I don't want to do "DEI Work" at work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it’s uncomfortable, a distraction, and unpleasant. Which is exactly how your non-white/gay/whatever colleagues may well feel about the crap that they deal with every day in the workplace.

But truly, what?? People are treated as people at my workplace. They don't deal with any crap that's different from the rest of us.

Are you a member of a marginalized group, OP? I think the goal is to ensure that no one has to deal with (to take a few random examples from my workplace experiences over the years) referring to building a robust UI as making it "grandma proof" or casual transphobia or the use of slurs to refer to Saudi Arabians.

That being said, my limited experience with DEI sessions is that they don't actually help with this goal? I don't have a lot of personal experience (my workplace doesn't do them) but as someone who's a member of an invisible minority (queer), I don't actually want to talk to my work colleagues about my sexuality and to be asked to do so would make me deeply uncomfortable.

No one asks for that. That's now how it works.
As for OP, ok; got it! You don't want to do that work; that is fine. Apparently your job has decided they want you to do that work, so you can choose to stay or not. I mean, there's a lot of work at my job (unrelated to DEI) that I don't want to do. In fact, there's enough that I don't want to do that I require payment to even show up. That's why they call it a job.

I don’t want to be forced to sit in a room with my co-workers and have a conversation centered around the overarching idea that I am implicitly racist by means of being born white and the beneficiary of “white privilege”

And yes, as a teacher I have had to go through this.

I’m sure the black kids you teach are glad you did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because having a diverse and equitable workforce IS good for the bottom line and will ultimately result in a better workplace and product for your clients.

Also and most importantly but I don't think will sway you, people deserve to work in places that are fair and equitable. And for the most place they don't. So, places are trying to change that as they should. Ultimately if it works, it's better for everyone.

I agree that having a diverse and equitable workforce is good. We have a very diverse staff, and people are treated pretty fairly overall. That's not what I'm referring to. Our company is having external facilitators come in and force us to have awkward and uncomfortable conversations with probing questions that I truly don't feel comfortable sharing with my colleagues. I don't want to share "the moment that I felt discriminated against" or "the moment I did something discriminatory to someone else" or "my family background and structure". None of these things contribute to me doing my job well.

It’s OK for you to feel “uncomfortable” and “awkward.” You’ll survive.

[Anonymous]

I noticed two things in the news yesterday:

Headlines saying that companies are cutting DEI staff/programs given budget cuts.

And

The video of Morgan Freeman on 60 Minutes saying he doesn’t support black history because it is American history and his preference that we no longer discuss race and stop referring to him as a black man and simply call him a man.

Interesting, right?

My take on DEI training:

We needed it, and some of it was very effective. When done well, a periodic training (not annually) by a highly qualified trainer is a good thing. I’ve had to endure a lot of such trainings given my participation in several nonprofit boards plus my particular sector. Only one of the many trainings I participated in was actually very good. It focused on unconscious bias related to all kinds of things including age, socioeconomics, faith or lack thereof, and even white people. In short: the curriculum and talking points went to great lengths to avoid singling out anyone as the villain and everyone seemingly was represented as potentially having experienced bias—which we all can agree is a bad thing.

As someone who works a SJW nonprofit in DC, I 100% believe my colleagues and I don’t need tons of DEI training. We get it. We advocate for such things and more through law and policy change coupled with systems change. I suspect many other DC based professionals working in diverse environs feel the same way. The reality is locals tend to live and work in very diverse communities; we really aren’t the problem. If that’s your reality, it begs the question: what’s the point of a DEI director/team/program for a company or org?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it’s uncomfortable, a distraction, and unpleasant. Which is exactly how your non-white/gay/whatever colleagues may well feel about the crap that they deal with every day in the workplace.

But truly, what?? People are treated as people at my workplace. They don't deal with any crap that's different from the rest of us.

Are you a member of a marginalized group, OP? I think the goal is to ensure that no one has to deal with (to take a few random examples from my workplace experiences over the years) referring to building a robust UI as making it "grandma proof" or casual transphobia or the use of slurs to refer to Saudi Arabians.

That being said, my limited experience with DEI sessions is that they don't actually help with this goal? I don't have a lot of personal experience (my workplace doesn't do them) but as someone who's a member of an invisible minority (queer), I don't actually want to talk to my work colleagues about my sexuality and to be asked to do so would make me deeply uncomfortable.

