THE DARK SECRET OF DIVERSITY, EQUITY & INCLUSION TRAINING: IT’S AN ATM FOR CONSULTANTS, IT'S WOKE CONVERSION THERAPY, AND IT DOESN’T WORK.

Or, Why I Won't Attend One.

THE DARK SECRET OF DIVERSITY, EQUITY & INCLUSION TRAINING: IT’S AN ATM FOR CONSULTANTS, IT’S WOKE CONVERSION THERAPY, AND IT DOESN’T WORK.

Mary McDonald-Lewis

WHAT IS DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION TRAINING?

Diversity, equity and inclusion training is one of the fastest-growing fields today. In businesses, non-profit organizations, the arts, media, governmental agencies, education and more, its goal is ostensibly to train participants to be sensitive to and supportive of a diverse workplace, to understand the importance of equity in same, and to improve strategies for inclusion. These programs are taught either in-house, or by bringing in outside consultants who usually follow the blueprint laid by Ibram X. Kendi, Robin DiAngelo, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and Kimberlé Crenshaw, among others, based on the tenets and application of Critical Race Theory.

OSTENSIBLY?

Yes. Because in actual fact, this multi-million-dollar business does not promote diversity of thought; it does not promote equality; and it does not promote inclusion of viewpoint. Instead, it demands fealty to a singular philosophy; defends unearned advancement; and punishes variance in thought, word, and deed.

It also, and this is the funny part, doesn’t work.

This is a big claim, I know. But because all DEI training, other than a few, newly-emerging programs which I will mention later, are based in Critical Race Theory (as descended from Critical Theory) and are devoted to its promotion, my claim is an easy one to defend.

WHAT IS CRITICAL RACE THEORY?

Critical Race Theory (CRT) has its beginnings in Critical Theory, which can be traced to 1937 and the Frankfurt School, a part of the Western Marxist school of thought. Tucked inside CT were the seeds that blossom today in CRT. As declared by the Frankfurt School’s second director, Max Horkheimer, traditional (classic liberal, Age of Enlightenment-era) theory fetishized knowledge, seeing objective truth as empirical and universal, while Critical Theory “held that man could not be objective and that there are no universal truths” (emphasis mine). Here we see the rejection of objective truth and of science, and the elevation of feelings and “lived experience” utilized by CRT today. From Critical Theory to Critical Race Theory: this is where “feelings over facts” took root.

CRT’s four tenets are:

• Recognition that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed and socially significant.

• Acknowledgement that racism is a normal feature of society and is embedded within systems and institutions, like the legal system, that replicate racial inequality.

• Recognition that it is the systemic nature of racism that bears primary responsibility for reproducing racial inequality.

• Recognition of the lived experiences of people of color, including those preserved through storytelling, and rejecting deficit-informed research that excludes the epistemologies of people of color.

In practice, this means accepting and acting upon these “truths” (though CRT also rejects objective truth, which makes this an odd juggling act):

• All blacks are oppressed and all whites are oppressors.

• Racism is systemic: never ask whether oppression occurred, only how it occurred.

• If you are white and won’t admit you are racist, you are racist by implicit bias. To reduce implicit bias, you must self-criticize, confess to privilege, apologize to the oppressed race.

• However, you will in fact remain a racist.

• You are only your race (the denial of the individual over the collective as defined by skin color and levels of oppression, also known as identity politics and intersectionality).

• All unequal outcomes by race are the result of racial oppression. (This gets complicated when Asian employees or students are factored in, or African immigrants, both of which groups demonstrate remarkable achievements at university and in the workplace. Thus, CRT labels Asians [without regard to country of origin] “white approximate” in order to dismiss them from the equation. CRT acolytes have not found a way to explain African immigrants’ excellence yet.)

• Equity over equality (equal outcome over equal opportunity).

• CRT must be accepted whole cloth. Dissent is suppressed with cancel culture: publications withdrawn, college admissions rescinded, online presence wiped out, business relationships ended, jobs terminated.

