34 ms·

I know those diversity sessions... They claim everyone who is white or passing as white is racist. I had to "confess" that i'm racist and promise to do better o

I know those diversity sessions... They claim everyone who is white or passing as white is racist. I had to "confess" that i'm racist and promise to do better or it would have consequences for my career. Sidenote: I volunteer at a refugee center and took in a syrian family. Literally hitler, i know. A colleague got fired because he wouldn't confess and left the session. So even if that Dean said he is a racist, he's probably not unless you warp the definition of racism.

zozbot234 6y ago
Is there any real proof that these diversity sessions actually help people work in diverse environments? The way you describe this, it reads like a really, really weird cargo cult where just confessing to one's supposed racism will somehow make you more open to people of differing backgrounds. How exactly does this help?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- _iyig 6y ago
  In the manner of all business consulting, it 'helps' by letting management say, "Look, we hired a consultant! We care deeply about ____ and have given it our best shot. If any problems related to ____ arise in the future, blame the consultant." In this case, the blank is diversity and inclusion.
- michaelt 6y ago
  Demanding people declare they are racists sounds very strange to me - I'm not sure that would help things much. But I've also seen some people do some pretty oblivious things in my time - like ordering company tee-shirts for their mixed-gender team, but only getting male sizes. Or evaluating every interview candidate's communication skills and cultural fit based on a conversation about rock climbing and craft beer. And other stuff managers might need to get good at aren't taught at home or in college. If you get performance complaints about an otherwise-good employee who is fasting during Ramadan, what's the right way to address that while respecting privacy and being fair to the complainant, complainee and the company? I can understand why an employer might want their employees to have a bit of extra training, above and beyond what college and life experience have already taught them. At least for the employees destined for promotion to senior positions.
  - JamesBarney 6y ago
    While I'm sure there are complicated issues around race and gender that training can give you the tools to solve these examples seems pretty easy to fix. > Or evaluating every interview candidate's communication skills and cultural fit based on a conversation about rock climbing and craft beer. I feel like any cultural fit test is going to be inherently sexist/racist/classist. Better to just throw them out. Also why waste time talking about anything not relevant to the job to judge communication skills when you could be having job related discussions. > If you get performance complaints about an otherwise-good employee who is fasting during Ramadan, what's the right way to address that while respecting privacy and being fair to the complainant, complainee and the company? Is the complaint this person isn't doing their job? Then it should be treated like every other complaint. Is the complaint is "They aren't eating lunch" then it should be treated very differently.
    - michaelt 6y ago
      > Is the complaint this person isn't doing their job? Then it should be treated like every other complaint. Sure, but how is that? Different performance problems call for different solutions. Do you treat it like the newly hired dyslexic person? Like the person who's going through a difficult divorce? Like the person who likes to party and sometimes comes in tired or hung over? Like the person with gaps in their education and training? Like the parent who sometimes gets called for child-related emergencies? Like the person who disagrees with the policies, but can be convinced with better explanation? Like the person who finds the work too boring to be able to concentrate on? Like the person who doesn't like the job, but hasn't found another yet? A competent manager will have half a dozen different tools in their toolbox - and it takes some forethought to be able to reach for the correct one first time on receipt of a complaint.
      - JamesBarney 6y ago
        Like any other performance issue limited to a month each year. If it's mild and they're otherwise a great employee probably just ignore it. If it's large drop in performance that is having a material impact on the team, document the performance impact, take any steps necessary to mitigate the impact of the drop in performance and ask if there is anything you can do to help them improve their performance.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Is there any real proof that these diversity sessions actually help people work in diverse environments? I'd say no for the most part. It's mostly hypocrisy and everyone knows is theater, which creates boredom at best, and bad blood at worst. Diversity is built organically, not through sessions. It's like those bogus "we're a big family" pep sessions -- and then the company screws you over.
- username90 6y ago
  No. But the goal isn't for it to work, the goal of the advocates is to bill a lot of money and the goal of the company is to virtue signal. https://hbr.org/2012/03/diversity-training-doesnt-work https://hbr.org/2012/03/diversity-training-doesnt-work
  - monoideism 6y ago
    > he goal of the advocates is to bill a lot of money and the goal of the company is to virtue signal. You miss the biggest goal: for departments of diversity, inclusion, etc to gain more power and hires.
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      My observation at past employers has been that D&I teams are consistently under-staffed and overwhelmed.
    - remarkEon 6y ago
      I've long wondered if this is the reason large, established companies (tech or non-tech) pour money into these seminars. It acts as a barrier to entry for smaller competitors who don't have giant piles of cash to spend on things like this, but now they have to because, well, they don't want to be the "racist startup".
      - beaconstudios 6y ago
        My understanding is that it's to placate activist employees (or, if management are activists, to play out their beliefs).
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- cmdshiftf4 6y ago