No one asks for that. That's now how it works.
As for OP, ok; got it! You don't want to do that work; that is fine. Apparently your job has decided they want you to do that work, so you can choose to stay or not. I mean, there's a lot of work at my job (unrelated to DEI) that I don't want to do. In fact, there's enough that I don't want to do that I require payment to even show up. That's why they call it a job.

I don’t want to be forced to sit in a room with my co-workers and have a conversation centered around the overarching idea that I am implicitly racist by means of being born white and the beneficiary of “white privilege”

And yes, as a teacher I have had to go through this.

I’m sure the black kids you teach are glad you did.

The problem is that DEI addresses one part of the problem (racism), but doesn’t allow one to call out some of the other problems that contribute to African Americans lagging behind whites statistically. For example single family homes. As long as most African American babies are born out of wedlock they will always trail whites. Two incomes will almost always be greater than one income. But you’re not allowed to say these types of things but everyone is thinking it. This makes people racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because having a diverse and equitable workforce IS good for the bottom line and will ultimately result in a better workplace and product for your clients.

Also and most importantly but I don't think will sway you, people deserve to work in places that are fair and equitable. And for the most place they don't. So, places are trying to change that as they should. Ultimately if it works, it's better for everyone.

No. It isn't. Having the most talented individuals for the role is better for the business. Full stop.

This right here. I wish there were a website tracking these DEI initiatives at publicly traded companies. A company doesn’t have a great future if it’s prioritizing diversity instead of performance and talent.

Part of the work of DEI is to open up the working atmosphere to foster performance and talent from many different people. Many industries have practices and standards defined by a white, male-dominated culture. Having a diverse workforce can push industries to evolve and grow.

I come from the wine industry. The diversity coming into the industry --or existed but is now allowed to grow -- expanded and is expanding the interest in wine. There are also a lot more experimentation and diverse options in the market as a result.

I can see how DEI work could be performed without any real results. But if you are simply looking at individual workers in a set system, then I think you are limiting the benefit of diversity by definition. Opening up how we define talent and performance can bring new energy to a business and industry as a whole.

It's just important that we have conversations as a community that help heal wounds from our history, business or no business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At the large (Fortune 100) corporation where I work, this is a huge priority and we receive constant updates from management on this.

It seems off to me to constantly discuss race, especially at work. But it is the new normal.

Honest question, but why do companies keep doing this? I understand that they feel the need to virtue signal, but I also get the impression that a silent majority thinks this stuff is B.S. and I have to assume that includes a large amount of those who are in management itself.

I mean what would really be the repercussions of a company just quietly did away with these trainings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it’s uncomfortable, a distraction, and unpleasant. Which is exactly how your non-white/gay/whatever colleagues may well feel about the crap that they deal with every day in the workplace.

But truly, what?? People are treated as people at my workplace. They don't deal with any crap that's different from the rest of us.

Are you them? How do you know this to be true? Have you asked them?

It’s been asked multiple times on this thread for examples where people experienced discrimination based on race in the workplace. Not one example has been put forward.

[Anonymous]

If your office is heavily dominated by whites, has it occurred to you that a room with mostly whites and disproportionately less minorities might make it uncomfortable for the smaller minority group to speak openly or even simply endure such a dialogue?

While some people like to share, not everyone does.

That’s why it takes a very special facilitator who is a gifted trainer with a top notch curriculum to do this well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I noticed two things in the news yesterday:

Headlines saying that companies are cutting DEI staff/programs given budget cuts.

And

The video of Morgan Freeman on 60 Minutes saying he doesn’t support black history because it is American history and his preference that we no longer discuss race and stop referring to him as a black man and simply call him a man.

Interesting, right?

My take on DEI training:

We needed it, and some of it was very effective. When done well, a periodic training (not annually) by a highly qualified trainer is a good thing. I’ve had to endure a lot of such trainings given my participation in several nonprofit boards plus my particular sector. Only one of the many trainings I participated in was actually very good. It focused on unconscious bias related to all kinds of things including age, socioeconomics, faith or lack thereof, and even white people. In short: the curriculum and talking points went to great lengths to avoid singling out anyone as the villain and everyone seemingly was represented as potentially having experienced bias—which we all can agree is a bad thing.

As someone who works a SJW nonprofit in DC, I 100% believe my colleagues and I don’t need tons of DEI training. We get it. We advocate for such things and more through law and policy change coupled with systems change. I suspect many other DC based professionals working in diverse environs feel the same way. The reality is locals tend to live and work in very diverse communities; we really aren’t the problem. If that’s your reality, it begs the question: what’s the point of a DEI director/team/program for a company or org?