Much of what CRT proposes can be argued. Is there objective truth? Are all white people born racists, and do they all die racists? Is math racist, along with achievement, delayed gratification, progress, schedules and deadlines, meritocracy, race-blindness, the written word, facts and objectivity, logic and reason, mathematics and science, as it declares? What is the definition of “systemic racism,” and where is the hard proof of it?

Must all white people take on the mantle of protecting black people from racism? Columbia University professor and linguist John McWhorter, who is black, rejects the notion, writing in various essays that the idea “openly infantilized black people” and “simply dehumanized us.”

Proponents of Critical Race Theory have a right to their opinion, and our obligation as Americans is to defend that right. However, when a single belief – CRT – is the sole measure by which employees and volunteers are being “trained” in diversity, the purpose of the training and its merits must be scrutinized, and if individuals reject CRT’s tenets and application, they may want to reject DEI training either by refusing to attend trainings; by bringing informed questions to the training; or at the least, by not falling for the training’s sales pitch.

Posted in an exhibit at the National Museum of African American History and Culture, Washington DC; a Smithsonian Institution museum

WHY DOESN’T DEI TRAINING WORK?

For lots of really understandable reasons, not the least of which is, it is fundamentally a platform to promote CRT rather than improve the workspace. Here’s a very recent, well-researched article, Diversity is Important. Diversity-Related Training is Terrible that does a good job of compiling those reasons, with fine citational support:

https://musaalgharbi.com/2020/09/16/diversity-important-related-training-terrible/

Here are the top beats of the article:

• Training is generally ineffective at its stated goals

• Training often reinforces biases

• Training can increase biased behavior and minority turnover

• Training often alienates people from high-status groups and reduces morale

• Training focuses on implicit attitudes which do not effectively predict actual discriminatory behavior

• Training focuses on microaggressions which have virtually no systematic research detailing if and how microaggressions are harmful, for whom, and under what circumstances

• Mandatory training causes additional blowback

• Training comes at the expense of other priorities

There are now hundreds of studies going back to the 1930s proving that not only does DEI training not work, but it can cause very real damage to employee relations and morale, productivity, turnover, and yes, increased intolerance.

A few more studies on the topic:

• “Diversity training doesn't extinguish prejudice. It promotes it.” (https://bit.ly/3stoTFR)

• “A study of 829 companies over 31 years showed that diversity training had ‘no positive effects in the average workplace.’” (https://cbsn.ws/3uBp5F9)

• “Hundreds of studies dating back to the 1930s suggest that antibias training does not reduce bias, alter behavior or change the workplace.” (A Harvard study: https://bit.ly/3uujnF3)

• “For decades, diversity and inclusion training has been sold as an educational package by consultants who simply put together a slide deck of obligations and legal ramifications that are then shown to employees in a mandatory 1-day seminar. Now we know that this type of ‘training’ doesn’t work in the short or long term.” (https://bit.ly/3kx9wtl)

• And a list of further examples from Counterweight. “Our primary focus is on people who find themselves in situations where they need to push back … in their place of work, university, children’s school or elsewhere and defend their right to their own ethical frameworks for opposing prejudice and discrimination.” (https://bit.ly/3pZkGZ4)

WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF HETERODOX THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE CRITICIZED AT A DEI TRAINING?

Because DEI training is based solely on one belief, Critical Race Theory, the opinions and facts that run counter to it, no matter how logical or scientifically sound, will be criticized. For example, if an employee or volunteer attending a DEI session expressed any of the following, they would likely be “called out” by the group trainers. This “calling out” can range from correction to shaming to being forced to recant or proffer an apology to the course attendees.

• Having an opinion that Critical Theory and Critical Race Theory is Marxist in form and religious in function, and that it should not be promoted in the workplace or schools

• Speaking up in support of a “wrong” candidate, ballot proposition or law, or being in the “wrong” political party

• Relying on the scientific proof that there are only two sexes

• Supporting science’s conclusion that obesity is unhealthy

• Disbelieving that individualism, scientific method, work ethic, Christianity, justice, the ability to plan for the future and time management are all solely the provenance of white people, possibly white supremacists

• Rejecting the notion that math is racist (for the skeptical, Google “ethnomathematics”)

• Believing that equality of opportunity is better than equality of outcome to encourage excellence in students and employees

• Declaring that black lives matter, but that you do not support Black Lives Matter

• That we should be judged by the “content of our character,” not by immutable characteristics like skin color or sexual preference.

