March 8 will be packed with the usual gender-related data. There is no need to be too imaginative: the persistence of wage gaps, the lower presence of women in positions of responsibility and the higher rates of poverty among women. There will be talk of the need for more policies, education and awareness.
But the euphoria that had passed two or three years ago has passed and, although it is not entirely explicit, it is touched by the shadow that comes from both the European countries that are turning to the right and from the other side of the Atlantic. Trump's campaign against DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policies is turning the dominant discourse upside down.
For the moment, Trump's threat to ban companies with DEI policies from public procurement has caused many to abandon them, at least officially. This includes large, trend-setting companies such as Accenture, McDonald's, Meta (Facebook) and Alphabet (Google). For the moment, only Apple shareholders have dared to distance themselves from Trump and voted in favour of maintaining diversity and inclusion policies.
The president appeals to the argument that hiring should be based solely on a meritocratic system, according to which positions of responsibility are awarded according to the worth of the person and not on the basis of equality and diversity policies. Of course, no person wants to be hired as a result of a quota, but rather as someone with capacity and who adds value, precisely because of the diversity they can offer.
What Trump ignores is the abundance of scientific evidence that our perception of merit is biased by our beliefs. American researcher Claudia Goldin, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, was the first to demonstrate this bias with her experiment on blind auditions in orchestras: when the selection committee listened to the music without seeing the person's appearance, the percentage of women increased.
I need to be optimistic, and I want to be. Any company that has been committed to diversity and equity for a while will have seen how it greatly enriches them. I think that policies will continue, even if it is under the table and without the DEI acronym. The need for talent to be competitive is too important.
It is also necessary to remember that the DEI is only an instrument to help comply with laws that have a higher order on non-discrimination and equal treatment. In the United States, this would be the civil rights law and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. I do not believe that four years of Trump can change this. If we draw a parallel with our country, the equality plans that companies must have are only an instrument to comply with Article 35 of the Constitution on the right and duty to work without discrimination based on gender.
Erasing the foundations shouldn't be this easy. We hope it is.
