
Diversity-Related Training Meta-analysis - Reedx
https://heterodoxacademy.org/diversity-related-training-what-is-it-good-for/
======
causality0
_Members of the majority group are told to listen to, and validate, the
perspectives of people from historically marginalized or disadvantaged groups
— even as they are instructed to submit their own feelings and perspectives to
intense scrutiny._

A common effect I've observed is that diversity training often seems to
trigger defensive behavior. People of the majority group perceive that the
organization cares much more about the feelings of the minority group than
their own, and so members of the minority group become dangerous. For example,
you might be willing to tell Steve his new hairstyle looks stupid, but
wouldn't say the same thing to Shanice.

The response to this change in perception is defensive disengagement. The
majority begins restricting their interactions with the minority. They don't
make idle conversation with them. They avoid joining projects with them. They
don't become friends with them after-hours.

Now, the opposite certainly exists. I've been in companies that were a pure
good ol' boys club that would say the most outrageously racist things standing
five feet away from a coworker of that race. As far as my experiences have
gone, though, the middle ground is dead. There're very few companies where you
can just treat all your coworkers like people.

~~~
AlexTWithBeard
Your post makes me think about how great diversity training was in my place.
It was mostly about

\- diversity is good - it increases a pool of workers and ideas to pick from

\- we all are minorities in something, so please be nice. We're in this boat
together

\- everyone has unconscious bias. Including you. Beware

\- please make an effort to be inclusive: being the only black/white/green
person in the team sucks

\- don't do anything illegal

Kinda reasonable approach, I'd say, but I doubt they do it anymore.

~~~
ccffpphh
Sorry to kind of jump off of you here, but what do you mean by "diversity is
good"? Diversity of what? If we have 5 people that all think the same but
they're all different races, is that good? Is that better than or worse than 5
people of the same race with diversity of thought?

From my point of view, I believe diversity of thought enables groups of people
to consider new ideas and positions that wouldn't be considered, i.e. thinking
outside of the box, but I don't understand why this is extrapolated to
different races, gender identities, immigration statuses, sexualities, etc. I
am not claiming you brought them up but they tend to be common "diversity"
points the modern populace loves to clamor around.

Why do any of those imply anything about how people will think? We've all seen
some creative people that are of our own race, or that were also our own
sexuality, etc.

All of this is of course at the expense of speed, in that greater variance in
thought/ideas leads to slower movement, which I think is important in business
(a solo or very tight knit organization can move much faster).

~~~
nickff
Many (but not all) diversity advocates are looking for evidence to back up
their preference for racial, gender, and other forms of non-ideological
diversity, so they make the (often true) assertion that people of different
backgrounds bring different perspectives. This is ideology searching for
evidence (often known as 'motivated reasoning').

~~~
scooble
I remember when this was known as ‘prejudice’, in the strict sense of pre-
judging aspects of a person (such as their perspective) based on e.g. their
race.

It was considered to be a bad thing, so it’s been very strange to see it used
as a premise by diversity advocates.

~~~
lopmotr
I've seen it justified as every single member of the marginalized group has
some life experience that no member of the majority/powerful group has. So
although it's a prejudice, it's a correct one. That's different from
traditional prejudices that aren't true for every individual.

~~~
waterhouse
Just to note, it _is_ possible for an academic who is not part of a group to
interview many members of the group, and combine other sources of information,
and end up knowing _more_ about "the experience" of that group than most
individual members of that group. Because it's not a single experience.

