But... DEI positions do also attract heavily traumatized / toxic people, some of whom seem quite proud of it.
In my state alone in recent years I can think of two prominent cases. A Community College near me had a "diversity happy hour event" that invited everyone... except white people.
And then when people called that out as not being particularly inclusive, the DEI coordinator doubled down: "If you want to create space for white folks to meet and work on racism, white supremacy, and white privilege to better our campus community and yourselves, please feel free to do just that."
For added irony, the coordinator had taken on a native name and touted her native ancestry. But it was later revealed that she was Caucasian.
Another university very near by had had a "Day of Exclusion" planned by DEI groups that basically planned to "exclude white students from school buildings" for the day. In the past, many students (of all races) had stayed away from campus that day in support, or protest. It was unclear though, what would happen if white students did try to enter school buildings (one of the groups websites for the event included the URL fragment "/no-neonazis-allowed".
And then there was Rachel Dolezal, who faked being African American and ended up as the leader of the NAACP and a professor of African Studies at EWU, born to white parents and claiming that she "self-identified as black" (though that seems at odds with her lying about her parents race on application forms.
Crazily, though, both these people are still in diversity positions. One is a Director of the Diversity program at a California school, and the other holds multiple community and diversity related roles.
And then we get to some of the tech crowd and diversity/community/evangelist position people who are openly anti-male, like Randi Harper, running an anti-harassment support organization while setting her Twitter handle things like "Kill All Men", submitting bio pics to conferences with her drinking from a mug with "Male Tears" on the side. Or Adria Richards, Coraline Ehmke, famous for joining open source projects with codes of conduct that were not "aggressive enough" (her own words) and then trying to get contributors kicked out of those projects for things they'd said elsewhere in life. And then losing her shit when people pointed out the numerous times she'd advocated for violence elsewhere in life, until GitHub, who had hired her for "Community Safety" had to fire her for obvious hypocrisy.
There are people who are working (not just in tech) in DEI to restore some balance (because there absolutely are areas that are profoundly sexist, racist, and so on) whose laudable work is being undershadowed by people who obviously have unresolved issues in their personal life or in their mental health who see working in DEI as some form of ... therapy or catharsis for them.
I've been through a lot of diversity training and I've never been compelled to say anything or even fill out a quiz that went beyond "did you listen to this material." If I was ever expected to parrot a party line it was _always_ "Tell us you understand that we can get sued if you do X."
I work in an area where DEI is emphasized more than even at a University in general. I've never found it to be particularly onerous and often find it interesting.
When people act like these often banal things (often more or less explicitly directed towards shielding the organization from liability) are compelled speech in front of a firing squad, I have to wonder whether they've really done any. Incidentally, I've seen old white guys say all sorts of stuff at these trainings. I've never heard of anyone getting fired or pushed out of a position.
I know the type you're referring to—people punchdrunk on their own performative "activism" who love to make everything about themselves—and they're pretty cringey, but at least in my experience they're far from the norm on corporate DEI teams. Honestly super ballsy of her to pull the Diverse White Lady move like that... I'd be shocked if no one else on the team gave her a talking-to, unless (1) she's the boss or (2) everyone else on the diversity team is white.
(Which does happen, and isn't great, but also is pretty funny in juxtaposition with the claims you'll hear about DEI teams being radical Marxist plots or whatever. Half the time these teams are just a bunch of HR managers named Linda who get the letters in LGBT mixed up.)
My experience has led me to believe that most individuals in favor of corporate DEI initiatives are earnestly and in good faith attempting to put into practice the recommendations of critical race theory and related frameworks.
The same experience has led me to believe that most managers and employers are not so crafty, and are going along with it because it seems to be trendy and in-demand and because they don't want to be publicly canceled. It's more about petty virtue signaling among managers than coordinated suppression of organized labor.
Furthermore, most DEI initiatives do not look like what you describe, outside of a limited subset of academic institutions that have always been somewhat radical (including few to none of the name-brand universities in the Americas) and smaller companies/startups headed by highly-opinionated idealists.
In general I think we are right to be skeptical of attempts to divide, rather than unite. It's absolutely possible that DEI initiatives are weaponized at some organizations, and we should be wary of that possibility. But it's also not fair or correct to assume that it's always being wielded as such.
It's worth noting that there are legitimate good intentions behind all this no-subconscious-bias microaggression stuff. It's derived from a very earnest radical academic tradition. The kernel of wisdom at the core of it all is that diversity is good and should be not just acknowledged but actively embraced and celebrated. That is, people can be united together, without all being the same.
IMO, a lot of DEI policies smell like win-loose power games, or simply dirty politics. They backfire in that a group made up of mostly left-leaning, similarly-thinking people is not diverse.
The problem is that diversity isn't just based on metrics like racial, sexual orientation, gender, ect. It also comes from including people who have different biases, backgrounds, political leanings, economic status, ect.
What makes this complicated is that organizations are powerful because of who they include and who they exclude. It's a good thing to say "we're not going to exclude people based on race / gender / sexual orientation;" but then to say "we're going to favor people who have left-leaning politics" basically unravels the advantages of a diverse organization.