Question for you. You mentioned that you work at a SJW nonprofit and that your prior training in unconscious bias related to various identities was helpful. I work in government and am often called upon to develop policies that incorporate the views of a variety of stakeholders. One think I am seeing from the more activist stakeholders is a flat outright dismissal of anything that "old white men" and, to a lesser extent, older white women have to say. I find it ironic that openly excluding older people whenever possible is so common for people who profess to be committed to diversity and inclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I noticed two things in the news yesterday:

Headlines saying that companies are cutting DEI staff/programs given budget cuts.

And

The video of Morgan Freeman on 60 Minutes saying he doesn’t support black history because it is American history and his preference that we no longer discuss race and stop referring to him as a black man and simply call him a man.

Interesting, right?

My take on DEI training:

We needed it, and some of it was very effective. When done well, a periodic training (not annually) by a highly qualified trainer is a good thing. I’ve had to endure a lot of such trainings given my participation in several nonprofit boards plus my particular sector. Only one of the many trainings I participated in was actually very good. It focused on unconscious bias related to all kinds of things including age, socioeconomics, faith or lack thereof, and even white people. In short: the curriculum and talking points went to great lengths to avoid singling out anyone as the villain and everyone seemingly was represented as potentially having experienced bias—which we all can agree is a bad thing.

As someone who works a SJW nonprofit in DC, I 100% believe my colleagues and I don’t need tons of DEI training. We get it. We advocate for such things and more through law and policy change coupled with systems change. I suspect many other DC based professionals working in diverse environs feel the same way. The reality is locals tend to live and work in very diverse communities; we really aren’t the problem. If that’s your reality, it begs the question: what’s the point of a DEI director/team/program for a company or org?

Question for you. You mentioned that you work at a SJW nonprofit and that your prior training in unconscious bias related to various identities was helpful. I work in government and am often called upon to develop policies that incorporate the views of a variety of stakeholders. One think I am seeing from the more activist stakeholders is a flat outright dismissal of anything that "old white men" and, to a lesser extent, older white women have to say. I find it ironic that openly excluding older people whenever possible is so common for people who profess to be committed to diversity and inclusion.

What is the question? - NP at a SJW nonprofit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I noticed two things in the news yesterday:

Headlines saying that companies are cutting DEI staff/programs given budget cuts.

And

The video of Morgan Freeman on 60 Minutes saying he doesn’t support black history because it is American history and his preference that we no longer discuss race and stop referring to him as a black man and simply call him a man.

Interesting, right?

My take on DEI training:

We needed it, and some of it was very effective. When done well, a periodic training (not annually) by a highly qualified trainer is a good thing. I’ve had to endure a lot of such trainings given my participation in several nonprofit boards plus my particular sector. Only one of the many trainings I participated in was actually very good. It focused on unconscious bias related to all kinds of things including age, socioeconomics, faith or lack thereof, and even white people. In short: the curriculum and talking points went to great lengths to avoid singling out anyone as the villain and everyone seemingly was represented as potentially having experienced bias—which we all can agree is a bad thing.

As someone who works a SJW nonprofit in DC, I 100% believe my colleagues and I don’t need tons of DEI training. We get it. We advocate for such things and more through law and policy change coupled with systems change. I suspect many other DC based professionals working in diverse environs feel the same way. The reality is locals tend to live and work in very diverse communities; we really aren’t the problem. If that’s your reality, it begs the question: what’s the point of a DEI director/team/program for a company or org?

Question for you. You mentioned that you work at a SJW nonprofit and that your prior training in unconscious bias related to various identities was helpful. I work in government and am often called upon to develop policies that incorporate the views of a variety of stakeholders. One think I am seeing from the more activist stakeholders is a flat outright dismissal of anything that "old white men" and, to a lesser extent, older white women have to say. I find it ironic that openly excluding older people whenever possible is so common for people who profess to be committed to diversity and inclusion.

I hear ya.

Yes: SJWs in DC shockingly lack self-awareness when it comes to such things. I think they went too far at the urging (bullying?) of the masses and landed in a bizarre fringe space that … wait for it … excludes/attacks/“others” protected classes.

I am hopeful that we are approaching a turning point that will reset the DEI conversation to a more reasonable approach.

Again: the best DEI training I’ve ever participated in led with an exercise making clear that everyone has experienced bias. Everyone. Even old white men. It’s critically important for everyone at the table to understand that being judged isn’t fair or accurate. Otherwise you will have some participants on guard, defensive, and ostensibly just going through the motions and ultimately gaining nothing.

