Members of the majority group are told to listen to, and validate, the perspectives of people from historically marginalized or disadvantaged groups — even as they are instructed to submit their own feelings and perspectives to intense scrutiny.
A common effect I've observed is that diversity training often seems to trigger defensive behavior. People of the majority group perceive that the organization cares much more about the feelings of the minority group than their own, and so members of the minority group become dangerous. For example, you might be willing to tell Steve his new hairstyle looks stupid, but wouldn't say the same thing to Shanice.
The response to this change in perception is defensive disengagement. The majority begins restricting their interactions with the minority. They don't make idle conversation with them. They avoid joining projects with them. They don't become friends with them after-hours.
Now, the opposite certainly exists. I've been in companies that were a pure good ol' boys club that would say the most outrageously racist things standing five feet away from a coworker of that race. As far as my experiences have gone, though, the middle ground is dead. There're very few companies where you can just treat all your coworkers like people.
I can relate, somewhat. One particular training video we were required to watch, not on diversity but microagressions, left me with the takeaway "say nothing to anyone, ever."
So this happened at Northwestern, my alma mater: https://freebeacon.com/campus/northwestern-law-administrator.... During a Zoom meeting with hundreds of students, the interim dean and dozens of other faculty and administrators each declared they were "a racist" and "a gatekeeper of white supremacy."
What struck me when I read this article was how uncomfortable I would personally be, as a non-white person, sitting in that meeting. Like, what am I supposed to do with that information? Is that how I want to begin my law school experience? My first year was a decade ago, before this stuff, but I'm having a hard time imagining how I would have developed the close relationships I did starting things off on this foot. Like, how do you go and talk about getting a recommendation from a professor after that?
In the last year or so, I have also had people stop in the middle of a conversation to "defer to my lived experience." This happened yesterday in the middle of discussing bribery culture in Bangladesh. Literally, the conversation ended with the other person saying "you must be right because of your experience."
I know the academic sources of these concepts and appreciate their value in the appropriate contexts. And I really do appreciate the need for diversity training in general, objective discussions about implicit bias, looking at recruiting pipelines to enhance diversity, etc. But does anyone actually want to be subjected to treatment like this in day-to-day settings? People of color want to live normal lives too, and fit in just like everyone else. To me, this comes across as hostile and alienating. (I showed this to my mom, explaining to her the context. She responded: “It is scary totally, to see people are writing it on the paper. Means There is no breaking point anymore. This America is not that same America when we came.”)
> you might be willing to tell Steve his new hairstyle looks stupid, but wouldn't say the same thing to Shanice.
anecdotally, I have been Shanice and see Steve get told his new hairstyle sucks and they all laugh together but not risk it with me. makes me feel like favoritism when its my coworker and boss, so it certainly has created a lot of tension within the team.
Interesting you mention this. We just went through a round of D&I training and the bright spot in it for me was a short section with tips on how to have some of these tense/high-stakes interactions.
> A common effect I've observed is that diversity training often seems to trigger defensive behavior.
> During a Zoom meeting with hundreds of students, the interim dean and dozens of other faculty and administrators each declared they were "a racist" and "a gatekeeper of white supremacy."
Historically, accusing a whole ethnic group of being inherently guilty of some great evil (e.g. racism), has worked out less than great for that group, so it's hardly surprising they'd be defensive.
I have a stronger opinion on this. I think "diversity training" to be very counter productive. I belong to a minority by ethnicity but I don't give a shit about it. I wuold just swallow crappy training like this, proponents just seem to live in a different reality and lack perspective and experience in my opinion so I would indeed disengage them.
No real patience for people trying to make being oppressed a virtue, when people could have the ability to just leave that baggage behind. Not really interested to pander to mid-life or teenage crisis of some people that think they need to educate the peasants.
These people are not an inch less dogmatic than some priests, so I don't see much room for discussion. I do think they are even a factor in rising right wing parties.
Here's your inclusive diversity training in a nutshell: How about not being mean to either Shanice or Steve? Nobody asked you about a fashion opinion, and everybody would be happier if you didn't say things that might be hurtful to another person.
That's it. That's the whole thing. The request is "don't be an ass to anybody". One would think it's not a high bar to clear.
I'm a little offput by diversity training that, to me at least, essentially challenges folks on a spiritual and moral level. I think everyone should challenge themselves spiritually and morally, but I think the power imbalances inherent in work and academic training contexts make that kind of content patronizing or even inappropriate. I could see it being counterproductive in many cases.
