Why you should stop attending diversity training
Illustration courtesy of Flickr user lumaxart
(MoneyWatch) COMMENTARY "Diversity training doesn't extinguish prejudice. It promotes it," says Peter Bregman in Psychology Today. He's not alone in his belief. Walter Olson at Overlawyered.com has collected numerous articles detailing why diversity training doesn't actually make people more tolerant. In fact, it can open your company to lawsuits, as the Federal Aviation Administration found out way back in 1995.
Bregman reports:
A study of 829 companies over 31 years showed that diversity training had "no positive effects in the average workplace." Millions of dollars a year were spent on the training resulting in, well, nothing. Attitudes -- and the diversity of the organizations -- remained the same.
It gets worse. The researchers -- Frank Dobbin of Harvard, Alexandra Kalev of Berkeley, and Erin Kelly of the University of Minnesota -- concluded that "In firms where training is mandatory or emphasizes the threat of lawsuits, training actually has negative effects on management diversity."
You would think that we would have learned something over the years, and stopped doing ridiculous trainings where we try to come up with the proper thing to say for every possible scenario. That, of course, is impossible. Add to that the fact that people hate any kind of mandatory training that they don't see as applicable to their jobs, and you end up with a situation where people think that A.) As long as they follow the exact formula explained in the the training when those exact situations occur they are fine; and B.) Joking about the boring and irrelevant nature of the training is fine. You end up with disaster.
So why do we continue to do this?
Well, for one reason, government or professional organizations sometimes require it for accreditation or licensing. (Hans Bader, an attorney with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, reports that in order to practice law in California he was required to take a class on "elimination of bias in the legal profession.")
So what would be better than diversity training? We certainly live in an increasingly diverse world. Companies need to figure out a way to get people from all backgrounds -- cultural, racial, and religious -- to work together.
Bregman suggests communication training instead, and I agree. I would also add that instead of focusing on teaching people what they can and cannot say, focus on how people should react when something offensive comes up.
Here are five suggestions for better relationships in your office:
1. Speak up. If someone makes a joke that includes a racial stereotype that you find offensive, instead of assuming that this person hates all people of that race, speak up. Like this: "Jim, did you really mean what you just said? Because I'm not sure if you're aware, but that's a highly offensive term." Chances are, Jim will apologize and be more aware of what he is saying in the future.
2. Don't look to be offended. Start off every relationship with the idea that the person is not racist/sexist/whatever-ist. When your coworker says, "Merry Christmas!," don't scowl about how not everyone celebrates Christmas. Say, "Thanks!" Or if you want to make it clear that you don't celebrate, say, "I don't celebrate, but I hope you have a lovely time." When your boss asks a man if his wife is coming to the company party, don't assume she's saying she disapproves of his same-sex relationship. Just say, "Actually, I don't have a wife, but I do have a boyfriend and he'll be there!"
3. Treat everyone nicely and fairly. Discrimination lawsuits come up because people feel they are being treated unfairly. If we make a blanket rule that we are nice and fair to everyone, this ceases to be a problem. If you are the manager, you need to document bad behavior in every employee. You also need to document good behavior. Give feedback to everyone in a timely manner.
4. Look to yourself first. We often see what we expect to see. If every time you turn around you find yourself being treated poorly because of your race/sex/national origin, do some deep thinking and try to figure out if that's really the case. The reality is, there are plenty of equal opportunity jerks out there. Just because someone is rude to you doesn't mean they are only rude to people that look like you. They are most likely rude to everyone. The other reality is, it's possible to find discrimination around every corner, even if it doesn't exist. Start with the assumption that people are good people rather than the assumption that people don't like your particular characteristic.
5. Report truly discriminatory behavior to HR or the chain of command. If you've spoken up, examined your own motivations, treated those around you fairly and still have evidence of discrimination, you must report it. Provide your documentation and be clear about what it is you're complaining about. Employee attorney Donna Ballman has helpful tips on how to report a complaint. This one is the most important:
Put your complaint in writing if you haven't already. Make sure you call it a "Formal Complaint of Racial [or Sexual/Age-Based/National Origin, etc.] Harassment [or Discrimination]." That way they can't claim later you only reported general harassment or bullying.
No. 5 is generally a last resort -- unless the behavior was egregious to begin with, which it isn't in most cases. But if you get to that point, it's important to do it properly.
And if you get assigned to attend diversity training of some sort, bring a book to read under the table and try not to pay attention. According to at least some research, you're better off that way.
Illustration courtesy of Flickr user lumaxart.
Popular on MoneyWatch
- Reverse cell phone lookup service is free and simple
- Amy's Baking Company could face legal 'nightmare'
- When it comes to vacations, the U.S. stinks 117 Comments
- 4 Things Not to Buy at Costco
- Top 10 professional life coaching myths
- TGI Fridays nailed for doctoring booze
- Online learning gets fresh look from a heavyweight
- Amy's Baking Company: Post-meltdown PR campaign
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
If I hated a certain race, I might do that. But I am not doing that. Anti-whites are doing it to White people in all White countries and only White countries.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.
although diversity councils, diversity managers, and mentoring
programs are significantly more effective. Second, optional (not mandatory) training programs AND those that focus on cultural awareness (not the threat of the law) can have positive effects."
And all these "journalists" have read this to mean: "Diversity Training doesn't work"? Clearly, there is bad training out there, but to paint it all with the same brush, when the study that's being referenced doesn't even say what these "journalists" have reported = shoddy, page-view-focused "journalism", pandering to the xenophobic attitudes of some Americans.
The study: http://scholar.harvard.edu/dobbin/files/2007_contexts_dobbin_kalev_kelly.pdf
A retraction would be appreciated.
