4 ms·

It is not helpful to change the definition of the word "inclusive". In the context of the workplace - not the church - inclusivity means ensuring all employees

It is not helpful to change the definition of the word "inclusive". In the context of the workplace - not the church - inclusivity means ensuring all employees have the opportunity to execute to the best of their capacity. In workplaces that are less inclusive, some groups may not be able to do so for various reasons. The OC named LGBTQ+ people as an example, which is fair, as at many workplaces discussion of family or inviting family to social functions is considered a norm and perhaps even a core value. If gay employees face harassment or (in some jurisdictions) termination for discussing their family, that is a failure of inclusion policies. Another example of inclusion is related to accessibility. Is your workplace welcoming of colleagues with disabilities? Can someone with limited mobility attend all corporate events? Are people with speech impediments given time to speak on meetings? This is outside of my personal wheelhouse but I hope the point is clear. There are many ways in which a workplace can improve its inclusivity, and they are all rooted in improving the performance of the employees.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
You bring up a series of fair points, of issues that absolutely need addressing when they occur. The point of my thought experiment is not to diminish these issues, but to point out why people may oppose bringing up those topics. Most reasonable people won't react negatively to issues of accessibility, or someone feeling uncomfortable because of their LGBTQ+ status in context of a mostly non-LGBTQ+ workplace; they'll often jump to accommodate their colleagues. But there's a bunch of people wielding these topics the way preachers from my example wield the Bible, and these are the people who are first in line to tell that you need to discuss politics at work (and everywhere, all the time). If one is sympathetic to their position, it may be hard to imagine why others oppose it - hence the example from the other side of social spectrum.
- alisonatwork 7y ago
  I don't think your thought experiment is pertinent to the discussion in this case. People who promote diversity and inclusion in the workplace are not trying to change the lifestyles of all employees, as your hypothetical preacher is doing. In the context of discussing "politics" at work, the point is to create a more inclusive workplace. Yes, that means people may have to attend uncomfortable trainings or learn to behave differently on the clock. But nobody is being asked to change their behavior outside of work. It may be true that some people in some companies are overzealous in their enforcement of inclusivity policies. It may be that the way they are trying to implement those policies has an adverse effect on some other groups in the company. But that is an issue of execution that can be taken up with the people responsible for the initiative. At larger companies, these sorts of programs will be run by professionals who have studied these topics extensively, and who have goals and metrics just like any other employee. If their programs fail to produce the results leadership is looking for, presumably the approach will change.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > People who promote diversity and inclusion in the workplace are not trying to change the lifestyles of all employees, as your hypothetical preacher is doing. Oh, but they are. Don't do "not all SJWs" argument ;). Seriously though, this is a bit motte-and-bailey-ish. Sure, diversity and inclusion in the workplace are desirable, but the meaning of those terms is quite different from the one that's being actively promoted (until challenged, when the promoters revert back to pointing out the desirable characteristics; hence the motte-and-bailey). > Yes, that means people may have to attend uncomfortable trainings or learn to behave differently on the clock. Yeah, and this is where it often starts to feel like indoctrination. You have the trainings telling you what to do, and HR playing the role of commissars, ensuring you comply. Things like [0] don't happen when it's the level-headed people who are promoting diversity. > It may be true that some people in some companies are overzealous in their enforcement of inclusivity policies. It may be that the way they are trying to implement those policies has an adverse effect on some other groups in the company. But that is an issue of execution that can be taken up with the people responsible for the initiative. There's a very real and documented risk that trying to do that will result in the termination of the person doing the taking up, perhaps loud enough to attract a headline. -- My point with the religious example is to try and make you change perspective, to look at things from the POV of people who oppose discussion of diversity/inclusion politics at work. I'm not it's a perfectly rational position. Feelings are involved. But it is a position that has reasons behind it, and I try to shine the light on those reasons. Do the thought experiment. Look at your social feed, and mentally replace every minority issue with a theocratic issue. Look at the co-worker zealously fighting for social justice and imagine they have a Bible in their hand instead of the rainbow in their lap. This is how it feels to be a person for whom diversity, while still desirable, isn't the most important issue in their lives. People who say they want to keep politics out of work aren't enemies. They're often sympathetic to your cause, and at the very least willing to accommodate your personal idiosyncrasies. They just know that once you start encouraging such discussions at work, some preacher will always come out of the come out of the woodwork and turn the workplace into a battleground between two rabid minorities fighting it out and trying to desperately recruit people from the indifferent majority to join the cause. None of this is conductive to work, happiness or civilization. What I'm trying to do with the preacher example is to point out that just because you care about some issue deeply, doesn't mean others do, and you'll get much better headway with them if you respect the fact they have different priorities, and don't want to join wars they don't believe in. It's just as true in case of religion as it is in case of diversity. -- [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21276507 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21276507