  >Is there any real proof that these diversity sessions actually help people work in diverse environments? I read a study a while back, which I can't find right now, that concluded that these sessions do more harm than good in the workplace. One study I could find, which might be of relevant interest, is that diverse workplaces are far less likely to come together and organize in terms of unions or worker rights[0], which might go some way to back up the suspicion this whole shitshow we've been submerged into is merely a big-money attempt to turn normal people against one another by provoking racial tensions to prevent them from becoming class conscious and instigating a movement like Occupy Wall Street again. >How exactly does this help? It doesn't. The entire purpose of it is ritual humiliation. [0]https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0019793915602253 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0019793915602253
- snowwrestler 6y ago
  Not yet, but these are still pretty new to corporate environments. I've been in "harassment prevention" training sessions for years, but only within the last year sat through my first "diversity, equity, and inclusion" (DEI) training. (It was not an inquisition; quite helpful in the opinion of this middle aged white guy.) There is research that shows that companies with diverse leadership and staff financially outperform the average. See for example: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-wins-how-inclusion-matters# https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inc... The problem is, no one knows for sure how to take an existing corporate culture with low diversity, and transform it to one with higher diversity and higher performance. Cultures can be extremely resistant to change. DEI trainings are just the latest attempt to find something that works. It will take a few years to see if they do.
  - Udik 6y ago
    > There is research that shows that companies with diverse leadership and staff financially outperform the average Ah, that looks like a nice bit of marketing from McKinsey. Huge companies that work on global markets with clearly recognizable brands are naturally more diverse (sourcing people from all over the world) and also care about their public image enough to increase their diversity in management positions. Of course this doesn't mean at all that by increasing diversity your performance will improve, the causal arrow goes in the opposite direction.
  - JamesBarney 6y ago
    I'm super suspicious of research like that for a couple of reasons. One it would it be impossible to publish research that came to the opposite conclusion. Imagine seeing a headline that said "replacing female and black executive leadership with old white dudes increases profit" by McKinsey. Second the magnitude of the impact seems insane. This seems larger than the difference most studies find between good leadership and average leadership. And while I wouldn't be surprised if diverse leadership is marginally better than non-diverse leadership I would be surprised if it's larger than the difference between average and good. Three they're pulling from many different countries which could potentially create huge confounds. In general "research" that comes out of a place like McKinsey and Bane is pretty suspect but something like this is even more. Even if none of the other problems are real they still don't establish causation. It could easily be the case that diverse candidates are harder to find, so more competitive/better firms are able to better attract them. I think diversity is great and there are lots of great reasons to increase it but I doubt the impact on profitability would be anything beyond marginal.
- C1sc0cat 6y ago
  Yes I suspect some one suggesting to HR that one of the ways to increase diversity and combat institutionalised racism would to be a transparent pay survey might be in trouble.
- ljm 6y ago
  It sounds like someone took Alcoholics Anonymous, kept the bit where you admit you're an alcoholic, and then dropped the rest of it. Not that having the rest of it would be any better, but the whole thing sounds utterly regressive.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  They do sometimes cause Googlers to out themselves as a hostile work environment hazard and get fired. So, benefit there. ;)
- DontTellAnyone 6y ago
  The goal isn't really to "help people work in diverse environments". That's just a euphemism. What it really is, is a power grab to push white men out and people of color and ironically also white women in (who can always fall back on their gender to acclaim victim status and oppression).
DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
> So even if that Dean said he is a racist, he's probably not unless you warp the definition of racism. Please elaborate on what you mean by "warp the definition of racism".
- cabraca 6y ago
  > Please elaborate on what you mean by "warp the definition of racism" changing the definition of racism so a specific targetgroup is included. For example instead of "discriminate minority groups" they say "disadvantage minority groups" and then include things like those entrence exams as a disadvantage. In the end everything is somehow racist.
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    > For example instead of "discriminate minority groups" they say "disadvantage minority groups" But to intentionally disadvantage a minority group is to discriminate against that minority group. Are you suggesting that intentionally disadvantaging a group is not discriminating against that group? Or are you suggesting that unintentionally disadvantaging a group is not only not discriminating against that group, but that also it is is also excusable and needs no correction? i.e. that the consistent, albeit unintentional, disadvantaging shall continue? --- With respect to entrance examinations specifically - while I have zero experience of context with the situation today, I fully appreciate how entrance examinations can be intentionally and unintentionally exclusionary - and yet still be seen as innocuous. A good example is in the (historical) [entrance exams for the UK's Grammar School systems which are sat at age 11[(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleven-plus#Controversy); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleven-plus#Controversy); while the grammar-school system was ostensibly universal and open to all, the entrance exams with questions predicated on a familiarity with middle-class culture naturally disadvantaged working-class students.
    - cabraca 6y ago