It is even possible that, say, the black son of a black doctor, raised in a
rich neighborhood, knows less about the plight of blacks in ghettos than the
white son of a white janitor, raised in a ghetto with lots of blacks—even if
the latter made no deliberate study. One could also consider Africans who
immigrated to the United States as adults. They do have the experience of
_being_ a certain race, but that may not imply nearly as much as people seem
to think. (In fact, I would hazard a guess that the members of "marginalized
groups" that _do_ get hired for the highly professional jobs that diversity
advocates talk about, are very disproportionately likely to have come from
well-off backgrounds, and to have no direct ghetto experience.)

~~~
joshuamorton
> Just to note, it is possible for an academic who is not part of a group to
> interview many members of the group, and combine other sources of
> information, and end up knowing more about "the experience" of that group
> than most individual members of that group.

This is a common fallacy. Statistics don't substitute for qualia. (much as we
say the plural of anecdote is not data, it is also not firsthand experience or
even necessarily understanding)

Further, "Having experience with the ghetto" isn't what people are discussing
when we discuss the importance of diversity. There are still common
experiences between wealthy racial minorities and poor ones, that white
Americans don't experience. Try reframing this fallacy in terms of say, women
and men, or gender minorities. It doesn't work.

~~~
waterhouse
Nor do qualia substitute for statistics, or for different qualia. Almost every
woman will have the experience of menstruation, yes, but, for example, how
many of them have been sexually harassed by a man? Some of them have _never_
had that experience, others have had it dozens of times. If you have a woman
in your group and you assume she knows what it's like for women in general,
you may be very wrong. Yet that assumption seems pretty common—I've seen a
decent number of accounts of people who belong to some group, complaining that
progressives assume they speak for everyone in that group. There's an example
upthread.

I'm not saying _everything_ can be gotten vicariously through research, but a
lot of things can be. And then the question becomes, which specific things do
you want, and what's the best way to get them? I think the diversity
discussion rarely gets that far—and if it did, strategies would end up very
different.

~~~
joshuamorton
> for example, how many of them have been sexually harassed by a man? Some of
> them have never had that experience, others have had it dozens of times.

How does knowing that 80% of women will be sexually harassed in their life
substitute for having had that experience? Speaking for myself, a man, I've
been sexually harassed before (not in the workplace), and it's absolutely not
an enjoyable experience, but my qualia, and the qualia a woman who is sexually
harassed has are still going to be different.

And yes not every woman has the same experience. That's obvious. But who is
more likely to have qualia that are more representative of woman's experience?
A man who studies women, or a random woman? There is indeed the place for
expertise (and similarly: data), but neither expertise nor diversity is a
substitute for the other.

> I'm not saying everything can be gotten vicariously through research

Qualia cannot be. If you entirely discount the value that qualia have, that
may not matter to you, but there are good reasons to believe that that's a bad
idea.

> I've seen a decent number of accounts of people who belong to some group,
> complaining that progressives assume they speak for everyone in that group

Indeed, but this isn't unique to progressives. It's just a problem that
minorities have to deal with. And that's absolutely not a good thing (and
awareness of this is good!). But again, it's not a progressive attribute (or
one caused by diversity initiatives) to assume that the "other", whatever
group it is, is cohesive in ways that the groups you are familiar with aren't.
(e.g. When a member of a minority group commits a crime, you have reactions
and narratives that minority crime is on the rise, or that this specific
minority are criminals etc.)

A great way to fix this, by the way, is to interact with various people who
are members of the other group, and see them disagree and debate. This can
only really happen if you have a diverse enough group that you have multiple
people of whatever minority to interact with. And this is good for everyone!
It broadens majority perspectives and reduces microaggressions.

> And then the question becomes, which specific things do you want, and what's
> the best way to get them? I think the diversity discussion rarely gets that
> far—and if it did, strategies would end up very different.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Whose goals'? The business? The
employees? The minority's? To explain why I'm dubious of the whole "data can
solve the problem", someone has to drive the research to gather the data. By
and large, if you want this to be done _reasonably_ , you need to have input
from the group under discussion. There's tons of hilarious-if-they-
weren't-horrible examples of this if you're willing to look. The ML community
is full of them (Gender Shades is perhaps the seminal example).

That is, with relatively few exceptions, for research to be done correctly, or
in many cases, to be done at all, you need someone who is like the people
being researched in important ways to be able to champion, contextualize and
guide the research. Without that, a culturally unaware researcher is, if
history is a guide, more likely than not to misconstrue cultural signals or
make harmful and long lasting mistakes.

------
humanrebar
I'm a little offput by diversity training that, to me at least, essentially
challenges folks on a spiritual and moral level. I think everyone should
challenge themselves spiritually and morally, but I think the power imbalances
inherent in work and academic training contexts make that kind of content
patronizing or even inappropriate. I could see it being counterproductive in
many cases.

It's probably true that employees, faculty, and some kinds of student
leadership should be aware of ethical and legal obligations when it comes to
diversity, though. So I think it would be hard to argue against _all_
categories of diversity content.

It's just many (most?) recent forms of anti-racism content crosses the line
from "meet these expectations about professional conduct" and into
"proactively improve yourself as a person". I don't think it's appropriate for
superiors to mandate the latter. A spiritual advisor, counselor, mentor, or
mental health professional? Absolutely.

To be fair, I do think it's appropriate for employees to face consequences of
their own racist behavior. Even, in many cases, when that behavior is
unintended.