"page-view-focused "journalism""
I thought you Friends Of Humanity types were all for "Democracy" and "The 99%"?
Not when it means listening to white people who oppose anti-white discrimination and white genocide eh?
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
This "Diversity" is in fact just a codeword for fewer and fewer white people in existence in our workplaces and in our countries and .Policies that eliminate a group are acts of genocide according to international law.
Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white.
Everyone talks about this RACE problem and says that this RACE problem will be over when the third-world pours into EVERY White country and ONLY into White countries. Everyone says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY White country and ONLY White countries to "assimilate," that is, intermarry, with all those non-Whites. According to the UN, this is genocide.
Many claim they are anti-racist, but what they are is anti-White.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.
I want to point out the biggest, most important thing Ms. Lucas advised, rule number one, is speak up! If we're going to complain about being talked down to, then we need to fess up to the fact that when we have a problem with a co-worker's behavior, whether its an uncomfortable joke, or them talking too much or making personal calls at work or smelling bad, we almost never nut up and say something! If people just politely and compassionately said something, *at the time that the objectionable thing is being said*, the behavior is far more likely to end than if a nameless corporate stooge on a video tells you to knock it off so the company that underpays you doesn't get sued. It just makes sense!
I would walk into the office in the morning and she would be standing there to scold me on something that I said the day before. She was not a very nice person and other coworkers avoided her because she would call people out in front of others about their "racist behavior".
Think this way....if you work in an office and think that nobody likes you because of your skin color...you might want to look at your attitude. I didn't dislike her because of her skin color. I disliked her because she was always unpleasant, didn't do her work, and was always up in arms about some sort of offense.
(this is being said knowing that there is actual discrimination in some workplaces. I am not downplaying that)
noticing the prevalence of male names in agreement w/ the male author's premise ... just an observation.
Reminds me of my early life experience /observations that in the deep south black folks were (are) the primary objects of derision, prejudice, bigotry, resentment, poor treatment while along the borders of southwestern states brown folks were (are) the targets of exactly the same kinds of derision, prejudice, bigotry — spoken of, treated in almost exactly the same dehumanizing ways.
Poorer folks were (are) always understood as/treated as having 'less value'/'lower than' the more well off, better educated, more 'popular', better dressed, better employed...'better' being understood as having higher status due to having more money, with color of skin adding another layer of 'value/worth' (or lack thereof) to the calculation — not due to actual contributions to / betterment of the human condition or treatment of others.
Hell, we (especially in the legal/financial/corporate/militaristic realms) proudly proclaim 'it's better to be feared than .... anything else'!
And women/girls of ALL skin colors were (are) regarded universally as inferior to, far less valuable/worthy — always sneeringly (snickeringly, snidely) derisively dismissed/referred to and presumed ' less than / inferior to' any male present or not — additionally distributed along / refined bythe heirarchies of color and class. Anything remotely female was/is regarded as unworthy of respect, value, standing up for in the presence of other (overwhelmingly insecure, developmentally arrested) males of any age/color/creed.
One of the most conscience/consciousness-impacting facts that pointed out to me the stark differences in the lived experiences/dailyness of life between men & women — most women live w/ the awareness that their biggest daily life vulnerability for themselves (and their children) — the biggest life fear in relation to MEN/males is the fear of physical/sexual assault. They practically have to arrange their lives to avoid it, always have to be aware of it in their & their children's movements — it's barely even conscious it's so automatic and inherent.
What's our biggest deep dark fear in our daily life, our biggest fear in relation to women? Fear of humiliation. (yeah it's all about performance & egos which know no boundaries or humility, full of self-involved insecurities, as usual).
That's a huge difference in not only perception, but lived experiences, and a glimpse into gaining a sliver of understanding of just how much the implicit/hidden threat of violence by us and the fear of violence we invoke toward women, children-'the others'- on the deepest (unconscious) levels.
That's when I began to understand the 'problem' was not people of color, or poor people or women — the problem lay primarily with the white people in power and those whom they/we bestowed/accorded the most power, privilege, entitlement, access, benefits upon (primarily other white males -I.e. 'my own kind') — those w/ the most who took (take/reserve) the most for themselves, and resent like hell anyone, any group not a privileged member of the group (not entitled to group membership) who presumes to have the right to the unearned benefits, entitlements, privileges of this power-wielding group based on not much more than a history of entitlement based primarily on gender, ethnicity & skin color, followed by class ( in this country for sure).
Turns out: Not very much has fundamentally changed in the 40+ years since I understood what was really going on.
No wonder diversity training doesn't take with the primary group(s) most in need of enlightenment — the privileged, entitled power holders farthest from the lived experiences of those who actually are 'diverse' — those whose lives are 'divergent' from we the self-perpetuating 'masters of the universe', no matter our actual work positions because our cultural positions mandate that we reject all those 'others' and anything they might teach us.Reject. Out. of. Hand. Period.
Not surprisingly, we prefer 'others' who reinforce our own dominant power-holding' power-reinforcing views, who allow us to remain comfortable in our world views, who parrot our beliefs and talking points uncritically, unquestioningly and obediently...the other ones who 'act right' and don't make us uncomfortable, don't question our 'rules' (spoken & mainly unspoken) -- the ones who mirror us but can never be one of us.
We are uninterested in being enlightened. We prefer our unearned, self-bestowed benefits, privileges, entitlements, power. Too much to lose. Or so we fear/believe — deep down I think many of us do know we're short-changing ourselves, our workplaces, or families, friends, loved ones. But we're actually too afraid and too arrogant to find out. And we well know how powerful fear really is.