      > But to intentionally disadvantage a minority group is to discriminate against that minority group. I would argue that depends on the intent. Do i put them in a disadvantage because they are part of that group or because a large part of that group wouldn't fit the requirements i have. Lets say i'm looking for someone doing voiceover. Someone without an accent. That would probably put a lot of non-native english speaker in a disadvantage. Would you argue, that i'm discriminating against them or have racist intentions? In this diversity session they would then argue my knowledge that non-native english speaker are put in a disadvantage by this requirement was the reason to put it in and therefor i'm racist.
bonoboTP 6y ago
Even worse. If these high ranking people are so afraid for their careers that they will say these things even if they don't believe them then the few people who do believe it are indeed quite powerful.
- username90 6y ago
  Yet they still don't see themselves as the establishment.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  Not necessarily. Preference falsification is a thing; it's quite possible for a organization to enforce compliance with a principle which no individual member of the organization sincerely holds. In cases of large scale preference falsification, everybody lies to fit in with everybody else, who are also lying for the same reason. Such scenarios may be susceptible to preference cascades though, when people realize that they're actually in good company and suddenly feel free to act and say as they truly wish. When that happens, change is rapid. The personal guards of a hated dictator may switch sides overnight and execute the leader they would have killed others for the day before.
speeder 6y ago
This is basically a Chinese struggle session.
- at_a_remove 6y ago
  I think the official term was "Maoist struggle session."
- eli_gottlieb 6y ago
  lol the Chinese eventually pushed back against Maoism.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  I didn't realize it was Chinese, that makes it much worse.
- robocat 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session
charlchi 6y ago
> I had to "confess" that i'm racist and promise to do better or it would have consequences for my career. Sidenote: I volunteer at a refugee center and took in a syrian family. It's almost like making generalisations about people's actions only by their skin colour or ethnic background is somehow wrong. Weird to think that basically anyone studying social science or humanities is being taught this stuff and that it is at this point basically accepted as fact.
pvaldes 6y ago
> I had to "confess" that I'm racist and promise to do better or it would have consequences for my career. So, basically inquisitor wannabees and pseudoscience cultists. Your colleague dodged a bullet. The idea that claiming that you are racist makes you not racist is totally gaga, random, and based in magical thinking, not in science. It only helps to hide in plain sight the real racists making much easier to admit it for everybody.
- inanutshellus 6y ago
  He signed the document to stay at the institution. I wouldn't call it "dodging a bullet" I'd call it "securing his own yoke".
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    God forbid large firms employing people from diverse backgrounds require employees to take training on how to work with people from diverse backgrounds.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      Are you suggesting it's required to "confess that you're a racist" in a Mao-style struggle session to work with people from diverse backgrounds?
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        I'm definitely not. I also hold such descriptions of these trainings in high skepticism, because I've been through a similar training and had a coworker describe it as such when all the training was doing was surfacing the scientific evidence suggesting unconscious bias is a real phenomenon that people aren't aware of. The fact my colleague took it so personally says more about them, I think, than the training.
        luckylion 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Pelic4n 6y ago
This is terrifying, almost cult-like. The fact that this is what "fighting racism" looks like when forced hysterectomies are performed on undocumented immigrants in concentration camps show that it's not really about racism for the people that are doing this.
- globular-toast 6y ago
  They are just conformists. PG wrote an excellent piece about conformism here: http://paulgraham.com/conformism.html http://paulgraham.com/conformism.html True progressives are out there fighting current battles. Corruption, bribery, current-day slavery etc. Conformists are out there marching about battles already won like gay rights, slavery in the United States etc.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    Gay rights is hardly a settled issue. If it were, the GOP wouldn't have adopted reversal of the Obergefell v. Hodges precedent as a party platform plank in 2016. https://news.yahoo.com/richard-grenell-addresses-rnc-gop-220709699.html https://news.yahoo.com/richard-grenell-addresses-rnc-gop-220...
    - globular-toast 6y ago
      The US isn't the world.
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        Obviously, but calling gay rights a "battle already won" when the third largest country in the world by population still has one of its two major political parties fighting tooth-and-claw on the issue seems premature.
        wil421 6y ago
        What do the 2 largest countries by population do?
pornel 6y ago
I've been in such trainings, and I've seen lots of people get offended at hearing "you benefit from racism" as if it meant "you're racist". Racists in positions of power may tilt the playing field in your favor whether you've asked for it or not. And it may not even be you personally, but people in your neighborhood, your social groups in general.
- barrkel 6y ago
