Marjolein Dennissen

107 Diversity killjoys? of the ethnic minority network did not restrict attendance to particular network members. The intranet announcement resulted in a registration on a first come, first served basis. Due to a difference in preparation, a different course and content of the meeting ensued. The meeting of the ethnic minority network was organized more broadly to discuss diversity- related issues, that was open to the interpretation of both the members and the director. Organizing a meeting this way, leaves more room for freestyling about various wide-ranging topics, rather than discussing inequality in the organization per se. To illustrate the different stance of the ethnic minority network, I present the following account of a conversation that takes place right after the meeting with the director in Finance between board members Ilias and Hassan: Ilias: “… I thought it was a bit regrettable… I want to approach [cultural diversity] more like what we can do to make [cultural diversity] more sexy, that the conversation that arises is more about that than about individual cases. How it was presented here [during the meeting] was a bit too negative for me.” Hassan: “…it was much more in the defense-corner, eh?!” Ilias: “Yes, a lot of negative, a lot of victim-corner.” Hassan: “But apparently, that is what is going on, so thenwe have to talk about that.Whether we like it or not.We, as network-board, or network, I still want to exude that it is about opportunities and illuminate the positive side of the story, but ifmembers themselves have particular issues then they have to have the possibility to ventilate these issues. And [the director] was open to it. But we sent an open invitation and it is the people who have issues that want to attend, those who go and fight and bam… You do attract a particular part [of the network members] with these kind of lunches and that is something that we need to take into account.” [Observation ethnic minority network - Finance] This account shows how the board member of the ethnic minority network would have liked to emphasize the positive side of diversity during their meeting with the director. Despite the attending members who do address organizational processes that touch upon structural inequality, the board members would rather talk about the “sexiness” of diversity (Ahmed, 2009; Hoobler, 2005; Prasad & Mills, 1997). In contrast, the members of the LGBT network purposefully and outspokenly talk about evident experiences of exclusion and discrimination. In doing so, they do not eschew addressing organizational inequalities with the organizational management. Next to differences in preparation, course and content, my analysis also sheds light on a double claimto responsibility. Inboth instances, I see howdiversity networks aremade responsible for diversity and equality in the workplace (cf. Ahmed & Swan, 2006; Ahmed, 2009). On the one hand, this responsibility is imposed on themby the management by specifically calling on them, asking for their perceptions and suggestions, and appointing them as front soldiers . By doing so,