~~~
itsdrewmiller
_It 's just many (most?) recent forms of anti-racism content crosses the line
from "meet these expectations about professional conduct" and into
"proactively improve yourself as a person". I don't think it's appropriate for
superiors to mandate the latter._

Can you give an example of what kind of content you think is common that is
crossing this line?

~~~
humanrebar
Content that advocates for a particular moral framework. For example that
outcomes matter more than intent. This is an area of philosophy that has been
under continual discussion for thousands of years.

In addition, curriculum that has participants take some sort of personal
inventory. Also having them go through some sort of confessional process.

Again, these are all healthy things to do. In the right context.

------
DoofusOfDeath
I wonder if corporate D&I initiatives would be more successful if they allowed
for genuine debate. When no debate or challenging of the initiative's
assumptions is allowed, I suspect that:

\- Intelligent employees become cynical, and assume a hidden agenda.

\- The opportunity to change the minds of employees with reasoned
doubts/objections to D&I claims is squandered. In fact, it raises (reasonable,
imho) suspicions that the D&I proponents know that some of their stated
positions are weak, and don't want them subjected to scrutiny.

\- Proponents of D&I may remain sheltered from valid counterpoints. So they
lose an opportunity to refine their positions based on productive discussion.

This is based on my experience working in corporate environments for a few
decades. And IME, the problem is definitely more pronounced at large companies
than small ones.

~~~
hooande
I would very much like to know for sure which of my co-workers are willing to
defend racist points of view

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
Apologies if I'm misunderstanding, but I think you're saying that you'd
condemn them for admitting to hold that viewpoint. I think many of us would as
well.

It seems to me a downside to that approach, though, is that we'd never learn
_why_ they had those views, and probably never get a chance to reason with
them about why they should believe otherwise.

Perhaps I'm too optimistic about the possibility of talking things out. It's
hard to tell.

~~~
hooande
I think the problem with your approach is that no sane person would publicly
defend racism. Because they would be outing themselves as a racist to all of
their co-workers.

I believe that I understand very well WHY people have racist points of view.
Racists are incredibly common and their motivations and beliefs aren't a
mystery. I'm not sure what you would hope to change by talking things out.

Prejudice is by definition irrational, because it involves pre-judging. You
can't really reason with someone about an irrational belief.

------
flippinburgers
I find these approaches to be borderline abusive. I understand the desire to
attempt to put people in another persons "shoes", but I find that this makes a
broad assumption that the minority members "shoes" are in the worst state.
That is, not being able to voice opinions while also being criticized is the
worst state. It is a terrible generalization. I would only feel comfortable
with this training if listening was the only requirement and reflecting and
sharing opinions was encouraged for all.

If you have seen some of the videos of the older white woman (whose name
escapes me) that used to give the blue eyed/brown eyed experiment her approach
strikes me as being abusive. I understand what she is attempting to teach, but
I deeply dislike her delivery. I feel that she is trying to scar (not scare,
scar) people into compliance.

~~~
throw_m239339
> I find these approaches to be borderline abusive.

