On July 1, HB261 — the state of Utah’s “Equal Opportunities Initiative,” which some people refer to as the anti-DEI bill — went into effect. People for and against the bill say they want to improve inclusivity and eliminate sources of discrimination. To help us do that, here are a few insights I have learned from my two decades of experience teaching and practicing conflict resolution.
1. We need to be clear about what it is we really care about.
When dealing with conflict, it is critical to be ultra-clear about what it is that we really care about. In the case of HB261, my understanding is there are two separate, but related, concerns for most people: 1) diversity and inclusion, and 2) equity.
As I understand it: Diversity and inclusion are about creating spaces and systems that are truly welcoming and safe for people of all walks of life. As a conflict resolution professional, I think it is important to be clear that being inclusive and welcoming diversity does not mean accepting all behaviors; we can include all people while being clear that we do not welcome unkind, antisocial and harmful behaviors and ways of speaking, especially those that are unwelcoming to others.
Equity concerns arise from the fact that not all people start life at the same place on the playing field, some people have access to resources and opportunities that other people do not, and some groups of people are treated differently than other groups of people. People who are concerned about equity appear to feel that, in order to create an equitable society, we need to find ways to level the playing field, reduce barriers to access and make sure that policies, programs and rights are being administered fairly across all groups of people.
Instead of bundling these two goals into one slogan (e.g., DEI), it may be helpful to be clear that these are two separate goals, which then raises the important question: How can we create inclusive systems and improve equity?
Tell the Tribune: What do you think the future of DEI efforts in Utah should look like?
2. Our zero-sum thinking is the greatest barrier to effective problem solving.
Humans tend to see the world as zero-sum — meaning that we assume for one person to do better, someone else must lose. It is therefore not surprising that we tend to approach inclusion and equity concerns this way.
For example, people from historically privileged communities might assume that providing more resources and access to opportunity for historically disadvantaged populations will mean they themselves will have to give up resources, access and power. Similarly, people from underrepresented communities might assume the only way to get a seat at the table is to force others out.
The reality is the world isn’t zero-sum and, I know from two decades of studying and helping people navigate conflict, when we effectively advocate for their fundamental needs and concerns and work together to problem solve, we can expand the proverbial pie and create value for everyone involved.
Unfortunately, however, our zero-sum assumptions lead people to get very positional and behave in very oppositional ways. This often manifests as fighting, alienating each other and backlash, which take a toll on us emotionally and physically, erode the fabric of our communities and waste precious energy, time and resources.
If we are going to flourish as individuals and as a society in a globalized, pluralistic world, we have to stop alienating and fighting each other and instead work together across our differences to solve problems — such as how we may figure out how to create truly inclusive and equitable systems.
3. We need to teach people how to work across their differences to make positive change.
As I know from my experience and research, the bad news is that many — if not most — people don’t know how to do this. This is why I think one of the most important things that higher education — and all educational institutions — can do is teach people how to productively work through conflict and navigate our differences.
A core part of this is helping people recognize and move beyond their zero-sum assumptions. Related to this, we need to help people from all walks of life better understand how to advocate for their needs and exert their own agency to make positive change. To do this, we need to teach people basic conflict competencies, such as the skills of effective communication, focusing on interests rather than positions and creative problem solving.
Much the same, we need to teach and emphasize dialogue, interest-based negotiation and collaborative problem solving, rather than focusing on debate and argumentation. See my recent blogs (edrblog.org) for more information about these concepts.
I don’t have all the answers for how to create an equitable and inclusive world; however, I am confident that better preparing people to navigate and create value from difference will help. If we want to flourish, let’s put our energy into working together to make the world better for all humans — and into teaching people how to do so.
Danya Rumore, Ph.D., is the director of The Wallace Stegner Center Environmental Dispute Resolution Program.
Danya Rumore, Ph.D., is the director of The Wallace Stegner Center Environmental Dispute Resolution Program and a research professor of law and a clinical associate professor of planning at the University of Utah.
The Salt Lake Tribune is committed to creating a space where Utahns can share ideas, perspectives and solutions that move our state forward. We rely on your insight to do this. Find out how to share your opinion here, and email us at voices@sltrib.com.