It's probably true that employees, faculty, and some kinds of student leadership should be aware of ethical and legal obligations when it comes to diversity, though. So I think it would be hard to argue against all categories of diversity content.
It's just many (most?) recent forms of anti-racism content crosses the line from "meet these expectations about professional conduct" and into "proactively improve yourself as a person". I don't think it's appropriate for superiors to mandate the latter. A spiritual advisor, counselor, mentor, or mental health professional? Absolutely.
To be fair, I do think it's appropriate for employees to face consequences of their own racist behavior. Even, in many cases, when that behavior is unintended.
It's just many (most?) recent forms of anti-racism content crosses the line from "meet these expectations about professional conduct" and into "proactively improve yourself as a person". I don't think it's appropriate for superiors to mandate the latter.
Can you give an example of what kind of content you think is common that is crossing this line?
I wonder if corporate D&I initiatives would be more successful if they allowed for genuine debate. When no debate or challenging of the initiative's assumptions is allowed, I suspect that:
- Intelligent employees become cynical, and assume a hidden agenda.
- The opportunity to change the minds of employees with reasoned doubts/objections to D&I claims is squandered. In fact, it raises (reasonable, imho) suspicions that the D&I proponents know that some of their stated positions are weak, and don't want them subjected to scrutiny.
- Proponents of D&I may remain sheltered from valid counterpoints. So they lose an opportunity to refine their positions based on productive discussion.
This is based on my experience working in corporate environments for a few decades. And IME, the problem is definitely more pronounced at large companies than small ones.
Some employees may hold materially prejudiced/discriminatory views. It isn't the companies role to morally educate people/employees in general nor may it be possible for it to do so, and any attempt to do so might itself be morally and legally fraught. ("Accept our position on right vs wrong or lose your job" can become awfully close to "become $religion or get fired").
Rather, the companies obligation is to provide a safe environment for workers and customers and to uphold basic standards for non-discriminatory professional conduct in the at-work activities of its employees and the orginization as a whole. It doesn't matter if people think some harmful stuff, so long as they leave that thinking outside of the office and conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
Inviting debate might help set some people's moral thinking straight, but it has the much larger risk of inviting into the office stuff that doesn't belong there, invoking avoidable bad conduct, and turning the company into dystopian thought police.
We very much shouldn't want corporate HR forcibly imposing their concept of right and wrong onto people outside of the extremely narrow confines of work interactions: A millennia of debate by philosophers and religious leaders world wide have failed to settle innumerable moral questions. FooCorp HR-- which has almost every ethical incentive set in the wrong direction (e.g. maximize profits for FooCorp), and wields more power over people's lives than all but the most abusive cults-- simply isn't qualified or appropriate for the task of controlling people's personal moral compasses.
To be fair, it's always in the peons' interest to agree with upper management's proposals. And upper management presents a unified front, keeping internal debate hidden except to people of sufficiently high social class. Like, has any lower-level person ever benefited from challenging a corporate initiative?
I find these approaches to be borderline abusive. I understand the desire to attempt to put people in another persons "shoes", but I find that this makes a broad assumption that the minority members "shoes" are in the worst state. That is, not being able to voice opinions while also being criticized is the worst state. It is a terrible generalization. I would only feel comfortable with this training if listening was the only requirement and reflecting and sharing opinions was encouraged for all.
If you have seen some of the videos of the older white woman (whose name escapes me) that used to give the blue eyed/brown eyed experiment her approach strikes me as being abusive. I understand what she is attempting to teach, but I deeply dislike her delivery. I feel that she is trying to scar (not scare, scar) people into compliance.
> I find these approaches to be borderline abusive.
They are not only abusive but based on a racist ideology, since these "training" sessions are often racially segregated therefore imply that some races are inherently racist. It builds up resentment and division, which is exactly what corporations want, employees at odd with each others so they won't question actual abusive management techniques designed by the higher ups. This is cunning.
The problem with the mandatory diversity training is that it does very little to win hearts and minds. Refuse to go, dare to say anything that isn't 100% in support of it etc. and you will be targeted to be purged from the organization and possibly publicly tarred and feathered.
Sure, some people, who tend to respond better to negative re-enforcement will be convinced to change their ways using that technique. That said, an arguably larger number of people will respond better to the carrot. Thus, they won't be convinced via the negative re-enforcement, but do not want to lose their job, be put on a secret whisper network "do not hire" list etc.. So, they pretend to play along and then find groups of people where they can let their hair down. It is not un-like the secret clubs that would break off from super conservative church groups to do some drinking (which usually ended up as binge drinking), speak easy's during prohibition, underground sex clubs etc..
