The watering down of DEI through personal preferences
Recently, I read a post on LinkedIn which had one of the hottest takes I have ever seen on the platform, but that does not say a lot considering that most posts are cookie-cutter motivational pep-talks and pitchfork-in-hand rants about someone’s crappy day. The post in question, with almost 10,000 reactions when I read it, discusses the poster’s experience with alcohol at events. The poster, a self-proclaimed non-drinker, explains that she does not drink but sees alcohol on a regular basis on social media. She observes that alcohol seems to be ingrained in the culture, but then submits a call to action: she wants businesses to change their policies on how alcohol is perceived. She proclaims that she gets invited to wine tastings, gets sent alcohol as gifts, and takes part in food tours where alcohol would not inherently be the focal point but is incorporated anyways. Sad stuff, right? She indirectly asks for nonalcoholic options (not just water) to be included at events, which is a pretty valid request. However, the part that got me thinking was one of her last sentences where she links an article with the headline “Making mocktails part of [diversity, equity, and inclusion].” Unfortunately, I cannot find the LinkedIn post (shocker, considering she used the very narrow hashtags “#people,” “#culture,” and “#business”), nor can I even find the article, but I am sure it floats out there somewhere in the ether. She otherwise tells people to discuss not drinking with others. I would like to disagree with her overall sentiment.
I am by no means a drinker, and I think anyone that knows me would quite readily label me a social drinker at best. If I do not have to pay for it, I will drink a beer or two, but that is about it. I do not drink to the point of intoxication, and, disgustingly to most, I like to sip on shots rather than downing them in one go. As such, I understand the perspective our poster takes where she wants more nonalcoholic options apart from plain water. This is an obvious solution to a fairly low-stakes problem, and follows in the tracks of its forefathers, the vegetarian diaspora. If events now advertise specific vegan and vegetarian options, surely providing nonalcoholic drinks would be doable. Not to make light of our poster’s experiences, but this seems like the norm to me as a disinterested observer. Her examples of wine tastings and food tours appear to be the exception to this norm by virtue of the fact that they rely on alcohol to provide a different experience. But I get it: She wants nonalcoholic wine at wine tastings so she can participate. Personally, I believe that would not create the experience the wine tasting venue is looking for, by way of the difference in taste between alcoholic and nonalcoholic wine. The barrier to participation here is basically ingrained in the activity, and it is quite obviously stated in the name what the activity will be, so I would be completely blindsided if a wine tasting venue decided to provide a nonalcoholic alternative.
What about the food tour? This example draws a bit more sympathy from me, as our poster claims it was not readily apparent that alcohol was going to be featured. While disingenuous, I fail to see the damage of that level of misrepresentation. Sure, alcohol was not mentioned on the promotional material, but I highly doubt that alcohol was the only option. Am I really to believe that our poster was thrust a glass of wine, and told to drink? I imagine many people on the tour chose alcohol, while the rest chose nonalcoholic variants. I recognize I am just assuming things about her experience, but is that food tour not exactly what she wants to see at events? A nonalcoholic set of options to act in lieu of the intended alcoholic ones? Our poster must just be wandering into frat parties where there is absolutely nothing but beer and hard liquor on the tables.
This leads me to her attention-grabbing statement that mocktails should be a part of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). I am well aware that I am a white man, but this statement makes little sense to me. While my definition of DEI means little because I do not experience injustices on a day-to-day basis, I choose to rely on a stricter understanding of DEI. To me, DEI is not simply making accommodations for every personal inconvenience, but accommodations for situations that unfairly disadvantage identifiable groups who would otherwise face barriers on the basis of uncontrollable circumstances. It takes little to understand that providing gluten-free options at networking events is not the same as a company choosing to redact the names on the resumes it receives to avoid racial or ethnic biases in the recruitment process. In the latter case, there is an identifiable group that can have their interests squashed by unfair hiring practices, and therefore an equitable remedy that applies to all applicants has been implemented.
