Myers claims, “Diversity is being invited to the party; inclusion is being asked to dance” (3). But what if the music has already been selected, the venue already scheduled, and the dancers already finalized? In recent decades, the term ‘diversity’ has become a buzzword, ubiquitously found on websites, advertising campaigns, and hiring pages to attract consumers. Yet beneath the fashionable messaging lies a trend of superficial commitment, where diversity is enforced as a marketing utility rather than an opportunity for institutional reform. This raises an essential question: Is diversity valuable in advocating for justice, or has it been reduced to a tokenistic performance of inclusion?
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “diversity” is defined as “the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.” (Servaes et al., 2022). Even though it has its own value, diversity frequently results in surface-level representation without the corresponding benefits. This representation is shown through “fashionable” means. In this context, it refers to the adoption of diversity concepts as a trend, motivated by the need to uphold reputable practices rather than principled commitments towards change. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “tokenism” is defined as “the policy or practice of making only a symbolic effort (as to desegregate)” (Merriam-Webster, 2025). However, the value of these trends is assessed through political and social impact: Does it expand democratic legitimacy, or does it become an act that escalates power imbalances rather than addressing them? This raises an essential question: Is diversity valuable in advocating for justice, or has it been reduced to a tokenistic performance of inclusion?
When genuinely integrated into an institution’s practices, diversity extends beyond mere representation, but rather becomes a powerful incentive for improved problem-solving, innovation, and, most importantly, more harmonious outcomes. Political philosopher Cass Sunstein argues that such inclusion is necessary for building epistemic diversity, which is the accumulation of different perspectives to make sense of the world around us. Sunstein insists that without this, individuals are prone to ‘groupthink’, a phenomenon where a desire for harmony results in irrational decision-making outcomes (Solomon, 2006).
One can measure the impact of the Women’s Environmental and Development Organization (WEDO), a global advocacy organization that protects human rights and gender equality. Rather than simply including women in these processes, WEDO actively campaigns for diverse women from the Global South to hold leadership positions that participate in international policy forums, such as the United Nations climate negotiations (Kajumba et al., 2025). This approach not only allows climate solutions to be just but also allows vulnerable communities to be given a voice in these decisions, as they are most affected by environmental degradation. Honoring these diverse voices, WEDO has shaped policies that address the gender-related impacts of climate change: promoting local knowledge of sustainability and transitioning away from traditional power dynamics in environmental governance.
WEDO’s commitment to diversity is demonstrated through its initiatives, such as the Women Delegates Fund, which is facilitated by WEDO in collaboration with bilateral or multilateral donors. These donors provide financial support for negotiators to participate in climate change negotiations. As well, this fund helps women negotiators access negotiator training (Kajumba et al., 2025). Furthermore, WEDO guarantees upholding accountability and improving participation rates by tracking sex-aggregated participation in delegations, heads of delegations, and constituted bodies, and advocating for new measurements to assess the quality of, more specifically, women’s participation. This includes data on the amount of time women and men speak at UNFCCC meetings (Kajumba et al., 2025).
While WEDO’s approach shows the value of genuine diversity, its success also exposes the challenges in achieving such integration universally. One might counter that its focus on elevating only select individuals into existing structures risks subtle tokenism. Critics like Audre Lorde, an American philosopher and civil rights activist, state that “the master’s tool will never dismantle the master’s house,” suggesting that you cannot use the very systems that create oppression to free yourself from it (Kajumba et al., 2025). The core argument implies that true liberation requires making new ‘tools,’ such as ways of thinking and strategies, in order to create solidarity. While WEDO is effective in producing new policies that cater towards the greater good for marginalized communities, it creates a false narrative of transformation without addressing the deeper, foundational issues of global injustice and power. The house could get new decor and new furniture, but its architecture remains unchallenged and unchanged. Nevertheless, the emergence of systemic challenges does not negate progress. It’s still important to recognize that those very tools can be utilized to weaken the influence from within the system. WEDO shows this by introducing unique experiences, actively breaking down once established norms, and setting a higher standard for the future that contrasts superficial representations of diversity.
Beyond the limitations of these productive methods, diversity’s value diminishes when reduced to a mere superficial marketing tool. This phenomenon, corporate diversity washing, is the practice of “misrepresenting diversity initiatives to gloss over actual diversity data” (Ahmed, 2012). Such performative activism involves empty gestures, such as inflated hiring quotas or prominent statements; this refrains from addressing the true underlying systemic disparities. Jean Baudrillard, a French sociologist and cultural philosopher, is best known for his work on postmodernism and simulation, but most importantly, for the development of the concept of “simulacrum.” This concept states that a copy or representation of something stops being connected to the real thing and even starts to replace it. Once replaced, people end up believing or reacting to the copy as if it were real (Baudrillard, 1994). In this case, the representation of diversity becomes more real than its actual form, serving as a mask rather than a tool to resolve existing inequalities in the system. As Sara Ahmed explains in her paper in “Racism and diversity in institutional life,” these acts are classified as “institutional non-performance,” which creates an illusion of progression that deters from holding corporations accountable (Ahmed, 2012). This type of so-called “activism” weaponizes diversity as a PR tool, reinforcing existing systemic imbalances by making superficial gestures to stand in for reform. However, beyond publicity, diversity washing appears to pay off. In the paper, Journal of Accounting Research, David Larcker, a professor of accounting at Stanford Graduate School of Business, and Edward Watts, a graduate of Yale School of Management, state that “diversity washers” often receive higher environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings and attract investment from socially responsible funds despite their poor performance on DEI measures (Murray, 2022). However, this quick gain does not come at a small price; in the long run, deceptive practices hinder public trust and can worsen the very systemic issue they claim to address. Prioritizing short-term reputational gains over genuine inclusion only serves to maintain the appearance of change and undervalues diversity’s potential for lasting change.
