Response to interpellation 2024/25:357 on values included in the concept of DEI
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the concept of DEI and its values. L argues that DEI is about an inclusive work environment where diversity adds value and productivity 1 2. L emphasizes that Sweden is taking its own path and that groups facing obstacles should be identified to counter discrimination rather than using quotas 2 3. L believes that DEI is not a new phenomenon but that Swedish companies have long used the concept 4. L wants to break structures that hinder certain groups due to gender, ethnicity, or social context 4. SD argues that DEI is a destructive left-wing ideology based on discrimination by dividing people into power structures 5 6 7. SD claims that if diversity is not achieved through anti-discrimination legislation, it means in practice that quotas are needed 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! I have been asked whether, in my role as Minister, I intend to advocate for and work for the principles and values included in the concept of DEI.
As Tobias Andersson has presented, Chalmers University of Technology AB has inaugurated an equality office that coordinates the institution's work with equality, diversity, and inclusion. The term DEI is used by the institution as an abbreviation for diversity, equality and inclusion.
If Sweden is to be a leading country in research and innovation, equal conditions for similar work and similar merits must apply to women and men. We also need to have a work environment at our universities and colleges that makes everyone feel welcome and included.
Reports from, among others, the Equality Ombudsman show that a large number of people are subjected to discrimination and that discrimination occurs throughout society and is particularly widespread within the working life.
Discrimination, racism and other obstacles that stand in the way of people's equal rights and opportunities in life are not only a justice issue for the individuals affected, but also a serious societal problem as we as a country risk losing important competence and productivity. Inclusion and quality are thus not in opposition to each other – on the contrary.
In the recruitment of personnel, merit and skill are the starting point for all employments within state activities in Sweden. Furthermore, discrimination based on, among other things, gender is prohibited according to the Discrimination Act, which means that a person may not be treated worse than anyone else in a comparable situation. Quoting in persons based on, for example, gender or ethnic origin is not permitted.
The Government views all initiatives that strengthen our country's competence positively while all forms of discrimination are countered. Sweden shall be a tolerant and humane society characterized by respect for the individual's human freedoms and rights. The equal value of all people shall be respected. I will continue to safeguard these values.
Tobias Andersson (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister Paulina Brandberg!
I want to begin with the words of Minister Paulina Brandberg when she inaugurated Chalmers' so-called DEI office on Wednesday, January 22: As a liberal Minister for Equality, it feels extra fun, of course, to be here, where we talk about equality and equity.
The inauguration coincided almost to the hour with the USA's dismantling of all counterparts within the American civil service. When the world's largest democracy settles accounts with woke ideology and clears it out from the state apparatus, the responsible minister in Sweden chooses, therefore, to embrace the same, in my opinion, destructive and divisive ideology.
Without background and understanding, the concept of DEI – that is, diversity, equity, inclusion – may certainly sound laudable, and it is possible that some of those who advocate for it in Sweden do not know better and have not understood the meaning of this acronym, which is borrowed primarily from the USA. It is, however, my opinion that as a minister, one should be cautious about which concepts, ideas, ideologies, and movements one associates oneself with and puts one's name to.
The entire basic principle of this concept is, in fact, based on discrimination. By quoting in certain individuals based on factors such as gender and ethnic background, other more qualified individuals are denied and discriminated against.
The concept of equity must also not be misinterpreted as equality. While equality means that one should receive equal opportunities, equity means that the same outcome shall be guaranteed regardless of the individual's performance and skill. Only one of these two principles is reasonable to advocate for if one is Sweden's Minister for Equality.
Madam Speaker! Now perhaps someone who has listened closely will want to point out and say, "But Tobias, the Minister for Equality says equality and not equity." And that is true, Madam Speaker. When I prepared the debate yesterday, I noted that on Chalmers' website, E now stands for equality instead of equity. It is strange for many reasons. Why borrow an American, established acronym if one is going to change the meaning of its letters? One might as well translate it into something Swedish from the beginning.
Even harder to understand it became when the DEI officer in question, as the professional title reads, herself wrote on LinkedIn: "Imagine that I start in a week! As DEI Officer (diversity, equity & inclusion) at Chalmers." I do not distrust the Minister for Equality, Madam Speaker, but I believe at the same time that the person holding the position in question knew what the title was when she informed her followers about her new employment. It would be strange if she lied about what assignment she had received when she expressed hopes for her new role.