DEI training via CRT does not promote diversity of thought: it demands uniformity of belief, chief among them that the world is divided into oppressor and oppressed, and that you are only defined by your intersectionality via identity politics (in a room of solely black and white people, for example, a straight, able-bodied, fit white man is the greatest oppressor, followed by a straight able-bodied, fit white woman, then a straight able-bodied, fit black man, and so on). “Diversity” is skin deep, so to speak.

It does not promote equality: It insists on equality of outcome (“equity”) which has proven disastrous for individuals, groups and businesses, rather than equality of opportunity.

It does not promote inclusion of viewpoint: It dictates exclusion of anyone with views outside the orthodoxy of CRT.

These are only a few of the opinions, beliefs, and scientifically proven facts that, if you said them aloud, would result in your marginalization in a DEI training. So, you have to ask yourself: if you 1) must only listen and accept what the trainer is telling you, and that 2) anything you do express may open you up to criticism by the trainer and/or your fellow attendees, which could damage relationships with your colleagues and superiors, and if 3) it’s been proven that DEI training doesn’t work – how is attending a training a safe, productive, and good use of your time?

WHY IS THIS TRAINING SO POPULAR, THEN?

It may be that some employers or organizations are requiring this training in the misguided belief that it works. But mainly, the training is marketed and sold because it’s a money-printing machine for DEI consulting companies and trainers; because it’s insurance against liability from employee bias lawsuits; and because it’s feel-good (though cynical) PR virtue-signaling that pleases shareholders, clients, customers, and liberal-leaning parents paying obscene amounts of college tuition for their children’s education.

WHAT DOES WORK?

Training that embraces classic liberalism of the Age of Enlightenment stripe. Here are five with proven track records of success.

• Theory of Enchantment - Chloe Valdary offers diversity training based on the philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

• OpenMind Platform - Diversity training informed by cognitive psychology.

• Moral Courage College - Achieving diversity without division.

• The Equiano Project - Humanist, universalist approaches to diversity.

• Diverse Perspectives Consulting - More effective communication through understanding differences.

WHAT IS CLASSIC LIBERALISM?

In brief, here are the Principles of Classic Liberalism. This is taken from: https://bit.ly/3qI80qE.

Human Dignity - This is the foundational principle that every person possesses dignity simply by virtue of the fact that they are human beings. This starting point is a defining principle that grounds other core concepts within the classical liberal tradition.

Individual Freedom - This is the default starting point classical liberals favor, as it leads to patterns of widespread human flourishing. Individual freedom is the primary political value within the classical liberal tradition.

Voluntary Action - This is the presumed standard for how we achieve what classical liberals take to be the social ideal: a society of mutual benefit based on peaceful cooperation. 

Justice - In the classical liberal tradition, this is the principle that the individual rights of all must be respected. 

Toleration & Pluralism - These are complementary principles that build upon one another toward the good society. At its most basic level, toleration is the principle that so long as someone is not substantively harming others, their behavior, speech, and views should be legally permitted. This variant of toleration is put in service to defend freedoms of speech and expression. 

Freedom of Expression - This affords every person the right to voice his or her own opinion, fearlessly and publicly, ensures that no good idea goes unheard and that no bad idea goes unchallenged. Freedom of speech is a core political value in that it ensures the right of the governed to criticize the government, and therefore serves as an essential check on state power. Further, classical liberals argue that the open marketplace of ideas is essential if the boundaries of knowledge are to expand.

The Rule of Law - This is the principle that society must be governed by rules that apply, impartially and equally, to all people. The rule of law principle includes “equality before the law,” meaning that all people within a polity are governed by the same rules, regardless of their race, socio-economic class, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and so on. The rule of law also serves as a constraint on state power.