The way diversity is implemented is bad. It gives power to people on the basis that they are aggrieved and have a higher moral status than others in the same position. So why should we assume that once those people are in, they would voluntarily choose to surrender their own power and status which comes from allegedly being aggrieved?
The whole point of DEI was supposedly to "equalize" things so once you are a beneficiary of a DEI policy, you should no longer be able to claim victim status. In fact, once they get in, they argue for even more grievance policies, power, and special treatment. Often that is specifically what the job is meant to do. What is the real end result of this in particular for universities which are gateways to power? It's not surprising that universities are where this battle is being fought and not fast food or retail jobs.
If you're not too familiar, then it will be difficult to explain it on a comment.
At a high level, DEI functions as a trojan horse. Under the unobjectionable guise of universal values : "diversity, equal-ness, inclusivity', it peddles specific political values.
It replaces the 'dont-ask-dont-tell' corporate era with a politicized atmosphere where silence is considered opposition. Diversity in color, but not in opinions. Diversity for census tracked metrics, and none for the rest. Marketed as equality of opportunity, but enforced as equity in outcomes. Inclusivity of every archetype found on a private-American-university-campus and judgement towards everything else.
Just as Tobacco companies have the highest ranked sustainability scores, the DEI-iest companies are often the most oppressive in demanding a certain kind of conformity. The most insidious part of DEI initiatives, is that their concerns are forever biased towards optics rather than real world impact.
I don't blame their inability to create both diverse and inclusive spaces. D & I cannot co-exist. Just as a dish with every ingredient is an allergy death device; A workplace where diverse opinions on personal matters are entertained will feel potently offensive. Such a space cannot feel inclusive. Similarly, E & E cannot co-exist. Equality and equity are diametrically opposed to each other.
America is a divided country and global MNC employees are folks from an even more divided world. People in such a workplace will inevitably disagree on fundamental aspects of society.
In the midst of this confusion the university hires self-proclaimed DEI experts with political aspirations, who ask you to read XKendi and Robin DiAngelo. If you want to properly understand the specific political school of thought DEI advocates for, you should read their books. I have read both and have strong opinions of a flavor that I bet you can guess. But, I'll let you make the judgement for yourself.
It's just a bad look specifically for the head of DEI, who's whole job is to promote diversity. If it was any other position they probably wouldn't have cared.
There's a hegemony that controls vocally-progressive places like San Francisco, big tech companies, and universities.
People who espouse DEI also tend to espouse slogans like "psychological safety" and "bring your whole self to work." Unfortunately, those slogans are as thinly constructed as the Diversity example you called out: it's code for privileging particular groups of people who look trendy in recruitment materials and PR. If I actually brought my whole self to work, I'd be fired.
Ironically, people who are critical of such policies don't feel psychologically safe. They don't want to be prejudged to be assholes, who then don't get invited to parties or get managed out at work. So, people in predominantly progressive spaces don't say out loud that the emperor has no clothes.
When DEI was first introduced, its champions insisted Diversity would be broadly constructed - that it was about enhancing creativity and identifying blind spots. Instead, it too often really means "we want a token {black, gay, etc} {person, club, etc} because it's fashionable." Bring a totally different perspective and life experience but superficially look like the majority? "Sorry, that's not Diverse enough."
If these spaces actually welcomed diverse ideas (and skepticism in the scientific method sense), perhaps we could learn from the good parts of diversity and build a society that works better for everybody. Instead we get Affirmative Action dressed up in newer clothes and whispers to trustworthy friends "can I tell you what I really think?"
> A common effect I've observed is that diversity training often seems to trigger defensive behavior.
> During a Zoom meeting with hundreds of students, the interim dean and dozens of other faculty and administrators each declared they were "a racist" and "a gatekeeper of white supremacy."
Historically, accusing a whole ethnic group of being inherently guilty of some great evil (e.g. racism), has worked out less than great for that group, so it's hardly surprising they'd be defensive.
This article is so laughably transparent. None of those people care about diversity or inclusivity, they want more for themselves and found a trick to get it.
Surprisingly they don't seem to mind that in my UK team of 15 people we only have two British citizens (I am not one of them myself) and 11 people of color, while White British represent 75% of the population of the UK.
This stuff you are saying is just ludicrous nonsense. The people you list are stupid assholes, especially Vivek who is a complete moron. There are plenty of reasons to worry about diversity, my point is it is done lazily as a game of 'less whites' because DEI programs are poorly run and it's easier for the low-iq, incompetent commissars who have been hired to run these programs to just go by what people look like. I don't think there is much of a coordinated agenda beyond incompetence.
Any broad statements gloss over some nuance, but having been through many of these trainings over the years I’d have to agree with the concerns these articles raise. Blunders like the controversy around promoting “LatinX” as a term and calling people “not inclusive” for saying “Latino” also highlight cases where these programs can actually end up being quite offensive to the very people they claim to be “helping.”
