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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’ve never seen a hair dress code like that before. I’ve worked in places that said no jewelry, no long hair, or whatever for safety reasons but no braids? Oh and White people can have afros and braids and rows too so I don’t think it’s racist, I just don’t understand the necessity. So I see your point that’s it’s silly but think you’ll lose a lot of people by calling these types of things racist, as any race can have that hairstyle. Can you approach it as questioning is there an industry reason for this particular dress code regulation? Safety, professional look, etc? If so then Is there a way to expand the allowed styles (ex 1-2 simple braids vs a head full of braids that might be viewed as unprofessional in that office). Ultimately the result will be the same.

[Anonymous]

The issue in my office is that these initiatives were mandated by the administration. As an executive branch employee, we had to meet the requirements as best we could. But we didn’t go out and hire people with some mythical degree in DEIA, we hired peop,e with experience in developing training, teaching adult learners, and people up to date on employment law. For the most part, we took people already on our rolls because that’s how staff work is done. Because of ridiculous budgetary cycles, we classified jobs as “DEI” positions because the funding for those was protected. Now, we have a new administration with new priorities that we are supposed to enact. We also have vacancies in all areas that still need trainers, HR specialists, etc. I would be thrilled to have my billets back that were taken away because we had to decrease headcount under budget rules and my spots weren’t protected by Congress or WH edicts. I could slot everyone into a job today because I have unfunded requirments that could now repurpose that funding and those people. Instead you get the OPM memo that wants us to send people home and now prepare to fire them. You are going to find that all offices will now no longer spend much effort to follow any administration’s pet policies because the agencies and workers are being punished for simply following legally established provisions.

News flash, most of us think it’s all stupid. So we prioritized rules that basically said “don’t be a jerk, mind your own business, and consider that someone else may not be just like you and it’s okay”. Our equity officers on hiring panels were not there to promote someone for being in a protected category, but to make sure that no one made a decision because of it. So no presuming that people with kids wouldn’t want to travel so we shouldn’t give them the job. Or any hearsay about the candidate that you had not personally been involved with was not considered.

[Anonymous]

I don’t care that much either way - they were always optional for employees to participate in. I usually didn’t, but occasionally if one was of interest; I would.

[Anonymous]

Not a fed, but will say that at least at my company the expectation was that my company had to make up for the “barriers” in society that made it harder for certain populations to get the right education/certifications/etc. The expectation was that we should just not require those KSAs because then we were feeding into perpetuating racism. I very much believe those barriers exist so I’ll say that but I don’t think it’s the company’s job to make up for those limitation, especially when clients still expect staff to have those KSAs. It leads to individuals who are underqualified in jobs they cannot actually do who then decry any corrective actions as biased based — a self fulfilling proficey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m at a private co and I think some of the HR trainings and programs went too far. Not necessarily that we hired unqualified people- we didn’t- but we spent way too much time and $ jumping through hoops for HR trainings and following their hiring rules and procedures

The problem is that Trump is locking support for irritating DEI programs in as a patriotic duty.

Sure, plenty of DEI are irritating. Rotten people can find ways to use them to bully people.

But they’re a lot better than living in a totalitarian dictatorship under Russian rule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a fed, but will say that at least at my company the expectation was that my company had to make up for the “barriers” in society that made it harder for certain populations to get the right education/certifications/etc. The expectation was that we should just not require those KSAs because then we were feeding into perpetuating racism. I very much believe those barriers exist so I’ll say that but I don’t think it’s the company’s job to make up for those limitation, especially when clients still expect staff to have those KSAs. It leads to individuals who are underqualified in jobs they cannot actually do who then decry any corrective actions as biased based — a self fulfilling proficey.

Behold the superior intelligence of the private sector.

[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.

No I think you’re wrong. This is one place where race matters. Certain races do have different diseases and issues. Nothing discriminatory about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. This is how it’s done at my private company. Fairly light touch. Emphasis on belonging and inclusion for all (not just POC) and mentorship for underrepresented. I like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I a woman did not get a leadership program spot because I got not a lot of points on the Dei question. A white man instead got that spot and I got alternate. I hate DEI ever since then, I’m bitter.

With that said, f Trump and Elon too more white men.

I had at least 25 hours of DEI training a couple of years ago. I got perfect scores on every test, and on every class project.

Signed, old white man

Hey old white man I got perfect scores on trainings too but good for you grandpa to think it was scores on training.

The question was about how do I incorporate dei in my work and give example and results and I a woman with skills and results and excellent work apparently did worse on that question than the white man. I guess he must have said he got perfect scores in training courses 👌

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’ve never seen a hair dress code like that before. I’ve worked in places that said no jewelry, no long hair, or whatever for safety reasons but no braids? Oh and White people can have afros and braids and rows too so I don’t think it’s racist, I just don’t understand the necessity. So I see your point that’s it’s silly but think you’ll lose a lot of people by calling these types of things racist, as any race can have that hairstyle. Can you approach it as questioning is there an industry reason for this particular dress code regulation? Safety, professional look, etc? If so then Is there a way to expand the allowed styles (ex 1-2 simple braids vs a head full of braids that might be viewed as unprofessional in that office). Ultimately the result will be the same.

United States armed forces

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I a woman did not get a leadership program spot because I got not a lot of points on the Dei question. A white man instead got that spot and I got alternate. I hate DEI ever since then, I’m bitter.

With that said, f Trump and Elon too more white men.

I had at least 25 hours of DEI training a couple of years ago. I got perfect scores on every test, and on every class project.

Signed, old white man

Hey old white man I got perfect scores on trainings too but good for you grandpa to think it was scores on training.

The question was about how do I incorporate dei in my work and give example and results and I a woman with skills and results and excellent work apparently did worse on that question than the white man. I guess he must have said he got perfect scores in training courses 👌

How? When you are obviously ageist

[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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t know about that last part. I’m a fed and I never had any mandated DEI training. Anything diversity-wise were “lunch and learns” that were completely optional. Maybe there was an implicit bias presentation somewhere along the line, but nothing that anyone would complain about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’ve never seen a hair dress code like that before. I’ve worked in places that said no jewelry, no long hair, or whatever for safety reasons but no braids? Oh and White people can have afros and braids and rows too so I don’t think it’s racist, I just don’t understand the necessity. So I see your point that’s it’s silly but think you’ll lose a lot of people by calling these types of things racist, as any race can have that hairstyle. Can you approach it as questioning is there an industry reason for this particular dress code regulation? Safety, professional look, etc? If so then Is there a way to expand the allowed styles (ex 1-2 simple braids vs a head full of braids that might be viewed as unprofessional in that office). Ultimately the result will be the same.

A head full of braids should not be viewed as unprofessional. That's the point. Look up the crown act.

[Anonymous]

I have mixed feelings about this. I think microaggressions are real. I think there is a lot of implicit bias, and systemic racism. That being said- at my agency our DEI was all focused on 'inclusive language' getting people to give their pronouns, and aggressively policing language that was gendered. I found that all completely ridiculous.