We all have heard about D&I – Diversity and inclusion. But when we open our browsers we are presented with homogeneity and exclusion and the “received idea” is what Google or Microsoft’s artificial agent present us with.

“Homogeneity” is the learned experience of an artificial intelligence that averages opinion and expression to produce “what oft was thought but ne’er so well expressed “.

“Exclusion” is about the outliers, the creative thinking that get’s marginalised to the bottom of page two of any search.

If we assign to the word “authenticity”, the process – however fallible – of individual expression of an individual’s learned experience, then the opposite must be true of artificial intelligence. It must be the homogenisation of diversity to the exclusion of authentic experience.

We may choose the wisdom of the crowd and accept the marginalisation of individual expression, but like the whack-a- mole that AI is becoming, the mole will always survive, albeit in unexpected holds.

Those who preach D&I can be a joyless bunch. If we all conform to a social norm, that is in itself a new form of homogeneity and exclusion. Which is why we have comedy, which Brecht defined as “laughing in church”. The solemnity of the new conformity, characterised by the legal enforcement of D&I in corporate policies and through consensus gathering organisations such as Next Gen, Mallowstreet and the PLSA, results surveys , reports  and  codes of practice that ultimately atrophy into law and its regulation.  We need rules to codify best practice , or so it seems.

Yesterday, to the great displeasure of most of my favourite correspondents on social media, I published an article calling for  our Pension Minister not to be hounded out of office for over-spending on keeping himself in office. It appears that he may have published and distributed too many pamphlets and leaflets in Blackpool North.

I take this reproof from the excellent Mike Harrison on the chin

With politics as with pensions, Henry, you have to follow the Rules.

— Mike Harrison (@HigherEdActuary) January 7, 2024

My article may well be unique in arguing that we need to be pragmatic in dealing with Paul Maynard’s (alleged) misdemeanour. It will undoubtedly add to diversity of opinion , even by the legal yardstick, I am wrong.

I take Mike’s truth to be self-evident. I am often on the side of the outlaw, as have been better thinkers and singers than me, Bob Dylan for one. He wrote that “to live outside the law you must be honest”, which is a good dictum which sums up where I am on sacking pension ministers. Outlaws, like outliers, are part of the diversity.

It is so, when I go to see Nick Cave and he incites parts of his audience onto stage, or when Springsteen and McCartney played Twist and Shout past the Hyde Park curfew, a part of me agrees with Mike. But the better part of me , agrees with the D&I of those who push back and get on with giving me a better time.

I am aware that in writing this article, I am using AI. In the previous paragraph, AI corrected my original mis-spelling of McCartney. It knew who I was referring to , spell-checked, corrected and homogenised the outlier- for the good of the article.

To suppose that we should ignore the tools presented us by artificial learning is as daft as to suppose we should always abide by them. Sometimes the first image suggested by a word plugged into google images is the best. However, for the most part, the image is that created to reinforce an idea. Take “homogeneity and exlusi0n” -a search for  which gives us page after page of stock images, preaching us the gospel according to St Woke – such as this one.

Most people side with Toby Belch when he asks Malvolio .  “Dost thou think because thou
art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?”

On page three of my search I found the image below

Which seemed to define a defiance of homogeneity and exclusion and suggest what diversity and inclusion is really about – the avoidance of the received idea, the avoidance of the stock photo. I found it on the second page of my image search (the place where nobody goes).

The top image presented for me when I asked about “homogeneity and exclusion” was this one.

This was almost certainly created by AI, is an advertisement for me to subscribe to “alamy”, and pay for conformity.

Paying for conformity

This article came from reading a piece by Rana Faroohar which explains why original “authentic” thinking is unrewarded by “Big-Tech”.  It’s thought provoking but doesn’t explain why it is that people write pieces like the one you are reading which will go “un-rewarded” in a financial sense.

But for freedom of expression to exist, there must be independence of thought. There can be no pay-master. The best journalists get paid for writing independently of those who pay them which is why we so value the kind of editorial policy that exists in the publications  we purchase, Rana Faroohar was paid to write what she did though every paragraph read like a heart-felt plea for the freedom to write as she wanted. The piece reads as a cry from the heart – as well as a news story

I will pay for insight that gets me beyond conformity, but not pay the likes of alamy to conform. I do not want to pay for homogeneity and exclusion , I am happy to sit on the third page of a google search.