The HR world is abuzz with discussion over the recent announcement from the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). The organization’s upcoming Blueprint conference, which is replacing its SHRM Inclusion event, will feature a panel including conservative commentator Robby Starbuck, a vocal opponent of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and Van Jones, a liberal CNN analyst. This decision has ignited a firestorm of criticism within the HR community, raising questions about SHRM’s core values.
SHRM president and CEO Johnny C. Taylor Jr., who will moderate the panel, has stated that including all viewpoints is important for a civil discussion. However, many HR professionals on social media and in the industry disagree, with some vowing to boycott the conference. They argue that platforming someone who advocates against DEI is a step too far, especially for an organization dedicated to the HR profession.
A Question of Values
The heart of the controversy centers on whether advocating against DEI is simply a “difference of opinion.” According to Amira Barger, Executive Vice President, Communications & DEI Advisory at a global firm, it’s not. Barger argues that rhetoric which dehumanizes people leads to real-world harm in the workplace and that SHRM, as a credentialing body, risks normalizing those views by giving them a platform.
This sentiment is echoed by many. Joe Baker, a Learning & Development Leader & Strategist, shared on LinkedIn that while “civil dialogue across difference is one thing,” “amplifying hate is another.” Another People & Culture leader, JossElliott, MBA, SPHR, SHRM-CP, agreed, questioning if public comments from the conservative speaker that could be viewed as harassment are what SHRM considers “civil.”
Despite the widespread backlash, some support the decision. Luis A. Martinez, M.Ed., SPHR, CCP, Acquisition Integration Consultant & Human Resources Advisor, publicly stated his opposition to DEI, calling it “plainly and blatantly illegal” and believes it is a valid viewpoint to include.
The Credibility Gap
Beyond the debate over free speech, many in the industry believe SHRM’s decision has serious implications for its credibility. As a professional standard-setter, HR practitioners say SHRM has a responsibility to safeguard fairness, equity, and dignity at work.
According to Barger, by inviting a speaker without HR credentials, SHRM risks undermining its professional standards. Other HR professionals expressed similar concerns. Kristine K., a Talent Development Manager at Constellation Brands, noted on LinkedIn that she was “deeply disappointed and frankly shocked by SHRM’s decision to give Starbuck a platform,” calling it a “betrayal of those principles.” Jess Ewing, SHRM-CP, an HR Professional, agreed, noting that with the organization’s aggressive redirection, she feels SHRM is “putting its credibility, and the reputation of every certification-holder, at risk.” This sentiment is shared by Richard Butts, a Senior Human Resources Advisor who stopped being a member after 42 years, and Irene Burkland, Director of HR at Makovicka Physical Therapy, who says she will not renew her membership.
The debate leaves HR professionals to grapple with a fundamental question: when does a “civil conversation” cross the line into the normalization of views that may cause harm?