  Jumping from generalizations about groups to specifics of individuals is inherently unjust - as is the inverse, generalizing about a group from a few individuals. Generalization from systematic group aggregation is useful for exposing systemic biases, but action should be specific to the circumstances of individuals independent of group membership or the risk of injustice is very high. Unsafe generalization is at the root of prejudice. Racists / sexists / bigots generalize from the worst instances of individual behaviour to a group, or aggregate statistics about a group, and then apply the generalization in specific individual scenarios. A crude example, taking the generalization "Jews run global finance" - and it's true that they have been historically over-represented - and then applying the generalization to specifics: "you're a Jew, I don't like Jews because they run the world". A good rule to bear in mind before leaping to prejudice is that the variance within groups is larger than the variance between groups. White privilege is a prejudice concept built along the same architecture as racism and sexism. It takes aggregate group attributes and tries to enforce it in the particular against individuals. You've just rehearsed the line yourself - "you benefit from racism" - you've given an example of instantiation of a group attribute upon an individual without evidence. It is literally prejudice, and it's unjust, even if it's more likely to be true than false.
  - valboa 6y ago
    Identity politics and group thinking are the cancer of society. Everyone can be oppressed, everyone can be an opresor. Just give them a reason.
    - curation 6y ago
      Identity politics and group thinking squished together loses a dangerous amount of nuance. Identity poltics is how self-identified liberals assert their form of universal subjectivity by splitting the working class racially (read Wilderson, Hartman, Moten and afropessimistic thought and of course Lacan). While Groupthink is naively but generally defined as: " a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome". The distinction thus becomes clear. Identity politics is born of the desire to divide the working classes using the disharmony of racialization causing irrational decision making, while Groupthink has the same ending but with explicitly the opposite desire.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Miner49er 6y ago
Well that's the thing. These diversity training people do use a different definition of racism then what you are thinking of. The diversity training definition of racism doesn't simply mean prejudiced, it means a part of a system of power that benefits people considered "white" at the expense of others. By that definition, most white people are probably "racist". If you understand the context used when they call themselves "racist", it's really not that big of a deal. It's basically just them saying, "I'm white, and I recognize that society treats me a little bit better cause of that". I will say, I think it's strange they are asking them to admit to being racist, and "be better". It's a systemic thing, so it requires systemic change. Asking them to say they are racist and that they need to be better seems unneededly divisive. Edit: As others have pointed out, the last sentence is kind of wrong. The paraphrase should probably say, "I recognize I'm a part of a system or systems that uphold racism". Look at the ADL's definition for racism to see what I mean: https://www.adl.org/racism https://www.adl.org/racism By their definition, you are racist if you help uphold any of the "systems, institutions, or factors that advantage white people and for people of color, cause widespread harm and disadvantages in access and opportunity."
- Swizec 6y ago
  > The diversity training definition of racism doesn't simply mean prejudiced, it means a part of a system of power that benefits people considered "white" at the expense of others But then everyone is racist. Including black people. Everyone is part of this society that has systemic features tht benefit whites. So if everyone is racist, what’s the point of labeling?
  - Miner49er 6y ago
    I wouldn't say everyone is racist, by that definition. If you want to and are working to change or get rid of these systems, then you are not racist.
    - Swizec 6y ago
      I think it’s more complicated than that based on some of the diversity books I’ve read. For example I wasn’t even “white” until I moved to USA a few years ago. Took me 6+ years to even grok how “white” works and what it means but I’m told I was racist all along. And yeah sure I want the system to change, but honestly I have enough work with being an immigrant without inherent rights. Hell I’m technically a visitor so I don’t even have immigration rights yet. This is not my fight to fight ... but folks say that makes me racist and privileged and how dare I. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
idea_heroin 6y ago
All white people are racist. Y’all are demons. Here’s my paypal, now give me some money. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5keqoXCIrq0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5keqoXCIrq0
mainstreem 6y ago
It's simple, we just have to fully embrace that all White people are Racist due to the history of oppression of PoCs in the West by Whites. Then you will understand that it is Whites who are Racist. Then you must swear your fealty to being Anti-Racist. Not just Non-Racist, that's not enough, you must fight to eliminate Racists from positions of power and eventually from society. Anti-Racism. Fight to eliminate Racist Whites from power. Fight to eliminate Whites from power. Fight to eliminate Whites.
seneca 6y ago
They are called Struggle Sessions[0]. > Struggle sessions were a form of public humiliation and torture used by the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) at various times in the Mao era, particularly during the years immediately before and after the establishment of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and during the Cultural Revolution. The aim of struggle sessions was to shape public opinion, as well as to humiliate, persecute, or execute political rivals and those deemed class enemies. > In general, the victim of a struggle session was forced to admit various crimes before a crowd of people who would verbally and physically abuse the victim until they confessed. Struggle sessions were often held at the workplace of the accused, but they were sometimes conducted in sports stadiums where large crowds would gather if the target was well-known. 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session Sorry for the Wikipedia reference.
arkh 6y ago
> I had to "confess" that i'm racist Good old Struggle sessions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session
lliamander 6y ago
If you have the opportunity, please find a way to be a whistle-blower. IANAL, but this seems like a textbook "hostile work environment" and there are lawyers out there who are definitely interested in fighting this nonsense. Your sympathetic back story would definitely help. There's also push back at the federal level against this, and public awareness is growing.