If your DEI trainer wants to focus exclusively on white privilege or systemic racism against black people, then you are wasting your time and money.

Another strategy from the best training I attended: using the plight of native Americans as an example. The trainer realized we needed to get away from black/white fixation. Guess what? It works. Although it was interesting that whites got on board quickly while blacks focused on what about me comparisons until the facilitator helped get them looking beyond themselves. We did get to slavery and systemic racism impacting blacks, but we had a solid, purposeful foundation first.

[Anonymous]

It’s a grift.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I noticed two things in the news yesterday:

Headlines saying that companies are cutting DEI staff/programs given budget cuts.

And

The video of Morgan Freeman on 60 Minutes saying he doesn’t support black history because it is American history and his preference that we no longer discuss race and stop referring to him as a black man and simply call him a man.

Interesting, right?

My take on DEI training:

We needed it, and some of it was very effective. When done well, a periodic training (not annually) by a highly qualified trainer is a good thing. I’ve had to endure a lot of such trainings given my participation in several nonprofit boards plus my particular sector. Only one of the many trainings I participated in was actually very good. It focused on unconscious bias related to all kinds of things including age, socioeconomics, faith or lack thereof, and even white people. In short: the curriculum and talking points went to great lengths to avoid singling out anyone as the villain and everyone seemingly was represented as potentially having experienced bias—which we all can agree is a bad thing.

As someone who works a SJW nonprofit in DC, I 100% believe my colleagues and I don’t need tons of DEI training. We get it. We advocate for such things and more through law and policy change coupled with systems change. I suspect many other DC based professionals working in diverse environs feel the same way. The reality is locals tend to live and work in very diverse communities; we really aren’t the problem. If that’s your reality, it begs the question: what’s the point of a DEI director/team/program for a company or org?

Question for you. You mentioned that you work at a SJW nonprofit and that your prior training in unconscious bias related to various identities was helpful. I work in government and am often called upon to develop policies that incorporate the views of a variety of stakeholders. One think I am seeing from the more activist stakeholders is a flat outright dismissal of anything that "old white men" and, to a lesser extent, older white women have to say. I find it ironic that openly excluding older people whenever possible is so common for people who profess to be committed to diversity and inclusion.

What is the question? - NP at a SJW nonprofit

^^^
Exhibit A

Lol

We shouldn’t exclude or “other” anyone. Outright dismissing quiet people—particularly older people (#protectedclass routinely facing bias and discrimination) isn’t cool.

We will never achieve what we are aiming for if we judge or exclude any group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because having a diverse and equitable workforce IS good for the bottom line and will ultimately result in a better workplace and product for your clients.

Also and most importantly but I don't think will sway you, people deserve to work in places that are fair and equitable. And for the most place they don't. So, places are trying to change that as they should. Ultimately if it works, it's better for everyone.

No. It isn't. Having the most talented individuals for the role is better for the business. Full stop.

And are those things mutually exclusive? Why do you assume they are?

Not the PP you’re replying to, but yes, they are absolutely mutually exclusive.

Do you know how far backwards we bend to throw job offers at every conceivable minority who can manage to make it to an interview? I’m talking MASSIVE adjustments in standards—law school, GPA, experience. We’ve hired POC associates that we knew required special writing coaches from Day 1 of employment, while leaving behind white and Asian hires with far superior application packages. And god forbid you actually have a POC employee. A black woman who’s joined all the DEI committees and affinity groups is effectively untouchable. Doesn’t matter how god awful she is at her job. Everyone knows this, it’s openly acknowledged in small group conversations at senior levels all the time. I’ve heard the same story across our industry.

So you can decide for yourself whether this is a good or bad thing. But it is 100% a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the large (Fortune 100) corporation where I work, this is a huge priority and we receive constant updates from management on this.

It seems off to me to constantly discuss race, especially at work. But it is the new normal.

Honest question, but why do companies keep doing this? I understand that they feel the need to virtue signal, but I also get the impression that a silent majority thinks this stuff is B.S. and I have to assume that includes a large amount of those who are in management itself.

I mean what would really be the repercussions of a company just quietly did away with these trainings?

A very small minority would tar and feather the company publicly and it would be a PR disaster.

Yes, everyone with a brain (of any race) knows this is all BS. But most people today also genuinely are not, and certainly don’t want to be seen as, racist. So a tiny sliver of active DEI mercenaries can pretty easily control things. It just takes the implicit threat that anyone who openly questions any of this crap will be cast out for improper thoughts.