Unfortunately firms, especially top firms, don’t care about diversity except for ethnic diversity. This means you can be a middle class black man and get onto black only schemes regardless of your background.
For this reason I would have only diversity for social mobility and disability only imo. Non-RG would come under social mobility.
Personally I dont really agree with this.
I would argue that instead of non-RG coming under social mobility, there needs to be, in general, a recognised effort for
academic diversity. Meaning, an acceptance for different types of educational institutions - just like there has been more open-mindedness for apprenticeships recently.
Even if a black male came from a middle class background, only recognising social mobility, means that we do not appreciate the statistics - which is that there are little to no individuals like this in the corporate field (at partner level in general). Why is that? Grouping them solely under social mobility would not be addressing the cause of the issue. As a woman of colour from a working class background, it looks really disheartening to see nobody looking like you in positions like that. So i am glad
for any type of diversity , including for ethnic minorities, as they may face different barriers, which may be in addition to or instead of social mobility.
Just some ideas for thought, this was not meant to be a rant