zozbot234 6y ago

Is there any real proof that these diversity sessions actually help people work in diverse environments? The way you describe this, it reads like a really, really weird cargo cult where just confessing to one's supposed racism will somehow make you more open to people of differing backgrounds. How exactly does this help?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
_iyig 6y ago
In the manner of all business consulting, it 'helps' by letting management say, "Look, we hired a consultant! We care deeply about ____ and have given it our best shot. If any problems related to ____ arise in the future, blame the consultant." In this case, the blank is diversity and inclusion.
michaelt 6y ago
Demanding people declare they are racists sounds very strange to me - I'm not sure that would help things much. But I've also seen some people do some pretty oblivious things in my time - like ordering company tee-shirts for their mixed-gender team, but only getting male sizes. Or evaluating every interview candidate's communication skills and cultural fit based on a conversation about rock climbing and craft beer. And other stuff managers might need to get good at aren't taught at home or in college. If you get performance complaints about an otherwise-good employee who is fasting during Ramadan, what's the right way to address that while respecting privacy and being fair to the complainant, complainee and the company? I can understand why an employer might want their employees to have a bit of extra training, above and beyond what college and life experience have already taught them. At least for the employees destined for promotion to senior positions.
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  While I'm sure there are complicated issues around race and gender that training can give you the tools to solve these examples seems pretty easy to fix. > Or evaluating every interview candidate's communication skills and cultural fit based on a conversation about rock climbing and craft beer. I feel like any cultural fit test is going to be inherently sexist/racist/classist. Better to just throw them out. Also why waste time talking about anything not relevant to the job to judge communication skills when you could be having job related discussions. > If you get performance complaints about an otherwise-good employee who is fasting during Ramadan, what's the right way to address that while respecting privacy and being fair to the complainant, complainee and the company? Is the complaint this person isn't doing their job? Then it should be treated like every other complaint. Is the complaint is "They aren't eating lunch" then it should be treated very differently.
  - michaelt 6y ago
    > Is the complaint this person isn't doing their job? Then it should be treated like every other complaint. Sure, but how is that? Different performance problems call for different solutions. Do you treat it like the newly hired dyslexic person? Like the person who's going through a difficult divorce? Like the person who likes to party and sometimes comes in tired or hung over? Like the person with gaps in their education and training? Like the parent who sometimes gets called for child-related emergencies? Like the person who disagrees with the policies, but can be convinced with better explanation? Like the person who finds the work too boring to be able to concentrate on? Like the person who doesn't like the job, but hasn't found another yet? A competent manager will have half a dozen different tools in their toolbox - and it takes some forethought to be able to reach for the correct one first time on receipt of a complaint.
    - JamesBarney 6y ago
      Like any other performance issue limited to a month each year. If it's mild and they're otherwise a great employee probably just ignore it. If it's large drop in performance that is having a material impact on the team, document the performance impact, take any steps necessary to mitigate the impact of the drop in performance and ask if there is anything you can do to help them improve their performance.
coldtea 6y ago
>Is there any real proof that these diversity sessions actually help people work in diverse environments? I'd say no for the most part. It's mostly hypocrisy and everyone knows is theater, which creates boredom at best, and bad blood at worst. Diversity is built organically, not through sessions. It's like those bogus "we're a big family" pep sessions -- and then the company screws you over.
username90 6y ago
No. But the goal isn't for it to work, the goal of the advocates is to bill a lot of money and the goal of the company is to virtue signal. https://hbr.org/2012/03/diversity-training-doesnt-work https://hbr.org/2012/03/diversity-training-doesnt-work
- monoideism 6y ago
  > he goal of the advocates is to bill a lot of money and the goal of the company is to virtue signal. You miss the biggest goal: for departments of diversity, inclusion, etc to gain more power and hires.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    My observation at past employers has been that D&I teams are consistently under-staffed and overwhelmed.
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    I've long wondered if this is the reason large, established companies (tech or non-tech) pour money into these seminars. It acts as a barrier to entry for smaller competitors who don't have giant piles of cash to spend on things like this, but now they have to because, well, they don't want to be the "racist startup".
    - beaconstudios 6y ago
      My understanding is that it's to placate activist employees (or, if management are activists, to play out their beliefs).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
cmdshiftf4 6y ago
>Is there any real proof that these diversity sessions actually help people work in diverse environments? I read a study a while back, which I can't find right now, that concluded that these sessions do more harm than good in the workplace. One study I could find, which might be of relevant interest, is that diverse workplaces are far less likely to come together and organize in terms of unions or worker rights[0], which might go some way to back up the suspicion this whole shitshow we've been submerged into is merely a big-money attempt to turn normal people against one another by provoking racial tensions to prevent them from becoming class conscious and instigating a movement like Occupy Wall Street again. >How exactly does this help? It doesn't. The entire purpose of it is ritual humiliation. [0]https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0019793915602253 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0019793915602253
snowwrestler 6y ago
Not yet, but these are still pretty new to corporate environments. I've been in "harassment prevention" training sessions for years, but only within the last year sat through my first "diversity, equity, and inclusion" (DEI) training. (It was not an inquisition; quite helpful in the opinion of this middle aged white guy.) There is research that shows that companies with diverse leadership and staff financially outperform the average. See for example: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-wins-how-inclusion-matters# https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inc... The problem is, no one knows for sure how to take an existing corporate culture with low diversity, and transform it to one with higher diversity and higher performance. Cultures can be extremely resistant to change. DEI trainings are just the latest attempt to find something that works. It will take a few years to see if they do.
- Udik 6y ago
  > There is research that shows that companies with diverse leadership and staff financially outperform the average Ah, that looks like a nice bit of marketing from McKinsey. Huge companies that work on global markets with clearly recognizable brands are naturally more diverse (sourcing people from all over the world) and also care about their public image enough to increase their diversity in management positions. Of course this doesn't mean at all that by increasing diversity your performance will improve, the causal arrow goes in the opposite direction.
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  I'm super suspicious of research like that for a couple of reasons. One it would it be impossible to publish research that came to the opposite conclusion. Imagine seeing a headline that said "replacing female and black executive leadership with old white dudes increases profit" by McKinsey. Second the magnitude of the impact seems insane. This seems larger than the difference most studies find between good leadership and average leadership. And while I wouldn't be surprised if diverse leadership is marginally better than non-diverse leadership I would be surprised if it's larger than the difference between average and good. Three they're pulling from many different countries which could potentially create huge confounds. In general "research" that comes out of a place like McKinsey and Bane is pretty suspect but something like this is even more. Even if none of the other problems are real they still don't establish causation. It could easily be the case that diverse candidates are harder to find, so more competitive/better firms are able to better attract them. I think diversity is great and there are lots of great reasons to increase it but I doubt the impact on profitability would be anything beyond marginal.
C1sc0cat 6y ago
Yes I suspect some one suggesting to HR that one of the ways to increase diversity and combat institutionalised racism would to be a transparent pay survey might be in trouble.
ljm 6y ago
It sounds like someone took Alcoholics Anonymous, kept the bit where you admit you're an alcoholic, and then dropped the rest of it. Not that having the rest of it would be any better, but the whole thing sounds utterly regressive.
shadowgovt 6y ago
They do sometimes cause Googlers to out themselves as a hostile work environment hazard and get fired. So, benefit there. ;)
DontTellAnyone 6y ago
The goal isn't really to "help people work in diverse environments". That's just a euphemism. What it really is, is a power grab to push white men out and people of color and ironically also white women in (who can always fall back on their gender to acclaim victim status and oppression).

