Staff networks

Over the past twenty years or so staff networks and the notion of "allyship" have spread across the public sector like poison ivy.  Chris Bayliss at The Critic:

The concept of “allyship” is a vague and nebulous one. Supposedly, it is meant to involve those of “non-marginalised” or “privileged” groups (heterosexuals, men, white people etc) “amplifying the voices” of and “advocating” for their “marginalised” colleagues. In practice, it usually meant intelligent if slightly spineless middle-aged Senior Civil Servants being fed intersectional social justice dogma by an HEO fresh out of university, and being judged on how completely they digested it and accepted its premises. Anybody who had any exposure to the British public sector during this period will have had the connotations of the word “ally” completely changed in their minds, and will now no longer be able to watch a documentary about the Second World War without imagining a balding 54 year old DEFRA Director wearing a rainbow lanyard storming ashore at Anzio, or launching a dogged attack through the bocage around Saint-Lô.

If this experience was miserable enough for everyone else, it was especially humiliating for those who did not feel “marginalised” or defined by their own “protected characteristics” — those for whom being gay, or being Asian or whatever was not a professional identity. Particularly those who were slightly older, and who felt their own career progress thus far was down to their own efforts or merits, rather than a result of their being “advocated” for by “allies”. When these groups were first formed, an individual could simply choose whether to participate or not, but by the late 2010s that was ceasing to be an option one could get away with quietly, especially for those at more senior grades.

It’s worth taking a brief moment to dwell on the especially noxious role of the so-called “mental health” networks, which were often populated mainly by individuals with the kind of personality disorders that made them especially unpleasant or professionally dangerous to be around. These networks could be the most vocal within any government department, mainly because they believed that they had lessons to teach everyone else about their own “mental health”. As such, they tended to elevate the most malign and narcissistic individuals into moral authorities within their workplaces.

It will be difficult to prove the precise level of influence that LGBTQ+ networks had over senior officials in government, and over clinicians within the NHS, during the controversy over “gender affirming care” (hormone blockers and the removal of health body parts) during the decade while that debate was in contention in the UK. But throughout that time, scepticism toward gender ideology was framed by these groups as if it were a threat to the safety of staff. It’s known that the LGBTQ+ network within the BMA attempted to attack the methodology of the Cass Review, and that officials attempted to block Kemi Badenoch while she was Secretary of State for Women and Equality from meeting with gender critical campaigners. It is important to remember that every single decision made, and each piece of policy advice issued by officials, was done in an atmosphere in which groups like this wielded real influence over people’s careers.

It's the familiar story of efforts to help the less fortunate taking over and becoming the tail wagging the dog. 

Prompted by stories like this:

Warwickshire County Council's LGBTQ+ staff group has warned of the "deeply unsettling" effect of not guaranteeing that the Pride flag will be flown at the council headquarters in the future.

The council's new leader, Reform UK's Councillor George Finch, wanted the Progress Pride flag taken down before the end of Pride month in June but chief executive Monica Fogarty refused.

For people like Fogarty here, keeping the Pride flag flying is a hill they're ready to die on.

What this all means is that in organisations like the police, or the NHS, or the Civil Service – or the BBC – the people who rise to the top now are not so much those who've proved their capability and leadership skills, but those who've embraced the latest shibboleths about inclusivity and so on with the most enthusiasm: those who came top in the Stonewall seminar tests and were loudest in their commitment to the LGBTQ+ cause.

In other words, as we've seen recently – especially with the police – the people at the top may well be idiots.