Many of those groups experienced a litany of un-intended consequences from rigid views about alcohol, sex etc.. Un-surprisingly, the same appears to be happening with diversity efforts as well.
I've done a number of diversity & inclusion trainings and I'm always confused by the opposition to them. Being more aware is generally useful.
As a hiring manager, it's been helpful for me to be thoughtful about asking things like, "how did you get here, car, train?" - as this implies socioeconomic status, and if you reflect on why you asked that, what you wanted to know about it, and how it affected your thinking in general, and were honest, there's a chance it might have affected your opinion of the person in a way that has nothing to do with their ability to do the job. This opinion could be either good or bad, and isn't necessarily dependent on whether the person you're interviewing is from a marginalized class.
I still have bias, everyone does, these trainings do not aim to eliminate bias, they aim to inform people that it exists, and to offer them tools to be thoughtful about those biases, and to challenge folks to question the biases that potentially harm others, even if unintentionally.
Empircally, diversity training does not work (at least according to this article).
If you are pro diversity, you should therefore be against the current iteration of diversity training; and instead advocate redirect that effort into either experimenting with new approaches, or following other approaches that might work.
> Sometimes they even implant new stereotypes (for instance, if participants didn’t previously have particular stereotypes for Vietnamese people, or much knowledge about them overall, but were introduced to common stereotypes about this group through training intended to dispel said stereotypes).
Have you considered being more aware might have made you behave in a more bias or stereotype assuming way?
The question should be are these programs achieving the goal of making an inclusive workplace or not?
I think it's important to be open to the possibility that these trainings are in fact counterproductive, even if it is hard to intuit why that might be the case.
One of my objections to most of the HR training I’ve been to is the pacing. Some tech training videos are a little slow-paced, but nearly every HR training I’ve been to has felt like 30-45 minutes of content crammed into 4 hours.
How about a null-ish hypothesis: most people I know are opposed to mandatory company-wide training in general.
Health and safety training, for example. And I can talk to people who were around before that was a things, and count the number of limbs.
It's not entirely unjustified. Mandatory company-wide training probably is irrelevant to your specific role. It's also usually delivered by the lowest bidder, which is the strongest possible true signal I could receive. It's often not even attended by leadership - the people whose role is setting the culture!
I get a long (charged by-the-hour?) lecture from HopefulSlogan Consultants about ethics and integrity? I think the same thing as I would walking past the slogans on Enron's lobby walls. The top is almost certainly corrupt.
> I've done a number of diversity & inclusion trainings and I'm always confused by the opposition to them. Being more aware is generally useful.
Because they are based on a racist ideology, "'critical' race theory" and they are more akin to soviet style struggle sessions than any sort of actual training. In fact what is practiced in US would be probably illegal in a number of European countries.
Furthermore it's lower level employees that are subject to these "indoctrination" sessions, not higher ups that often treat low level employees like shit, no matter the race or sex.
So on one side, you are for victimizing low level employees, on the other, controversial management techniques that totally lack of any human empathy are never questioned.
Everyone struggles with being selfish. It's good to be aware of our own self-interested impulses and work towards counteracting them. So why not have mandatory training at work that teaches us that we're all selfish at some level and that we need to address that character flaw?
"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
For those who don't want to click: this is about Damore. His message/article did not address efficacy of such training which is the topic of this post.
[+] [-] causality0|5 years ago|reply
A common effect I've observed is that diversity training often seems to trigger defensive behavior. People of the majority group perceive that the organization cares much more about the feelings of the minority group than their own, and so members of the minority group become dangerous. For example, you might be willing to tell Steve his new hairstyle looks stupid, but wouldn't say the same thing to Shanice.
The response to this change in perception is defensive disengagement. The majority begins restricting their interactions with the minority. They don't make idle conversation with them. They avoid joining projects with them. They don't become friends with them after-hours.
Now, the opposite certainly exists. I've been in companies that were a pure good ol' boys club that would say the most outrageously racist things standing five feet away from a coworker of that race. As far as my experiences have gone, though, the middle ground is dead. There're very few companies where you can just treat all your coworkers like people.
[+] [-] silisili|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|5 years ago|reply
What struck me when I read this article was how uncomfortable I would personally be, as a non-white person, sitting in that meeting. Like, what am I supposed to do with that information? Is that how I want to begin my law school experience? My first year was a decade ago, before this stuff, but I'm having a hard time imagining how I would have developed the close relationships I did starting things off on this foot. Like, how do you go and talk about getting a recommendation from a professor after that?
