resiliency. I would argue that we'd live better with DEI being developed and encouraged so that we can each live and work better with a greater diversity (read, the largest number of possible) of ways of being. I would argue ignoring DEI puts the certain individuals and specific sub-groups of our population who don't wish for DEI at a distinct disadvantage in a society that is only going to become more diverse and demanding of adaptive dynamism over time, as per the universal law of entropy. Better to learn how to learn the DEI subject matter than try to prevent the world from changing. One holds to truth, accepts conditions and laws as they are, and works to live in peace with facts. The other tries to defy empirical conditions and laws to protect what amounts to a personally preferred cultural and social aesthetic that hurts anyone who doesn't conform to it. You choose.

As an international community, how are we doing when it comes to diversity, equity, and inclusion? Do we truly value all lives, regardless of religion, ethnicity, race, or culture? Are resources provided equitably? When decisions are made that impact the global community, are all voices equally represented? Does international law protect all people equally? Do we find ways to justify injustice experienced by some to make it acceptable? The truth is, there is a lot of room for improvement. Let's work towards a more just world for all. #diversityequityinclusion #justiceforall #FreedomForAll

We need to underscore this *way* more often! I make a point of citing thoroughly in every talk and presentation I give (not just when writing papers). Speaking of papers, citing is not limited to published work. Cite people when you’re using their •ideas, •their language, •their phrases, •their stories. Part of the reason I do not share my slides (apart from the fact that they contain very little actual information once you divorce them from me speaking as I present), is because the ideas of women - Black, Indigenous and racialized women especially - are so often co-opted and/or misrepresented. This has happened to me. Often. As soon as I see the phone cameras coming out during my talk, I have no hesitation in letting folks know that of course they can take pictures of my slides. But if they’re going to use them in *any* context, I should be cited. This request isn’t a manifestation of capitalism or an anti open-access stance. It’s an anti-racist action. Integrity and inclusion go hand in hand. Part of your allyship if you’re from a dominant identity (and I carry many dominant identities too), is to cite well, honestly and thoroughly. Thank you Dr. Jonathan Ashong-Lamptey for highlighting this. 👏🏽🙌🏽👊🏾