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

[Anonymous]

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

I’ve found that that’s code for we don’t have to pay attention to you because you can speak for me. People who can’t handle their own emotions say this because they want everyone to play nice no matter what happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but I hate most of HR trainings anyways.

+1000. They all suck.

[Anonymous]

DEI trainings were never going to educate those who needed it to make a nicer work environment. The bigots are going to be bigots no matter how many trainings that sat through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I worked at an unusually diverse federal agency (my entire chain of command was black and I think my office was like maybe 40% POC). And this was an OGC not any sort of blue collar environment. We had a DEI working group and we almost immediately concluded that while we liked cultural heritage presentations (old school black history and the like) nobody wanted or needed D.E.I. trainings. What we DID want was better mentorship for all, more thought and deliberate effort in employee development, more collaboration with leadership. Our thinking was that fairness for all would mean that everyone could succeed or not on their merits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Plenty of the more radial CRT folks also decried doing scientific research based on race. It was a thing. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/how-abolition-race-based-medicine-necessary-american-health-justice/2022-03?utm_campaign=alwayson-google-paid_ad-joe-dsa_internal_medicine&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAAphAX5CbD7CYaQW2LJOkI9EXudzhz&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI_aye8-WTiwMVtkpHAR0dmze7EAAYASAAEgIIVvD_BwE

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I mean, I think the issue is that work is not really the place to try to delve into really personal issues of morality and belief. The massive overstepping was part of the issue. It should have been limited to race/gender neutral trainings on how to communicate, how to mentor, how to give opportunities.

I also think often what you need is a policy change that just makes things more fair or eliminates something that serves "the good old boys network." You don't need a million trainings and "awareness" events.

An example would be dress codes. Some corporate dress codes are (or were) blatantly racist or sexist. Like they'd explicitly ban things like wearing your hair in an afro style, or in braids or rows. Well those are normal and natural ways for black people to wear their hair. To get black hair to look like "normal" white hair, you have to heavily process it and it costs a lot of money and can be painful and very time consuming. So that's an example of a dress code provision that is blatantly racist. Get rid of that provision and then communicate it to the company so people understand they can't enforce something like that.

But sending employees to a million trainings about how to avoid micro aggressions or whatever is going to be subject to the law of diminishing returns. Are microaggressions a thing and can they make a workplace worse for people in marginalized groups? Heck yes, I've experienced it. But the truth is that workplaces are a crappy place to try and train people out of that kind of behavior. It's usually so deeply engrained. I've even been in situations where I've gently called out stuff like that as it happened, and I can tell the person I'm calling out genuinely wants to do better and is horrified they did something offensive, and also they have no idea what I'm talking about and don't know how to fix their behavior, because it's based on a belief or behavior they've been trained into literally since they were born. Sorry but no amount of workplace training is going to fix that. I'd honestly rather just learn to deal it even though it's annoying.

But like a hiring or promotion policy that benefits white guys only, or policies that heavily burden women and people of color -- fix that. You don't have to police people's thoughts (and can't even if you want to) but you can make sure the corporate policies, at least, are not inherently racist or sexist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1 Read the bios of people in DEI offices. I've never seen so many content-free degrees from so many online universities. The private sector probably did not waste so much money on this, but state and federal people (including K-12, colleges, grant fundees) saw the worst of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1

[Anonymous]

Yes, I think it's about time.

[Anonymous]

We didn't have any special DEI-related procedures, policies, or training at my agency. At least, nothing required.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's telling that we spent 250 years going from slavery to over-the-top DEI, but only a few years from that to openly embracing Nazi views of race and religion at the highest levels of government.

One group took the idea of equality in a bad direction, and the other group hates the idea of equality.

Republicans don’t hate the idea of equality. They hate people coming here illegally and taking resources away from families and communities that they and their families worked hard to build.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am. as a minority, I hate being given something as a pity. This is making our future generation losers and entitled.

+100

I am a minority too and hate given charities like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am and I'm not secretive about it.

I think we are in a highly reactive culture right now and it's to everyone's detriment. It's not like these DEI programs were developed intelligently to actually address systemic racism or truly create more equal opportunities. They were a reflexive development to the political culture after George Floyd's murder and organizations were afraid of being viewed as insufficiently supportive of their black employees or having the "wrong" politics. 2020-2023ish were also tough years to hire and orgs were doing everything they could to make themselves seem appealing to new hires, especially younger hires. This resulted in a ton of pandering programming that was designed primarily to signal they had the right politics, but did not actually improve anything.

I am very supportive of REAL initiatives to improve diversity of all kinds within organizations. The best programs, I think, tend to be internships, community outreach, and training programs that target underrepresented groups in your organization. These provide actual opportunities and pathways for people who might otherwise not feel like they are welcome or not know how to get the experience they need to get a job there. These also tend to be good for organizations by providing pipelines of talented people and ensuring they get better training earlier. My DH's state agency has an internship program that works with two public universities to provide interns who are interested in the field (civil engineering). One of the two schools is a commuter college with a very diverse population, not just racially but also socioeconomically (the other school is a state flagship). A very high percent of interns through that program wind up applying for jobs there after they graduate, with a high pick up rate because they know the agency and have some hands on experience there. The result is a very diverse workforce that draws extensively from across the state's population. And these people tend to be good at their jobs too. I know because I'm married to one of them.

But it's not a "DEI" program. It's a 20 year old program that was developed to address two problems -- the agency used to be populated entirely by white men, and they also struggled to recruit because of increasing competition in the field. It was a practical solution and it was tailored to the needs of the agency. It was not a politically-motivated program designed mostly as a marketing ploy.

So no, I'm not sad to see most of these DEI programs go. No organization needs an entire department whose job it is to craft social media messages for Hispanic Heritage Month and MLK Day. It's actually okay if organizations don't even observe that stuff. A good organization will have practical diversity initiatives that actually make the place a welcoming, egalitarian place to work for people of all backgrounds. You can do that without a DEI office.

All of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals went off the deep end with DEI. Now republicans are going to the other extreme. Why is it so hard to do anything in moderation

Moderates are called John McCain and Mitt Romney, who were both excoriated by liberals, and rejected by the voters.

Obama was a better presidential candidate.

John McCain and Mitt Romney continued in elected office.

There are few moderate Republicans because the base wants MAGAs with illogical economic policies, conspiracy theories, anti-federal government attitudes, etc. A bunch went Dem because they couldn't stay moderate and get anything sensical done.

[Anonymous]

I’m a little bummed we are going to be hiring our bosses under qualified sons and nephews again.