In the last year or so, I have also had people stop in the middle of a conversation to "defer to my lived experience." This happened yesterday in the middle of discussing bribery culture in Bangladesh. Literally, the conversation ended with the other person saying "you must be right because of your experience."
I know the academic sources of these concepts and appreciate their value in the appropriate contexts. And I really do appreciate the need for diversity training in general, objective discussions about implicit bias, looking at recruiting pipelines to enhance diversity, etc. But does anyone actually want to be subjected to treatment like this in day-to-day settings? People of color want to live normal lives too, and fit in just like everyone else. To me, this comes across as hostile and alienating. (I showed this to my mom, explaining to her the context. She responded: “It is scary totally, to see people are writing it on the paper. Means There is no breaking point anymore. This America is not that same America when we came.”)
[+] [-] summitsummit|5 years ago|reply
anecdotally, I have been Shanice and see Steve get told his new hairstyle sucks and they all laugh together but not risk it with me. makes me feel like favoritism when its my coworker and boss, so it certainly has created a lot of tension within the team.
[+] [-] bhawks|5 years ago|reply
The training commonly in place today seem to hurt that goal and this is backed up by research.
However any discussion about this is extremely difficult to have. To be honest it feels like no one cares about making a welcoming work environment.
[+] [-] AlexTWithBeard|5 years ago|reply
- diversity is good - it increases a pool of workers and ideas to pick from
- we all are minorities in something, so please be nice. We're in this boat together
- everyone has unconscious bias. Including you. Beware
- please make an effort to be inclusive: being the only black/white/green person in the team sucks
- don't do anything illegal
Kinda reasonable approach, I'd say, but I doubt they do it anymore.
[+] [-] sokoloff|5 years ago|reply
https://www.linkedin.com/learning/communicating-about-cultur...
[+] [-] rbecker|5 years ago|reply
> During a Zoom meeting with hundreds of students, the interim dean and dozens of other faculty and administrators each declared they were "a racist" and "a gatekeeper of white supremacy."
Historically, accusing a whole ethnic group of being inherently guilty of some great evil (e.g. racism), has worked out less than great for that group, so it's hardly surprising they'd be defensive.
[+] [-] raxxorrax|5 years ago|reply
No real patience for people trying to make being oppressed a virtue, when people could have the ability to just leave that baggage behind. Not really interested to pander to mid-life or teenage crisis of some people that think they need to educate the peasants.
These people are not an inch less dogmatic than some priests, so I don't see much room for discussion. I do think they are even a factor in rising right wing parties.
[+] [-] groby_b|5 years ago|reply
That's it. That's the whole thing. The request is "don't be an ass to anybody". One would think it's not a high bar to clear.
[+] [-] humanrebar|5 years ago|reply
It's probably true that employees, faculty, and some kinds of student leadership should be aware of ethical and legal obligations when it comes to diversity, though. So I think it would be hard to argue against all categories of diversity content.
It's just many (most?) recent forms of anti-racism content crosses the line from "meet these expectations about professional conduct" and into "proactively improve yourself as a person". I don't think it's appropriate for superiors to mandate the latter. A spiritual advisor, counselor, mentor, or mental health professional? Absolutely.
To be fair, I do think it's appropriate for employees to face consequences of their own racist behavior. Even, in many cases, when that behavior is unintended.
[+] [-] itsdrewmiller|5 years ago|reply
Can you give an example of what kind of content you think is common that is crossing this line?
[+] [-] DoofusOfDeath|5 years ago|reply
- Intelligent employees become cynical, and assume a hidden agenda.
- The opportunity to change the minds of employees with reasoned doubts/objections to D&I claims is squandered. In fact, it raises (reasonable, imho) suspicions that the D&I proponents know that some of their stated positions are weak, and don't want them subjected to scrutiny.
- Proponents of D&I may remain sheltered from valid counterpoints. So they lose an opportunity to refine their positions based on productive discussion.
This is based on my experience working in corporate environments for a few decades. And IME, the problem is definitely more pronounced at large companies than small ones.
[+] [-] nullc|5 years ago|reply
Rather, the companies obligation is to provide a safe environment for workers and customers and to uphold basic standards for non-discriminatory professional conduct in the at-work activities of its employees and the orginization as a whole. It doesn't matter if people think some harmful stuff, so long as they leave that thinking outside of the office and conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
Inviting debate might help set some people's moral thinking straight, but it has the much larger risk of inviting into the office stuff that doesn't belong there, invoking avoidable bad conduct, and turning the company into dystopian thought police.