They are not only abusive but based on a racist ideology, since these
"training" sessions are often racially segregated therefore imply that some
races are inherently racist. It builds up resentment and division, which is
exactly what corporations want, employees at odd with each others so they
won't question actual abusive management techniques designed by the higher
ups. This is cunning.

~~~
brippalcharrid
I read earlier this year that Whole Foods were calculating the risk of
unionisation across their stores and that they believed that this correlated
with factors within a store including lower levels of ethnic diversity.

[https://archive.is/zqIGa](https://archive.is/zqIGa)

Whether, with all other things taken into account, this remains a factor, and
whether there is causation, I don't know, but they did see fit to mention it
specifically as a "Store Risk".

~~~
raxxorrax
Much more realistic perspective. I don't think increased ethnic diversity must
play a role in inhibiting formation of unions, but it can be.

If I would need to implement a divide and conquer approach to any group, I
certainly would start with benefiting certain members above others. Conflict
is almost guaranteed this way. Oldest trick in the book.

Some diversity proponents try to mandate solidarity will indeed undermine
efforts for workers rights. That approach might even be more subtle.

------
lgleason
The problem with the mandatory diversity training is that it does very little
to win hearts and minds. Refuse to go, dare to say anything that isn't 100% in
support of it etc. and you will be targeted to be purged from the organization
and possibly publicly tarred and feathered.

Sure, some people, who tend to respond better to negative re-enforcement will
be convinced to change their ways using that technique. That said, an arguably
larger number of people will respond better to the carrot. Thus, they won't be
convinced via the negative re-enforcement, but do not want to lose their job,
be put on a secret whisper network "do not hire" list etc.. So, they pretend
to play along and then find groups of people where they can let their hair
down. It is not un-like the secret clubs that would break off from super
conservative church groups to do some drinking (which usually ended up as
binge drinking), speak easy's during prohibition, underground sex clubs etc..

Many of those groups experienced a litany of un-intended consequences from
rigid views about alcohol, sex etc.. Un-surprisingly, the same appears to be
happening with diversity efforts as well.

------
codezero
I've done a number of diversity & inclusion trainings and I'm always confused
by the opposition to them. Being more aware is generally useful.

As a hiring manager, it's been helpful for me to be thoughtful about asking
things like, "how did you get here, car, train?" \- as this implies
socioeconomic status, and if you reflect on why you asked that, what you
wanted to know about it, and how it affected your thinking in general, and
were honest, there's a chance it might have affected your opinion of the
person in a way that has nothing to do with their ability to do the job. This
opinion could be either good or bad, and isn't necessarily dependent on
whether the person you're interviewing is from a marginalized class.

I still have bias, everyone does, these trainings do not aim to eliminate
bias, they aim to inform people that it exists, and to offer them tools to be
thoughtful about those biases, and to challenge folks to question the biases
that potentially harm others, even if unintentionally.

~~~
humanrebar
Everyone struggles with being selfish. It's good to be aware of our own self-
interested impulses and work towards counteracting them. So why not have
mandatory training at work that teaches us that we're all selfish at some
level and that we need to address that character flaw?

~~~
StanislavPetrov
>Everyone struggles with being selfish.

Sorry but that's just a completely baseless assertion. Not everyone is
selfish, nor is it a struggle for everyone to not be selfish. Assuming that
others think as you think is what we call in poker, "first level thinking".
The same concept can be extended to those who obsess over "diversity" and
insist, "everyone is racist". Its flatly wrong, and frankly, idiotic to make
such an assertion. Saddling everyone with the insecurities and deficiencies
carried by a few is counterproductive and wrong.

Your employer has every right to be concerned with your behavior at work, and
take any sort of punitive or corrective measures that your misbehavior may
merit. Your employer should have no role making sweeping judgements about your
beliefs or personality traits that have not been manifested in the workplace,
much less mandating Soviet-style re-education which hinges on their baseless
(and flawed) assumptions about human nature.

~~~
humanrebar
You disagree with me but then you reiterate my rhetorical point.

~~~
StanislavPetrov
If you equate judging people on their actions rather than making sweeping
judgements about them to being selfish, then your problems extend far beyond
selfishness.

------
annexrichmond
> In wake of George Floyd’s murder

To be fair, murder has not been established. Journalists typically say "the
death of George Floyd"