Madam Speaker! A more plausible version of the sequence of events is, of course, that Chalmers, after the criticism of this, has chosen to sweep the tracks or perhaps even change the meaning of E in the DEI title and in the name of the office to minimize external criticism. We do not need to dwell on this or a single job title, however, but should return to the subject.
I want to ask the Minister for Equality if she opposes the meaning of DEI in its fundamental American, correct sense, where E stands for equity and nothing else.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! To begin with, I interpret the interpellator as considering that we should follow the example of the USA and how they act regarding issues concerning equality and equity. I can only answer that we are going our own way in Sweden. We have a good reputation - a very good reputation - in issues of equality and equity. We have had great successes, and they have come thanks to hard work and conscious strategies to achieve equity and equality in Sweden. When I move in international contexts, I often hear that Sweden is a pioneer country in these issues. My ambition is none other than that we should continue to have that position.
I also note that the interpellator mixes up the concepts a bit and seems to believe that DEI is about quotas. It is, as I said in my opening response, not what the question is about. Already when I took office as Minister, I was clear that I do not see quotas as the solution we should use when it comes to equality and equity. We have anti-discrimination legislation that is clear that, for example, gender or ethnicity should not determine whether one receives a certain position, and the work is much broader than that.
We have a very gender-segregated labor market today. We have previously had an even more gender-segregated labor market. Within certain occupational groups, for example the police profession, there were very few women a few years ago. But today there are quite a few women in the police force. It is not because we have quoted them in, but because we have understood that there is a great value in having more women in the force so that the police can fulfill their important mission and maintain safety in our country. In the same way, it is in many other occupational categories.
There is great value in increased diversity, for example when it comes to researchers and other professional life. In the business sector, one also sees that there are great quality gains and productivity gains to be made if one broadens out and gets in more perspectives from both genders and from people with different backgrounds. That is what DEI is about. It adds value to our country, and I absolutely stand behind that.
Regarding the Chalmers event, I participated in it. They already from the beginning expressed that E in DEI, according to their way of using it, stands for equality. This was also communicated in a LinkedIn post even before the inauguration took place.
Tobias Andersson (SD)
Madam Speaker! It is true that Chalmers, in its communication, has chosen to let E stand for equality. It is also true that the so-called DEI officer, who leads the office at Chalmers, wrote on LinkedIn: "Imagine that I start in a week! As DEI Officer (diversity, equity & inclusion) at Chalmers." In later posts, she chose instead to write equality. It becomes somewhat unclear for those who follow Chalmers and the DEI officer in question which E is used in which context, what is correct, and what is an adaptation to limit criticism and other things.
The Minister for Gender Equality nevertheless stated that she believes DEI adds value. I can only assume, Madam Speaker, that when the minister stated that, she meant its actual meaning where E stands for equity. It would be very strange if the Minister for Gender Equality had her own interpretation of what an established American concept stands for. It cannot have escaped anyone that the concept has been criticized enormously recently and, as mentioned, removed from the American civil service because it is judged to be pure and simple discrimination.
When one talks about DEI in the USA - where E continues to mean equity and not the Minister's or Chalmers' own interpretations that it stands for equality - it means in practice that people are categorized into different power structures with subordinates and superiors. One divides and rules to then, from different subgroups, make different valuations which mean that people become subordinated or discriminated against. These power structures and the analysis of them then provide the basis for, for example, recruitments and employments. But we do not need to get stuck there. The Minister is welcome to clarify whether it is the American DEI or Chalmers' own, newly invented description of the acronym that she considers adds value to Sweden.
On the Gender Equality Authority's website, one can see traces of this left-wing ideology, regardless of whether one calls it DEI or something else. There is an entire page on intersectional analysis where they describe how power structures linked to "gender, gender identity or expression, ethnic origin, religion or other belief, disability, sexual orientation and age" affect. The authority considers that this needs to be studied. The result is that we are all to be divided into groups based on a multitude of different factors. These groups shall then be divided into superior and subordinate groups based on some diffuse concept of power.