Implicitly, for there to be a DEI consideration, there should be an interest that can be encroached upon. Otherwise, you risk allowing everything to be counted as grounds for an equitable remedy. In this case for mocktails, what exactly would be the interest at stake? If we take serving alcohol as discriminatory towards non-drinkers, then I guess children under the legal drinking age must be lining up to file human rights violations. However, if for example your religion prohibited you from drinking alcohol, then I would completely understand the demand for more mocktails. Funnily enough, our poster makes absolutely zero mention of that. Her basis for wanting mocktails, and for having them included in DEI, seems to be that she chooses not to drink, therefore it would be equitable and inclusive for her to have mocktails. I also love the specificity that it should in fact be mocktails that are served as nonalcoholic options, and not just soda or sparkling water. This is a complete personal preference, and no right of hers is being encroached if she does not have mocktails. She may feel more comfortable drinking a mocktail because it makes her feel like she is part of the drinking culture without consuming alcohol, but I doubt “comfort of teetotalers” is, or ever will be, a recognized ground upon which you can be discriminated against.
My biggest gripe with her statement surrounds the fact that she downplays the idea of DEI as a readily acceptable way to let our idiosyncrasies receive accommodations. If I do not want to drink at an event, I will happily drink the sparkling water they serve. I am not barred out of the event on the basis of my religion, nor my ethnic origin. Her perspective is grounded on a want, rather than a need, which does not align with the concept of DEI. When you water down the concept of DEI, it makes it usable as a shield for those who engage in discriminatory behaviours who can then rely upon the expansive nature of DEI to offer a defense as to why their interests are equivalent to the interests of those they discriminated against. In my view, DEI needs to be guarded with its fundamental principles of empowering minority groups and fostering a healthy workplace. The great effect it has on placing incredibly talented people at the helm of key decision-making processes and positions of power by giving them a chance to pierce through biases and barriers cannot be overstated, and must remain that way for it to have any semblance of credibility. Rather than trying to expand DEI to fit nonalcoholic perspectives, we should be thinking critically about the disadvantages that many groups continue to face, and ensuring that we bolster initiatives to provide adequate reparations and available remedies.
To a lesser degree, I disagree with her approach of starting a conversation about not drinking. It is one thing to highlight the financial, health, and psychological risks of excessive alcohol consumption, and an entirely different venture to explain why you should not drink. In essence, the conversation boils down to informative dialogue versus morally-righteous preaching. Whatever your reasons may be for not drinking, there are an equivalent number of reasons for drinking. Given that our poster does not elaborate on why she sees value in this activity, I can only presume that she wants to sway others to abandon alcohol, find others in the teetotal community, or to reduce stigma. The first reason is overly aggressive in its approach, while the other two have some merit. If she wants to find others who do not drink, what more direct approach is there than to proclaim your lack of consumption? I have no qualms that this would create a more comfortable environment for her and others like her, and so there is little to dislike about it. The third reason, to reduce stigma, also has merit. In contrast to her approval of making mocktails a part of DEI, this actually has the ability to impact DEI in a subtle way, because those with religious restrictions or cultural barriers to consuming alcohol will feel more accepted within their circles. The reality, though, is that talking about things without enacting measures does little more than draw a red target on the backs of those who already feel marginalized. Opening up about your lack of drinking necessarily invites a “But why?” style of questioning that may then lead to disclosure of personal information, such as creed or ethnic origins. In turn, that may lead to discrimination. See, it is not the woman who posted it who will be discriminated against for her lack of drinking, but rather the people who will be looked at through the lens of stereotypes to draw internal deductions on why they cannot drink. So in one sense, it reduces the stigma for a certain group of people, but may increase biases against others. In a practical sense, it brings little value to society to harm disadvantaged groups at the benefit of groups who derive net-neutral value from reduced stigma towards teetotalism.
Overall, the LinkedIn poster’s perspective is narrow in its scope. She sees things from her perspective, which is natural, but she lacks consideration for the impact of her ideal world on marginalized groups. She was neither preachy nor aggressive in her writing, but she does not adequately engage with the counter-arguments. She points to the culture and dismisses it right away, but that should have been the crux of her worries. With a culture rooted deeply in casual drinking, her ideas would never work. It took a shift from pro-smoking culture after World War II to anti-smoking culture in the late twentieth century before the public’s view of cigarettes turned around. Whether an event is providing mocktails does little to address the culture, and is more akin to a bandaid that peels off the moment the event-goer steps out of the building. Moreover, branding teetotalism in the DEI category is inappropriate and does nothing but hurt the progress made over the recent years in fostering a diverse and united community. Water down your drinks, not your values.