Civil Society - This is the sphere of voluntary human action that exists between the individual and the state. Classical liberals recognize that the institutions that constitute civil society—such as the families, religious communities, neighborhood and professional associations, and philanthropic communities—are rich in their potential to address a wide range of social problems. 

Spontaneous Order - This is the idea that much of the order within society—widespread social coordination—arises not by virtue of human design, not by top-down rational control, but by bottom-up processes of trial, error, learning, and course correction. 

Intellectual Humility - While classical liberals hold in esteem the power of reason, they also recognize the limits of reason. A classical liberal understanding of the market economy, for example, recognizes that the knowledge required for complex social coordination is fundamentally dispersed across billions of market participants. This means that each of us knows only a small slice of the knowledge that is necessary for overall social coordination. This insight reminds classical liberals how little each of us actually knows, and tempers any hubris of thinking we can bend all complex processes to our will.

Economic Freedom - This is the principle of economic freedom over policies grounded in the principle of economic control. History has shown that when people have the freedom to innovate and the incentive to seek out new solutions, and when they possess secure property rights that allow them to realize the benefits of those efforts, patterns of widespread prosperity and human flourishing follow.

Peaceful Solutions - This is the notion that peaceful solutions are key to fostering a society in which individuals go about their daily affairs in a context of voluntary cooperation and in the absence of violence or war. 

DO I HAVE TO ATTEND DEI TRAINING IF MY EMPLOYER SETS ONE UP?

Well, there’ll likely be heck to pay if you don’t.

Recent court cases examining this question based on Title VII challenges, which provides for exception to trainings that violate employee religious views have failed. (“Must an employer excuse an employee from participating in diversity and respect training because some of the views expressed during the training are not consistent with the employee's personal religious beliefs? Recent court decisions indicate no.”) (https://bit.ly/3pU7bda) Certainly objections based on science or philosophy or simply an objection to a monolithic propaganda delivery system would result in similar outcomes.

Further, training can be stipulated in some employees’ contracts. This would possibly not apply in the case of volunteer members of a non-profit organization, however, where the volunteers may have by-laws to follow, but no contract. In that case, volunteers may be able to at least attempt refusal.

You could, however, ask to be excused, telling them that DEI training is based on one viewpoint, and that you have serious objections to and questions about the validity of that viewpoint – and share this document with them. This will likely not work, but the effort may be worth it.

WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF I REFUSE TO ATTEND?

For most folks, refusing a DEI training isn’t a choice they can afford to make. People who have refused have faced termination, like Dr. Jeffery Poelvoorde at Converse College (https://bit.ly/37MDO6o), who took the case to court. Though Dr. Poelvoorde prevailed in that case, certainly he endured a stressful time while fighting for his rights, and his job. (https://bit.ly/3r0JMbo) If you’re an “at-will” employee, you could be fired for not going.

Even while there, speaking up with questions, concerns or challenges or remaining quiet and just getting through it is a personal decision.

ARE THERE RESOURCES FOR ME IF I REALLY DON’T WANT TO ATTEND?

Yep.

• Counterweight has tools to help you with this decision, and even case workers if you have challenges that require one-on-one support. (https://counterweightsupport.com/)

• For educators and school employees, The Fire’s mission is to “to defend and sustain the individual rights of students and faculty members at America’s colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the essential qualities of liberty.” (https://www.thefire.org/)

OK, FINE. BUT… SHOULDN’T I BE AFRAID PEOPLE ARE GOING TO THINK I’M A RACIST OR SOMETHING IF I DON’T GO?

Feeling afraid of being called a racist is the natural response of goodhearted people.

However, if being force-fed the tenets and application of CRT terrifies you, whether at work, in government policymaking, through the media, arts & culture, in science and schools all the way down to pre-K and breastfeeding age (Ibram X. Kendi has authored a book, How to Raise an Anti-Racist Baby for the under 6-month set now), it’s worth considering, or at least arming yourself with information before the training itself, so you have context for the experience.