The Gender Equality Authority writes, among other things, on its website: "Different categorizations have different meanings in different contexts. We therefore need to break down the groups based on more subdivision criteria..." I don't know, Madam Speaker, but it is not my definition of equality and equity that we should go about categorizing our fellow human beings into all conceivable different groups based on ethnic background, whether they have a disability or not, what orientation they have, or for that matter any of the other factors that the Gender Equality Authority or the ideology behind the intersectional analysis chooses to consider relevant.
Why does the minister think this grouping of individuals is reasonable? Does it align with the principles of liberalism?
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! It is clear that the interpellator and I have very different views on what the work in this matter entails. As I said in my previous speech, this is not a debate for or against quotas. I believe we agree on that question, that is to say, that it is not the path one should take. Instead, there are other ways to try to increase diversity and inclusion in Sweden, which is something I absolutely stand for.
The interpellator wonders about the value of this and argues that we should not divide people into different groups. Later today, we will have a debate here in the chamber on the government's action plan against racism. In that action plan, the government has chosen to direct specific measures regarding five different types of racism, including antisemitism, racism against Muslims, and racism against Sámi. We think it is important to highlight what distinguishes the vulnerability of these groups so that we can find the right measures.
Madam Speaker! If we are to reduce discrimination and bring in more diversity in working life, in education, in the business sector and in other different parts of our society, it is absolutely necessary that we can see which groups face obstacles in different ways and how we can ensure that these groups get greater participation. It is not about splitting. On the contrary, it is about us being able to achieve a "we" and see beyond the circumstances that today constitute obstacles.
I do not see how we can carry out such work if we do not identify which factors cause people today to encounter obstacles in the business world, in workplaces, and in education.
Tobias Andersson (SD)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Equality for the answer.
I would like to pause a bit regarding the concepts and the acronyms that are used and reinforce the fact that it does not matter if one considers that one has a newly invented interpretation of what DEI, intersectional analysis, or various gender or other concepts mean. Fundamentally, they stem from a left-wing ideology that in many ways stands in direct opposition to the liberal ideology that the government's party claims to belong to.
By cultivating and advocating for them and by incorporating them into the Swedish public administration, one is in practice running the left's errands. By grouping individuals and organizing them under different power structures and in other ways thereby consolidating the left's view of society as a whole, the risk of falling into their problem-solving in the area increases quite rapidly.
I heard the minister say myself that we need to identify groups in order to be able to bring in more diversity from that. I believe that was almost exactly how the minister expressed it, Madam Speaker. When one says that we need to bring in more diversity by first dividing society into various subgroups, it means in practice that one does not believe that those who possess this diversity, whatever it happens to be in the context, can get there on their own. Otherwise, they would have done so because we have a law that prohibits discrimination based on such factors.
Either the law is misdirected or not applied, or the discrimination does not exist. But if one wants to bring in more diversity, it means in practice that they solve it themselves, otherwise one needs to quota. That is exactly how it has looked in the USA.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! When one listens to the interpellor, one gets the impression that DEI is something that Chalmers came up with a few weeks ago and that it is an American phenomenon. That is not the case. There are large companies in Sweden that have long utilized what is called DEI. In Sweden, it does not mean quotas, but here it has a meaning that I fully stand behind. What it means in the USA, I do not see as particularly relevant in my work. My responsibility lies in Sweden.
Madam Speaker! In the conclusion of the debate, I want to tell about a young girl I met at the fair for young entrepreneurship last year. She was a girl who was enrolled in the technology program. She was one of very few girls who did so. She told me that when she was in ninth grade and told her SYV that she wanted to go to the technology program, the SYV advised her against it and did not think it was something for her, even though this was a girl with a B in mathematics and good overall in the technical subjects.
I think this is a very clear example of that we have problems in our society. We have structures that make it so that there are groups who, because of for example gender, ethnicity or what social context one is grown up in, experience that certain paths in life are not for them.
Madam Speaker! I want to break down the obstacles that exist. In some cases, it is a matter of discrimination. We must ensure that the Discrimination Act is applied in a better way. But we must also ensure that we get a society where more people see more possible paths in life. I believe that it would very noticeably benefit our entire society.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.