Who is secretly a little relieved to see the end of DEI policies and trainings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:yes they went too far. Inability to temper this is one of the reasons Trump won and I’m pissed about it.

+1 backlash against going to far left. FWIW, I'm a non white female.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s like anything else that became trendy and bloomed quickly (I’m talking about the post 2020 growth in DEI trainings focused more on structural racism and implicit bias)—a lot of providers popped up who weren’t very good. I’ve reviewed a bunch of them and it’s really hard to find well done material that is actually helpful. You have to meet people where they are in a way that’s constructive, not merely critical, and recognize the limitations of what can be done in a short training that is given by someone’s employer. Preachers preaching from a pulpit weekly in a venue people voluntarily choose to attend have trouble changing hears and minds — what can realistically be done in a 2 hour mandatory HR presentation?

good point

[Anonymous]

I thought the DEI trainings were more meaningful and sincere than sexual harassment trainings.

All were basically just polite warnings to behave like a decent human being.

The only reason I have any relief is because now some people can't whine that they feel picked on. But those were not the nice people - those were the people most likely to cause issues.

All of our training was very neutral and did not single out any groups as offenders or victims.

I did a good job of creating "DEI Messages" for the beginning of meetings that were thought-provoking without riling up people. I focused a lot on "Diversity of Thought" which simply refers to legitimately different ways of viewing the world and how to problem solve. These were mostly without reference to race, gender, etc. People would request these from me to present at their own meetings. Because they were interesting to think about.

One of the things I learned from making diversity messages is that some people really like the idea of "same" and some really like the idea of "different". These are deeply-held preferences. I think the "samies" got really tired of hearing from the "difference valuing" camp.

I don't miss the performative aspects of talking about DEI a lot. But, every decade has unique cultural phenomena. I understood the zeitgeist for what it was.

[Anonymous]

I’ll be glad to see an end to these initiatives. They did more to divide people than unite us.

[Anonymous]

I think it's important to recognize and manage one's own bias in the workplace. But additional training isn't it.

[Anonymous]

I didn’t hate the implicit bias training. I work in a field that notoriously has a lot of racial baggage. The presentation was certainly clumsy, but the message to be aware of your own internal thought processes was valuable.

We don’t have any DEI professionals or other DEI programming. I might feel differently if we had more trainings or if they were more heavy handed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Woman of color in a nonprofit— I think people have implicit bias, but none of this helped. For example, there’s a shadow person of color deputy and asst director under every director in my org. All the directors are white, and the majority are much less competent/experienced/strategic than the people directly under them (who do all the work). I think pointing out these f’n obvious patterns and disparities and demanding what leaders will do about it is more important than some DEI training.

I've a feeling your observation is a reflection of your bias rather than anything factual. You want this to be true because it supports your narrative/belief of bias preventing better qualified non whites being hired over less qualified whites. Unfortunately, after 30 years in corporate America in companies with strong commitment to diversity, I've yet to ever see this to be the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the goal of it was great, butit was not implemented well at most companies who just wanted to “checking the box”.

+1 and it became too much of an industry grift

[Anonymous]

During a mandatory training allegedly referred to as “lillywhite” as a group where White would have sufficed by Ibram X Kendi during a training he charges $$$$$ for from corporates. You bet lilywhites checked out. Missed opportunity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woman of color in a nonprofit— I think people have implicit bias, but none of this helped. For example, there’s a shadow person of color deputy and asst director under every director in my org. All the directors are white, and the majority are much less competent/experienced/strategic than the people directly under them (who do all the work). I think pointing out these f’n obvious patterns and disparities and demanding what leaders will do about it is more important than some DEI training.

I've a feeling your observation is a reflection of your bias rather than anything factual. You want this to be true because it supports your narrative/belief of bias preventing better qualified non whites being hired over less qualified whites. Unfortunately, after 30 years in corporate America in companies with strong commitment to diversity, I've yet to ever see this to be the case.

Is this a DEI non-profit? Otherwise what competencies come with the skin color?

[Anonymous]

(Waving hand)

My favorite DEI was the training where our very senior leadership (federal organization) participated and we saw a Brady Bunch style box of *all* SES minorities lecturing us about how hard it is for minorities to get ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ll be glad to see an end to these initiatives. They did more to divide people than unite us.

+1.

[Anonymous]

As a fed, I was honestly able to skirt/ not get involved in much DEIA stuff. We have (had?) a DEIA affinity group, and I listened in a couple times. Lots of "strategic planning," not really much impact in anything as I could tell.

There's huge racial disparity in my agency, and all the DEIA programs didn't really seem to make any difference.

The areas of real impact, though, are the EEO complaint mechanisms. People did legitimately use that to push back on orders that felt or seemed discriminatory (like moving the only black director to an older office in an adjacent building while all the white directors had offices in the nicer, newer building. Once the EEO complaint was filed, that terribly thought out decision was pulled back).

I sincerely hope those tools are still available.

[Anonymous]

I work for a company that had to let a lot of people go, so they made a list of the worst performers and got ready to tell them. Then someone pointed out that most of the people in the list were not white men, and that this would affect our diversity starts, so the company literally made a new list which did NOT focus on the very worst performers but instead considered the skin color and gender of the person. I was disgusted and yes I’m very glad to see the end of that.

[Anonymous]

The public are fools. It is not just "DEI programs." They are targeting HHS research on diseases like diabetes and heart disease that looks at race. It is far more wide-reaching and intends to scrub race from science.