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago

> So even if that Dean said he is a racist, he's probably not unless you warp the definition of racism. Please elaborate on what you mean by "warp the definition of racism".

cabraca 6y ago
> Please elaborate on what you mean by "warp the definition of racism" changing the definition of racism so a specific targetgroup is included. For example instead of "discriminate minority groups" they say "disadvantage minority groups" and then include things like those entrence exams as a disadvantage. In the end everything is somehow racist.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  > For example instead of "discriminate minority groups" they say "disadvantage minority groups" But to intentionally disadvantage a minority group is to discriminate against that minority group. Are you suggesting that intentionally disadvantaging a group is not discriminating against that group? Or are you suggesting that unintentionally disadvantaging a group is not only not discriminating against that group, but that also it is is also excusable and needs no correction? i.e. that the consistent, albeit unintentional, disadvantaging shall continue? --- With respect to entrance examinations specifically - while I have zero experience of context with the situation today, I fully appreciate how entrance examinations can be intentionally and unintentionally exclusionary - and yet still be seen as innocuous. A good example is in the (historical) [entrance exams for the UK's Grammar School systems which are sat at age 11[(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleven-plus#Controversy); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleven-plus#Controversy); while the grammar-school system was ostensibly universal and open to all, the entrance exams with questions predicated on a familiarity with middle-class culture naturally disadvantaged working-class students.
  - cabraca 6y ago
    > But to intentionally disadvantage a minority group is to discriminate against that minority group. I would argue that depends on the intent. Do i put them in a disadvantage because they are part of that group or because a large part of that group wouldn't fit the requirements i have. Lets say i'm looking for someone doing voiceover. Someone without an accent. That would probably put a lot of non-native english speaker in a disadvantage. Would you argue, that i'm discriminating against them or have racist intentions? In this diversity session they would then argue my knowledge that non-native english speaker are put in a disadvantage by this requirement was the reason to put it in and therefor i'm racist.

