Overeducated and Underfunded: The Plight of Women of Colour Entrepreneurs

I have lost count of the number of privately funded and government-backed mentoring and coaching programs I have come across designed to ‘educate’ women of colour entrepreneurs. What many women of colour entrepreneurs need is not more mentoring programs, but support in the form of investment, executive sponsorship, and brand visibility. While mentoring programs are important and play a key role in the entrepreneurship life cycle, they alone do not address the myriad of business needs that women of colour entrepreneurs face. A focus on mentoring alone fails to address the concrete needs of women of colour entrepreneurs who struggle to scale and take their businesses to the next level due to the lack of funding. By providing financial support and opportunities for exposure, investors and sponsors can help level the playing field and provide the much-needed investment to help women of colour entrepreneurs succeed. The need is not a handout, but rather a hand-up to help boost business growth, an outcome that benefits all stakeholders. Priyanka Ashraf, CEO of The Creative Co-Operative, a social enterprise working to close the intergenerational and intersectional wealth gap experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, Black and Women of Colour, knows of this too well. In a report released by her organisation in 2022, Priyanka states that women of colour face additional barriers, with the lack of funding being one of the key barriers. She states how the disparity is particularly visible in the start-up ecosystem. It is recorded that each year, over 10 billion dollars is invested in Australian-based start-ups, with an iota of this funding allocation going to women of colour entrepreneurs. Priyanka states “Of that 10 billion, 22 per cent went to all women founders and 0.03 per cent went to early-stage Bla(c)k Women and Women of Colour founders.” Let that sink in for a moment. The barriers faced by women of colour entrepreneurs are many, and addressing this disparity requires a range of approaches. While there is a key role for mentoring and coaching programs to help women of colour entrepreneurs, the reality is, many of us are over-educated and underfunded. It’s high time investors look into this disparity, and address the ingrained systemic inequality to help level the playing field in the entrepreneurship ecosystem.

Why saying “I don’t see colour” makes things worse

The phrase “I don’t see colour” is commonly used in discussions about anti-racism, equity, and inclusion. Although the intention behind the statement is often good, it is problematic and communicates the opposite of what people are often trying to convey. While most people use the statement to express that they do not judge a person based on their skin colour but rather see people beyond the colour of their skin, the statement can come across as naïve or dismissive of the realities of exclusion that people of colour face, precisely because of their skin colour. Acknowledging the reality of racial differences does not equate to exclusion. However, failing to acknowledge the everyday exclusion that people of colour experience due to their race, is excluding. This statement is also problematic because it communicates a sentiment that race does not matter or that the impact of race on people’s lives should be ignored or minimised. For those who experience exclusion while navigating systems such as education, health, and employment, this statement does more harm than good. The reality is that many people want the injustice of racism to be acknowledged, for their experiences to be validated and recognised. “Not seeing colour” does not achieve this; rather, it contributes to the problem in a number of ways. It contributes to the ongoing denial of racism, which is one of the biggest barriers to addressing racial injustice. It also contributes to the reluctance of people to speak up about their experiences. When people disclose racism, a common response is one that often tries to deny, excuse, reframe, or minimise their experience. There are countless stories of people reporting racial exclusion in their workplace to human resources staff, only to receive responses that add insult to injury. Statements such as “perhaps you have overanalysed the situation, they did not mean it that way” or “we have a [insert name of relevant policy here] and we do not condone such behaviour” followed by no action. Such responses fall short of acknowledging the injustice of what has happened, or the strength it takes for people to speak up about such painful and dehumanising experiences. These responses also ignore the psychological impact of racial exclusion on people’s overall health and well-being. What many people want is for others to acknowledge the reality of racism, for people to “see colour,” and recognise that people face everyday exclusion due to this. People also want to be believed when they speak up. People are not looking or anyone to try and save them. Instead, people want others to listen through the discomfort long enough to learn from those at the centre of these experiences.

Virtue signalling in conversations about justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion

