Somewhere in the horrible fog of antagonism and bitterness engulfing disagreement over whether or not EDI (Equality, Diversity and Inclusion) is a good thing lies a well-hidden truth. Business, politics, sport, music, literature, art … the situation is as it always has been.  Most of it is extraordinarily mediocre.

When I managed an addiction treatment clinic I learned that if a fuss blew up something was usually getting swept under the carpet. If you hung around long enough you’d start to notice its effects: a malaise of repetition, stagnation and rule-bending or breaking. Thus it is: mediocre people would rather rail against EDI rather than face up to the grinding mediocrity of groups set up ‘on merit’.

EDI insists on collectivity over individuality. It makes it harder for repetition, stagnation and rule-bending or breaking to occur.  If you don’t believe this, try it out.

‘On merit’ does not like EDI. EDI exposes the ‘on merit’ crowd’s dependence on … people like themselves.  Angrily holding onto the status quo involves something not dissimilar to in-breeding. In certain esteemed circles it actually involves in-breeding. Back-scratching, nepotism, hereditary benefits, clubs, schools. Whatever the effect of EDI I can say, having looked under many a mental bonnet, that  … things can only get better.

EDI is good for you. It shakes groups up. Of course if we are talking about the bureaucracy that might accompany EDI, that is another matter. Bureaucracy, you see, is where the ‘on merit’ crowd go when they get worried that the enterprises they have spawned might need to be accounted for.