Outside corporate identities, superficial diversity is displayed as tokenistic within political systems, particularly in the context of candidate selection. To appear progressive and inclusive, political parties tend to present a more diverse slate of candidates. Nevertheless, if these people do not have the authority or power to influence policy, the value of diversity is greatly diminished. Iris Marion Young, a Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and an American political theorist, states in her book Justice and the Politics of Difference that “true inclusion demands not just presence, but a fundamental shift in decision-making power and whose voices are authentically heard” (Young, 1990). As shown, a diverse individual strategically positioned but structurally disempowered risks becoming a symbol in which their presence leads to false legitimacy to an unchanged system. While common counterarguments suggest that any representation, even tokenistic, serves as a necessary ‘stepping-stone’ to boost recognition, this view overlooks the potential risks associated with it. Frantz Fanon, a French West Indian psychiatrist, political philosopher, and Marxist, argues that focusing on post-colonial structures can create an illusion of progress that only serves to strengthen the status quo and deflect attention from systemic change (Fanon, 2005). Such tokenism can hide the pressing necessity for reform, imposing undue burdens on the token individual.
Diversity’s efficacy and value depend entirely on its depth of integration. While organizations like WEDO show that genuine inclusion of diverse opinions yields valuable epistemic gains and more advantageous outcomes, this ideal is challenging to replicate universally. Critiques, like Audre Lorde’s, remind us that merely placing diverse individuals within places of power within existing “master’s houses” may not fully break down power structures, resulting in subtle tokenism. These acts of corporate diversity washing, analyzed by Jean Baudrillard as “simulacra” and Sara Ahmed as “institutional non-performance,” actively harm diversity by creating an illusion of change. Similarly, “political tokenism,” as analyzed through Iris Marion Young’s book “Justice and the Politics of Difference” and Frantz Fanon’s teachings against false progress, strengthens existing power imbalances. Thus, all showing that the distinction lies not in the presence of diversity, but in the purpose and power it is granted within any given system.
The value of diversity is not straightforward; it is contingent upon authentic implementation. When genuinely integrated, diversity offers the potential for innovation, understanding, and justice for all. Its superficial application serves only to maintain the status quo, often under the assumption of progress. To truly recognize its transformative power, we must move beyond the fashionable. Instead of inviting people to the party, we must be sure they have a role in choosing the music, designing the venue, and coordinating the dance. Only by prioritizing genuine inclusion, robust accountability, and systemic transformation can diversity transcend its current tokenistic portrayal and fulfill its true potential and become a driving force for a more just and equitable world.
References
Ahmed, S. (2012). On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. In JSTOR. Duke University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1131d2g
Amindoni, A. (2023, January 21). On Audre Lorde. Medium. https://medium.com/@ayomiamindoni/on-audre-lorde-7a69b10d2cca
Baudrillard, J. (1994). Baudrillard_Simulacra and Simulations. Web.stanford.edu. https://web.stanford.edu/class/history34q/readings/Baudrillard/Baudrillard_Simulacra.html?source=post_page
Fanon, F. (2005). “Black Skin, White Masks”: New Interdisciplinary Essays. In JSTOR (1st ed.). Manchester University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1vwmfcj
Kajumba, T., Perch, L., Alcobé, F., Harty, E., Pierre, K., & Massiah-Simeon, J. (2025). Understanding barriers to women’s participation in the UN climate negotiations: Perspectives from the least developed countries. https://www.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/2025-02/22603iied.pdf
Merriam-Webster. (2025, August 29). Definition of tokenism. Www.merriam-Webster.com. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tokenism
Murray, S. (2022, March 21). How corporate “diversity washers” spin investors. Stanford Graduate School of Business; Stanford University. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/how-corporate-diversity-washers-spin-investors
Servaes, S., Choudhury, P., & Parikh, A. K. (2022). What is diversity? Pediatric Radiology, 52(9), 1708–1710. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-022-05356-0
Solomon, M. (2006). Norms of Epistemic Diversity. Episteme, 3(1-2), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.23
Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. In JSTOR (REV – Revised). Princeton University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvcm4g4q