bonoboTP 6y ago

Even worse. If these high ranking people are so afraid for their careers that they will say these things even if they don't believe them then the few people who do believe it are indeed quite powerful.

username90 6y ago
Yet they still don't see themselves as the establishment.
bigbubba 6y ago
Not necessarily. Preference falsification is a thing; it's quite possible for a organization to enforce compliance with a principle which no individual member of the organization sincerely holds. In cases of large scale preference falsification, everybody lies to fit in with everybody else, who are also lying for the same reason. Such scenarios may be susceptible to preference cascades though, when people realize that they're actually in good company and suddenly feel free to act and say as they truly wish. When that happens, change is rapid. The personal guards of a hated dictator may switch sides overnight and execute the leader they would have killed others for the day before.

speeder 6y ago

This is basically a Chinese struggle session.

at_a_remove 6y ago
I think the official term was "Maoist struggle session."
eli_gottlieb 6y ago
lol the Chinese eventually pushed back against Maoism.
pessimizer 6y ago
I didn't realize it was Chinese, that makes it much worse.
robocat 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session

charlchi 6y ago

> I had to "confess" that i'm racist and promise to do better or it would have consequences for my career. Sidenote: I volunteer at a refugee center and took in a syrian family. It's almost like making generalisations about people's actions only by their skin colour or ethnic background is somehow wrong. Weird to think that basically anyone studying social science or humanities is being taught this stuff and that it is at this point basically accepted as fact.

pvaldes 6y ago

> I had to "confess" that I'm racist and promise to do better or it would have consequences for my career. So, basically inquisitor wannabees and pseudoscience cultists. Your colleague dodged a bullet. The idea that claiming that you are racist makes you not racist is totally gaga, random, and based in magical thinking, not in science. It only helps to hide in plain sight the real racists making much easier to admit it for everybody.

inanutshellus 6y ago
He signed the document to stay at the institution. I wouldn't call it "dodging a bullet" I'd call it "securing his own yoke".
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  God forbid large firms employing people from diverse backgrounds require employees to take training on how to work with people from diverse backgrounds.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    Are you suggesting it's required to "confess that you're a racist" in a Mao-style struggle session to work with people from diverse backgrounds?
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      I'm definitely not. I also hold such descriptions of these trainings in high skepticism, because I've been through a similar training and had a coworker describe it as such when all the training was doing was surfacing the scientific evidence suggesting unconscious bias is a real phenomenon that people aren't aware of. The fact my colleague took it so personally says more about them, I think, than the training.
      - luckylion 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Pelic4n 6y ago

This is terrifying, almost cult-like. The fact that this is what "fighting racism" looks like when forced hysterectomies are performed on undocumented immigrants in concentration camps show that it's not really about racism for the people that are doing this.

globular-toast 6y ago
They are just conformists. PG wrote an excellent piece about conformism here: http://paulgraham.com/conformism.html http://paulgraham.com/conformism.html True progressives are out there fighting current battles. Corruption, bribery, current-day slavery etc. Conformists are out there marching about battles already won like gay rights, slavery in the United States etc.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  Gay rights is hardly a settled issue. If it were, the GOP wouldn't have adopted reversal of the Obergefell v. Hodges precedent as a party platform plank in 2016. https://news.yahoo.com/richard-grenell-addresses-rnc-gop-220709699.html https://news.yahoo.com/richard-grenell-addresses-rnc-gop-220...
  - globular-toast 6y ago
    The US isn't the world.
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      Obviously, but calling gay rights a "battle already won" when the third largest country in the world by population still has one of its two major political parties fighting tooth-and-claw on the issue seems premature.
      - wil421 6y ago
        What do the 2 largest countries by population do?

pornel 6y ago

I've been in such trainings, and I've seen lots of people get offended at hearing "you benefit from racism" as if it meant "you're racist". Racists in positions of power may tilt the playing field in your favor whether you've asked for it or not. And it may not even be you personally, but people in your neighborhood, your social groups in general.