We very much shouldn't want corporate HR forcibly imposing their concept of right and wrong onto people outside of the extremely narrow confines of work interactions: A millennia of debate by philosophers and religious leaders world wide have failed to settle innumerable moral questions. FooCorp HR-- which has almost every ethical incentive set in the wrong direction (e.g. maximize profits for FooCorp), and wields more power over people's lives than all but the most abusive cults-- simply isn't qualified or appropriate for the task of controlling people's personal moral compasses.
[+] [-] xkcd-sucks|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hooande|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flippinburgers|5 years ago|reply
If you have seen some of the videos of the older white woman (whose name escapes me) that used to give the blue eyed/brown eyed experiment her approach strikes me as being abusive. I understand what she is attempting to teach, but I deeply dislike her delivery. I feel that she is trying to scar (not scare, scar) people into compliance.
[+] [-] throw_m239339|5 years ago|reply
They are not only abusive but based on a racist ideology, since these "training" sessions are often racially segregated therefore imply that some races are inherently racist. It builds up resentment and division, which is exactly what corporations want, employees at odd with each others so they won't question actual abusive management techniques designed by the higher ups. This is cunning.
[+] [-] lgleason|5 years ago|reply
Sure, some people, who tend to respond better to negative re-enforcement will be convinced to change their ways using that technique. That said, an arguably larger number of people will respond better to the carrot. Thus, they won't be convinced via the negative re-enforcement, but do not want to lose their job, be put on a secret whisper network "do not hire" list etc.. So, they pretend to play along and then find groups of people where they can let their hair down. It is not un-like the secret clubs that would break off from super conservative church groups to do some drinking (which usually ended up as binge drinking), speak easy's during prohibition, underground sex clubs etc..
Many of those groups experienced a litany of un-intended consequences from rigid views about alcohol, sex etc.. Un-surprisingly, the same appears to be happening with diversity efforts as well.
[+] [-] codezero|5 years ago|reply
As a hiring manager, it's been helpful for me to be thoughtful about asking things like, "how did you get here, car, train?" - as this implies socioeconomic status, and if you reflect on why you asked that, what you wanted to know about it, and how it affected your thinking in general, and were honest, there's a chance it might have affected your opinion of the person in a way that has nothing to do with their ability to do the job. This opinion could be either good or bad, and isn't necessarily dependent on whether the person you're interviewing is from a marginalized class.
I still have bias, everyone does, these trainings do not aim to eliminate bias, they aim to inform people that it exists, and to offer them tools to be thoughtful about those biases, and to challenge folks to question the biases that potentially harm others, even if unintentionally.
[+] [-] gizmo686|5 years ago|reply
If you are pro diversity, you should therefore be against the current iteration of diversity training; and instead advocate redirect that effort into either experimenting with new approaches, or following other approaches that might work.
[+] [-] bhawks|5 years ago|reply
> Sometimes they even implant new stereotypes (for instance, if participants didn’t previously have particular stereotypes for Vietnamese people, or much knowledge about them overall, but were introduced to common stereotypes about this group through training intended to dispel said stereotypes).
Have you considered being more aware might have made you behave in a more bias or stereotype assuming way?
The question should be are these programs achieving the goal of making an inclusive workplace or not?
[+] [-] itsdrewmiller|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sokoloff|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yodelshady|5 years ago|reply
Health and safety training, for example. And I can talk to people who were around before that was a things, and count the number of limbs.
It's not entirely unjustified. Mandatory company-wide training probably is irrelevant to your specific role. It's also usually delivered by the lowest bidder, which is the strongest possible true signal I could receive. It's often not even attended by leadership - the people whose role is setting the culture!
I get a long (charged by-the-hour?) lecture from HopefulSlogan Consultants about ethics and integrity? I think the same thing as I would walking past the slogans on Enron's lobby walls. The top is almost certainly corrupt.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throw_m239339|5 years ago|reply
Because they are based on a racist ideology, "'critical' race theory" and they are more akin to soviet style struggle sessions than any sort of actual training. In fact what is practiced in US would be probably illegal in a number of European countries.
Furthermore it's lower level employees that are subject to these "indoctrination" sessions, not higher ups that often treat low level employees like shit, no matter the race or sex.
So on one side, you are for victimizing low level employees, on the other, controversial management techniques that totally lack of any human empathy are never questioned.
[+] [-] humanrebar|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] annexrichmond|5 years ago|reply
To be fair, murder has not been established. Journalists typically say "the death of George Floyd"
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] charliebrownau|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sunkenvicar|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throwaway93832|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|5 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[+] [-] gumby|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jdkee|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] IanDrake|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]