I have observed an increasing rise in virtue-signalling behaviour in conversations about justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI). As a facilitator, it is a source of concern as it demonstrates indifference in an attempt to distance from the conversation because due to being “one of the good ones”. When people engage in this behaviour, they are using it as a licence for abdication, prioritising appearances over genuine actions and meaningful engagement. Merriam-Webster describes virtue signalling as “the act or practice of conspicuously displaying one’s awareness of and attentiveness to political issues, matters of social and racial justice, etc., especially instead of taking effective action”.   In conversations about JEDI, virtue signalling takes a number of forms and it can usually be disguised in comments that aim to demonstrate how one is inherently just, equitable and inclusive of minorities. Some of the comments I have personally heard participants make in workshops include: “I don’t see colour, I just see people” “I have so many [insert race/ethnicity] friends” “I have such a multicultural family, and [family member] is married to someone from [insert race/ethnicity] background” “My kids are lucky to go to such a multicultural school, my son’s best friend is a gorgeous African boy and they just get along so well” “Why can’t we all just get along with one another, I don’t understand why we have to even talk about race because it really doesn’t matter what a person’s skin colour is” “I don’t have any issues with diversity because I grew up in a family where I was always around [insert race/ethnicity] people” “As a progressive person, I support diversity and inclusion, I think we still have so many ignorant people in our society that need this training” “It’s so important that we all do our part to make the world a better place, that’s why I sponsor a child in Africa” “I really appreciate all cultures, my favourite food is curry and I just love going to my local Indian restaurant” While some of the above statements may seem innocent at a surface level, e.g., as a person openly showing support for such conversations and the need for many in our society to engage in these conversations, they are at the core an attempt to distance oneself from the issue. By placing issues of justice, diversity, equity and inclusion as something that other less progressive people need to be engaged in, one is effectively abdicating themselves of the responsibility because it is “other people’s problem” to address. The reality is, achieving justice is not solely about enlightening the ignorant in our society to be more empathic, as some of the above comments may suggest. Justice is an ongoing struggle that requires commitment and active participation from everyone. Bystanders play a powerful role in the fight for justice, and this is evidenced by numerous hate crimes where persecution was only possible through active bystanders, or upstanders, who took action and prioritised justice and truth over the comfort and convenience of turning a blind eye.

Why Workplace Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Fails: The Necessity of Intersectionality

The terms “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) have become popular buzzwords as more organisations seek to improve workplace culture and belonging. However, in order for DEI work to be truly effective and relevant, it must be implemented within the framework of intersectionality. The concept of intersectionality acknowledges the interconnected nature of our social identities. It recognises that aspects of our identity, such as race, gender, socio-economic status, and sexual orientation, to name a few, interact to shape an individual’s experiences of privilege and oppression. People do not experience discrimination or privilege based solely on one aspect of their identity; rather, these varying aspects of identity intersect to create a unique experience. DEI work becomes more comprehensive and nuanced when approached through the intersectionality framework. For instance, a company may overlook that women of colour face additional discrimination due to their race when it only focuses on increasing gender diversity in leadership positions. We have witnessed how this has played out in Australia when we look at the lack of racial diversity in initiatives targeting “gender equality” in areas such as leadership. It is imperative that organisations adopt an intersectional strategy that considers the various identities of stakeholders and employees in order to ensure that DEI work is relevant. DEI efforts must therefore be tailored to the unique experiences of various groups and the ways in which diverse identities interact. To do this well, it is vital to recognise the key role that ‘race’ plays. In the Australian context, I have observed how the concept of intersectionality continues to be used by focusing on varying aspects of identity but often ignoring race. The history of intersectionality itself is firmly rooted in racial justice. Its origins are based on the civil rights movement in the United States, which sought to address the systemic oppression of Black people and was concerned with race as the driving factor for oppression. While the US historical context is different, its colonial foundations are not dissimilar from that of Australia. In Australia, racial injustice is an issue that has been and continues to be ignored. The fact that Australia is yet to truly recognise and reconcile with its violent and racist colonial foundations is part of the dynamic. By taking an intersectional approach to DEI, organisations can create more inclusive and equitable workplaces that support the needs and experiences of all employees and stakeholders, ultimately leading to more productive and successful outcomes. Siloing initiatives leads to ineffective interventions that pigeonhole people and create concerning ideologies. I once met with an organisation looking to engage our training services for leaders and staff. The plans were brought to a halt when a key senior executive believed and boldly aired their view that they felt it was irrelevant to look at DEI in their workplace because they were (in their words) “already funding some Indigenous mentoring program”. This kind of thinking is not only dangerous but furthers the notion that DEI efforts can be checked off with a single program or initiative. This troubling perspective also sees the work of addressing barriers experienced by marginalised groups as charity work. Aside from the myriad other concerns associated with this kind of thinking, it fails to recognise the complex and ongoing work needed to create truly inclusive workplaces and misses the reality that inequality is a systemic issue requiring a systemic approach. DEI interventions are never truly effective unless integrated into all aspects of the organisation, including hiring practices, leadership development, performance evaluations, and decision-making processes. It’s also important to recognise that DEI work is not just a “feel-good” initiative; it’s a business imperative. Therefore, organisations must take a holistic and intersectional approach to DEI to create meaningful change and promote a culture of inclusivity and equity. Rather than providing individual solutions like mentorship programs, for instance, a business that recognises the ways in which racial and other differences intersect to impede economic opportunity can take structural measures to address those issues. Organisations can develop strategies that address the underlying causes of systemic inequality that are more comprehensive, acknowledging the complexity of social identities and their interactions. Only in doing so can true gains in creating workplace equity and inclusion be achieved.