barrkel 6y ago
Jumping from generalizations about groups to specifics of individuals is inherently unjust - as is the inverse, generalizing about a group from a few individuals. Generalization from systematic group aggregation is useful for exposing systemic biases, but action should be specific to the circumstances of individuals independent of group membership or the risk of injustice is very high. Unsafe generalization is at the root of prejudice. Racists / sexists / bigots generalize from the worst instances of individual behaviour to a group, or aggregate statistics about a group, and then apply the generalization in specific individual scenarios. A crude example, taking the generalization "Jews run global finance" - and it's true that they have been historically over-represented - and then applying the generalization to specifics: "you're a Jew, I don't like Jews because they run the world". A good rule to bear in mind before leaping to prejudice is that the variance within groups is larger than the variance between groups. White privilege is a prejudice concept built along the same architecture as racism and sexism. It takes aggregate group attributes and tries to enforce it in the particular against individuals. You've just rehearsed the line yourself - "you benefit from racism" - you've given an example of instantiation of a group attribute upon an individual without evidence. It is literally prejudice, and it's unjust, even if it's more likely to be true than false.
- valboa 6y ago
  Identity politics and group thinking are the cancer of society. Everyone can be oppressed, everyone can be an opresor. Just give them a reason.
  - curation 6y ago
    Identity politics and group thinking squished together loses a dangerous amount of nuance. Identity poltics is how self-identified liberals assert their form of universal subjectivity by splitting the working class racially (read Wilderson, Hartman, Moten and afropessimistic thought and of course Lacan). While Groupthink is naively but generally defined as: " a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome". The distinction thus becomes clear. Identity politics is born of the desire to divide the working classes using the disharmony of racialization causing irrational decision making, while Groupthink has the same ending but with explicitly the opposite desire.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Miner49er 6y ago

Well that's the thing. These diversity training people do use a different definition of racism then what you are thinking of. The diversity training definition of racism doesn't simply mean prejudiced, it means a part of a system of power that benefits people considered "white" at the expense of others. By that definition, most white people are probably "racist". If you understand the context used when they call themselves "racist", it's really not that big of a deal. It's basically just them saying, "I'm white, and I recognize that society treats me a little bit better cause of that". I will say, I think it's strange they are asking them to admit to being racist, and "be better". It's a systemic thing, so it requires systemic change. Asking them to say they are racist and that they need to be better seems unneededly divisive. Edit: As others have pointed out, the last sentence is kind of wrong. The paraphrase should probably say, "I recognize I'm a part of a system or systems that uphold racism". Look at the ADL's definition for racism to see what I mean: https://www.adl.org/racism https://www.adl.org/racism By their definition, you are racist if you help uphold any of the "systems, institutions, or factors that advantage white people and for people of color, cause widespread harm and disadvantages in access and opportunity."

Swizec 6y ago
> The diversity training definition of racism doesn't simply mean prejudiced, it means a part of a system of power that benefits people considered "white" at the expense of others But then everyone is racist. Including black people. Everyone is part of this society that has systemic features tht benefit whites. So if everyone is racist, what’s the point of labeling?
- Miner49er 6y ago
  I wouldn't say everyone is racist, by that definition. If you want to and are working to change or get rid of these systems, then you are not racist.
  - Swizec 6y ago
    I think it’s more complicated than that based on some of the diversity books I’ve read. For example I wasn’t even “white” until I moved to USA a few years ago. Took me 6+ years to even grok how “white” works and what it means but I’m told I was racist all along. And yeah sure I want the system to change, but honestly I have enough work with being an immigrant without inherent rights. Hell I’m technically a visitor so I don’t even have immigration rights yet. This is not my fight to fight ... but folks say that makes me racist and privileged and how dare I. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

idea_heroin 6y ago

All white people are racist. Y’all are demons. Here’s my paypal, now give me some money. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5keqoXCIrq0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5keqoXCIrq0

mainstreem 6y ago

It's simple, we just have to fully embrace that all White people are Racist due to the history of oppression of PoCs in the West by Whites. Then you will understand that it is Whites who are Racist. Then you must swear your fealty to being Anti-Racist. Not just Non-Racist, that's not enough, you must fight to eliminate Racists from positions of power and eventually from society. Anti-Racism. Fight to eliminate Racist Whites from power. Fight to eliminate Whites from power. Fight to eliminate Whites.

seneca 6y ago

They are called Struggle Sessions[0]. > Struggle sessions were a form of public humiliation and torture used by the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) at various times in the Mao era, particularly during the years immediately before and after the establishment of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and during the Cultural Revolution. The aim of struggle sessions was to shape public opinion, as well as to humiliate, persecute, or execute political rivals and those deemed class enemies. > In general, the victim of a struggle session was forced to admit various crimes before a crowd of people who would verbally and physically abuse the victim until they confessed. Struggle sessions were often held at the workplace of the accused, but they were sometimes conducted in sports stadiums where large crowds would gather if the target was well-known. 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session Sorry for the Wikipedia reference.

arkh 6y ago

> I had to "confess" that i'm racist Good old Struggle sessions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session

lliamander 6y ago

If you have the opportunity, please find a way to be a whistle-blower. IANAL, but this seems like a textbook "hostile work environment" and there are lawyers out there who are definitely interested in fighting this nonsense. Your sympathetic back story would definitely help. There's also push back at the federal level against this, and public awareness is growing.