TeMPOraL 7y ago

You bring up a series of fair points, of issues that absolutely need addressing when they occur. The point of my thought experiment is not to diminish these issues, but to point out why people may oppose bringing up those topics. Most reasonable people won't react negatively to issues of accessibility, or someone feeling uncomfortable because of their LGBTQ+ status in context of a mostly non-LGBTQ+ workplace; they'll often jump to accommodate their colleagues. But there's a bunch of people wielding these topics the way preachers from my example wield the Bible, and these are the people who are first in line to tell that you need to discuss politics at work (and everywhere, all the time). If one is sympathetic to their position, it may be hard to imagine why others oppose it - hence the example from the other side of social spectrum.

alisonatwork 7y ago
I don't think your thought experiment is pertinent to the discussion in this case. People who promote diversity and inclusion in the workplace are not trying to change the lifestyles of all employees, as your hypothetical preacher is doing. In the context of discussing "politics" at work, the point is to create a more inclusive workplace. Yes, that means people may have to attend uncomfortable trainings or learn to behave differently on the clock. But nobody is being asked to change their behavior outside of work. It may be true that some people in some companies are overzealous in their enforcement of inclusivity policies. It may be that the way they are trying to implement those policies has an adverse effect on some other groups in the company. But that is an issue of execution that can be taken up with the people responsible for the initiative. At larger companies, these sorts of programs will be run by professionals who have studied these topics extensively, and who have goals and metrics just like any other employee. If their programs fail to produce the results leadership is looking for, presumably the approach will change.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > People who promote diversity and inclusion in the workplace are not trying to change the lifestyles of all employees, as your hypothetical preacher is doing. Oh, but they are. Don't do "not all SJWs" argument ;). Seriously though, this is a bit motte-and-bailey-ish. Sure, diversity and inclusion in the workplace are desirable, but the meaning of those terms is quite different from the one that's being actively promoted (until challenged, when the promoters revert back to pointing out the desirable characteristics; hence the motte-and-bailey). > Yes, that means people may have to attend uncomfortable trainings or learn to behave differently on the clock. Yeah, and this is where it often starts to feel like indoctrination. You have the trainings telling you what to do, and HR playing the role of commissars, ensuring you comply. Things like [0] don't happen when it's the level-headed people who are promoting diversity. > It may be true that some people in some companies are overzealous in their enforcement of inclusivity policies. It may be that the way they are trying to implement those policies has an adverse effect on some other groups in the company. But that is an issue of execution that can be taken up with the people responsible for the initiative. There's a very real and documented risk that trying to do that will result in the termination of the person doing the taking up, perhaps loud enough to attract a headline. -- My point with the religious example is to try and make you change perspective, to look at things from the POV of people who oppose discussion of diversity/inclusion politics at work. I'm not it's a perfectly rational position. Feelings are involved. But it is a position that has reasons behind it, and I try to shine the light on those reasons. Do the thought experiment. Look at your social feed, and mentally replace every minority issue with a theocratic issue. Look at the co-worker zealously fighting for social justice and imagine they have a Bible in their hand instead of the rainbow in their lap. This is how it feels to be a person for whom diversity, while still desirable, isn't the most important issue in their lives. People who say they want to keep politics out of work aren't enemies. They're often sympathetic to your cause, and at the very least willing to accommodate your personal idiosyncrasies. They just know that once you start encouraging such discussions at work, some preacher will always come out of the come out of the woodwork and turn the workplace into a battleground between two rabid minorities fighting it out and trying to desperately recruit people from the indifferent majority to join the cause. None of this is conductive to work, happiness or civilization. What I'm trying to do with the preacher example is to point out that just because you care about some issue deeply, doesn't mean others do, and you'll get much better headway with them if you respect the fact they have different priorities, and don't want to join wars they don't believe in. It's just as true in case of religion as it is in case of diversity. -- [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21276507 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21276507