It’s going to take a lot of brave folks speaking up, standing up, and refusing to attend DEI trainings and similar struggle sessions when they can, to correct our nation’s course.

You may not be able to do this, this time. But perhaps this information might be useful next time, or for others you know facing the same challenge.

In conclusion, and as assurance that it is possible to be dubious of the true intention of DEI training and still be a good person, dedicated to respecting our individuality while celebrating our shared humanity, I offer the following statements, authored by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay in their book, Cynical Theories (https://amzn.to/3sua0TL).

These three statements are a roadmap of their approach to finding the way forward to true Diversity of Thought, Equality of Opportunity, and Inclusion of Viewpoints. The Statement on Racism highlights objections to Critical Race Theory (and thus Critical Theory) as discussed here; the other two statements on sexual minorities and sexism are also areas addressed in DEI trainings, which should be scrutinized with the same skepticism as to their political purpose, lack of scientific validity, and actual disinterest in stated goals.

I wish you luck and fortitude.

A STATEMENT ON RACISM

We affirm that racism remains a problem in society and needs to be addressed.

We deny that critical race Theory and intersectionality provide the most useful tools to do so, since we believe that racial issues are best solved through the most rigorous analyses possible.

We contend that racism is defined as prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behavior against individuals or groups on the grounds of race and can be successfully addressed as such.

We deny that racism is hard-baked into society via discourses, that it is unavoidable and present in every interaction to be discovered and called out, and that this is part of a ubiquitous systemic problem that is everywhere, always, and all-pervasive.

We deny that the best way to deal with racism is by restoring social significance to racial categories and radically heightening their salience.

We contend that each individual can choose not to hold racist views and should be expected to do so, that racism is declining over time and becoming rarer, that we can and should see one another as humans first and members of certain races second, that issues of race are best dealt with by being honest about racialized experiences, while still working towards shared goals and a common vision, and that the principle of not discriminating by race should be universally upheld.

A STATEMENT ON SEXUAL MINORITIES

We affirm that discrimination and bigotry against sexual minorities remains a problem in society and requires addressing. 

We deny that this problem can be solved by queer Theory, which attempts to render all categories relevant to sex, gender, and sexuality meaningless. 

We contend that homophobia and transphobia are defined as prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory acts against homosexual and transgendered people on the grounds of their sexuality or gender identity. 

We deny that dismantling categories of sex, gender, or sexuality or that forwarding concepts of an oppressive “heteronormativity” and “cisnormativity”—recognizing heterosexuality and a gender identity consistent with biological sex as normal—is the best way to make society more welcoming to sexual minorities. 

We contend that sexual minorities are also “normal” and represent a naturally occurring variation on sexuality and gender identity and can easily be accepted as such in the same way that other variations (like red hair and left-handedness) are currently recognized as traits found in a minority of humans who are regarded as completely normal human individuals and valued members of society. Homophobia and transphobia are intentional acts, undertaken by individuals who should be expected to do otherwise.

A STATEMENT ON SEXISM

We affirm that sexism remains a problem in society and needs to be addressed. 

We deny that Theoretical approaches to gender issues, including queer Theory and intersectional feminism, which work on blank slatist theories of sex and gender, are useful to address it as we believe it is necessary to acknowledge biological realities to address such issues. 

We contend that sexism is defined as prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behaviors against individuals or a whole sex on the grounds of sex and can be successfully addressed as such. 

We deny that sexism and misogyny are systemic forces that operate throughout society through socialization, expectations, and linguistic enforcement, even in the absence of sexist or misogynistic people or intentions. 

We deny that there are no psychological or cognitive biological differences on average between men and women and that gender and sex are therefore merely social constructs. 

We contend that men and women are human beings of equal value who are equally capable of being discriminated against on the basis of their sex, that sexist acts are intentional acts, undertaken by individuals, who should be expected to do otherwise, and that gender and sex have both biological and social origins, which need to be acknowledged in order to optimize human flourishing.