[ad_1]
CULTURE DEBATE. It was sometime in the early 2010s and I was new as the director of Radio Sueca. We were a small group of managers selected to review how SR worked with diversity. A policy document would be rewritten. The hiring bases would be reviewed. A change had to be made.
Every now and then I would think: this is a big thing!
I had never worked anywhere where there were so many different varieties of us and I was deeply grateful for that. Thankful that a place with such diversity wanted more. But at the same time, I thought it strange that I was now working in a newspaper company where internal personnel policy issues were perceived as important, sometimes more important, than the journalistic mission to the audience.
We can improve in diversity! The question was raised at all management meetings.
This was the first time I learned about identity politics at work.
And it got better. Very good in some places. The metropolitan regions managed well the objectives of hiring where, to the evident professional competence, experiences, contacts and perspectives different from those carried by the majority were added.
On my local channel and other Vischan channels, though, it sucked. We aspire own and other networks. The HR department encouraged in every way, but most of the candidates had already spent the time reading.
It was a concern, but we would fix it.
We can improve in diversity!
This was the first time I learned about identity politics at work. In different places it was measured, diagrams of what kind were heard on the radio were saved. Man, woman, those in power, etc., if that other diversity, the one that has to do with origin, appeared on the radio.
In my project group on the mission of diversity, we drank irrational amounts of coffee and argued for hours. The “diversity” that I could offer myself to the project group in that situation was: thick roots, working class, country, strong peasant dialect (which often got the comment that it was good that I didn’t wash, followed by a laugh educated middle class).
Most of me was: white, female, born in Sweden. All of me, nothing is part of my profession.
But I never thought then that I “represented”. For me, it was obvious that I was chosen because someone expected me to have something intellectual and journalistic to contribute. Why do they hire me? What did I train for?
Something similar happened during the meso when the women together dared to raise their stories.
Even though I was all that other, which, by the way, was mostly to my disadvantage.
If someone had said that it was so important, even more important, who gave birth to me, how my body was formed, what economic circumstances I come from, all things beyond my influence, I would have resigned myself to the place.
Is there anyone who wants to work in a workplace that actively chooses and deselects people for that reason? So it is a club that is not for me.
Following in the footsteps of the importance of black lives, the call has “Whose SR? A call for representation and against racism at SR ”started with my former employer. Attractiveness is a sign of freshness in a number of ways. There needs to be enough minority people for that security to emerge. Something similar happened during the meso when the women together dared to raise their stories.
The discussion about how to counter racism should never be silenced. Are there racists on Swedish radio and SVT? Insurance. They exist in society in general. But that does not mean that the companies themselves are racist and that it is okay to misbehave or even criminally at work. Companies must work in this direction, in all ways that do not contravene the law.
But in the SR call, the signatories demand a series of privacy restrictions, as if they were implemented it would be illegal:
“An inventory of Sveriges Radio employees to determine how many have foreign and non-European backgrounds. Then a further inventory of how many of these are Black / Afro-Swedish. This inventory will also include the proportion with foreign and non-European backgrounds in various forms of employment, as well as the proportion with managerial positions ”.
“That Sveriges Radio sets a long-term goal, with December 2025 as the benchmark, that at least 25 percent of all employees must have a foreign background and at least 15 percent must have a non-European background. Special emphasis should be placed on increasing the proportion of black employees in the company. “
How did they think it would be possible to implement it unless the Swedish discrimination law was completely rewritten? And how do you think people should be forced to define definitions of race and agree to quit or get a job because of skin color?
The fact that several employees of one of Sweden’s most credible newsrooms, “Ekot”, signed these requirements is deeply problematic. In fact, an implementation would be directly counterproductive to your desire for SR without racism.
SVT has been previously employed Seher Yilmaz from Rättviseförmedlingen, who is now tasked with “going through 100 hires made at SVT from a diversity perspective” (Journalisten 30/9).
Therefore, a kind of commissioner for diversity must evaluate employees who have already been employed based on the diversity with which they enrich themselves. Should the journalism of these employees be evaluated based on their skin color, address, or who their mother is? What does the review look like? Are the people registered in different columns?
I’m not sure it’s legal to do so. But I can be wrong, of course.
And who should have access to the information about the small group that everyone knows who it is? Do we, as journalists, really want to open that door?
The article shows that SVT already measures diversity today, then defined as with a father born in another country. From 18 to 22.5 percent of SVT employees, the increase has occurred. But why does SVT even measure journalistic employees against these criteria? Isn’t it journalism that is the result of the efforts of all employees that there should be a lively debate?
But journalists must protect our professional skills rather than our identity.
From the populist right comes crazy propaganda about the party affiliation of public service journalists from time to time. The message is that they all stay and that it shows in journalism.
There are strong and rightly protests against this within our own body. Couldn’t news journalists, no matter how they vote, do their job objectively and professionally?
The identity-political rhetoric of the populist right is not far behind SR’s call. Both assume that it is not possible to be outside of one’s own identity and be professionals.
But journalists must protect our professional skills rather than our identity. In the long term, it is what builds our credibility both individually and collectively.
Anna Gullberg is a writer and employee of Expressen’s culture page. She is also vice president of the Publicist Club.