That’s all compounded by the fact that DEI leaders often (perhaps unintentionally) create a rather non-inclusive company environments where people with legitimate concerns are terrified of raising concerns about the equity of efforts for fear of retaliation, being labeled various nasty things, and so on.
Diversity is extremely important in organizations, but these DEI efforts need some serious inflection and acknowledgment of the harm they may have caused towards the end they claim to be serving.
"DEI is very important for basically any organization that doesn't want to be known as a bunch of exclusionary jerks"
exactly my point, now you have to push it or you have to be worried about being automatically labeled racist. How condescending and insulting.
"it's pretty hard for any new endeavor to be equitable without taking an extremely long and hard look at how the endeavor interacts with this massive legacy"
No, its not. Just welcome all, you don't have to say anything, just be good people.
I hear what you are saying but I don't think the answer is to constantly harp on it and I would think make it awkward for people of that race. Hey welcome to the coop, we really support Black people here. Sure they're black but they are people first and I have to think its tiresome from their point of view to constantly be reminded that white people see them as other. Its a superior point of view, look how noble we are, protecting the minorities with our power. I am sure the intent is good but I don't think it has the result that is intended. I have to take 4+ hours of classes this month at my employer to be told that I have to treat minorities well when much like this co-op 95% of leadership is white. Its condescending and I don't just mean to me. Just don't be racist and treat people like people. I guarantee just saying this has as much impact as the 4 hours of classes I have to take and their "8th principal"
One of my classes I had to take at a very, very large company told me that if I help out a minority and they get offended to not argue back, but "sit there in my shame". Its reached insanity levels and I think having the opposite effect. At what point does it start driving people that are generally center based politically further to the right. I was surprised as a generally life long liberal when it started to do that to me. I'm not voting for Trump but for the first time in my life I'm likely voting for a Republican governor primarily because of this sort of stuff.
Apologies for my rant, I guess it had been on my mind.
DEI has always been in companies before the term even arose to the larger public discourse. I have to go through such trainings every year at every company I've been at.
There has never been true "diversity of thought" at most institutions and I doubt you would really want it, especially if you were on the receiving end of it every day and it was just blatant bigotry towards you.
As far as achievements, I can't recall a single instance of someone being brought down because of a participation award. Unless you think being 1st, 2nd, or third gets robbed of all meaning because everyone got an award.
They are the biggest source of racial prejudice and discrimination, from anti-white attitudes like "it's impossible to be racist to white people" to DEI policies that openly discriminate against white people.
This isn't even hidden. Advocates proudly declare: "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."
Perhaps this is an instance of Goodhart's law (when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure). Diversity is an excellent thing when it happens naturally as a result of equal opportunity.
But when diversity becomes the target, it inspires divisive race-based selection practices that people quite correctly fight against. That's surely a factor in the recent decline of the left.
This whole thing is based on the supposition that supporting diversity is the right move from a business perspective. If someone came to you with hard evidence that said removing gender from bathrooms would bring in 10 trans students and cause you to lose 50 other students, would your DEI action be to keep gendered bathrooms?
That’s rhetorical, DEI statements are absolutely about pledging a particular type of political alignment and a university would get absolutely skewered if it got caught optimizing for student body count over diversity.
I think this is a good point. I wonder how useful diversity statements are for accomplishing this task. It just seems like cheap talk to me. More useful would be to reward people in tenure review for outreach to minorities.
I’m from a minority, just not one that is recognized as such in the convoluted system that is racial politics in the US (I am of Iraqi descent). But if I were in the shoes of someone who should be benefiting from DEI policies, I’d be pissed off with how it’s shaken out. Seems like a whole lot of empty, performative symbolism with negligible actual change. Things like DEI statements read like box ticking to me, allowing administrators to say they’ve “tried” without doing anything. Same goes for sensitivity trainings, and flashy renaming of, for example, master to main. The singular focus on symbolism has not done anyone any favors apart from a few semiotics professors, although I wonder if they’ve been chastened by how little their favored policies have accomplished.
But... DEI positions do also attract heavily traumatized / toxic people, some of whom seem quite proud of it.
In my state alone in recent years I can think of two prominent cases. A Community College near me had a "diversity happy hour event" that invited everyone... except white people.
And then when people called that out as not being particularly inclusive, the DEI coordinator doubled down: "If you want to create space for white folks to meet and work on racism, white supremacy, and white privilege to better our campus community and yourselves, please feel free to do just that."
For added irony, the coordinator had taken on a native name and touted her native ancestry. But it was later revealed that she was Caucasian.
Another university very near by had had a "Day of Exclusion" planned by DEI groups that basically planned to "exclude white students from school buildings" for the day. In the past, many students (of all races) had stayed away from campus that day in support, or protest. It was unclear though, what would happen if white students did try to enter school buildings (one of the groups websites for the event included the URL fragment "/no-neonazis-allowed".
And then there was Rachel Dolezal, who faked being African American and ended up as the leader of the NAACP and a professor of African Studies at EWU, born to white parents and claiming that she "self-identified as black" (though that seems at odds with her lying about her parents race on application forms.
Crazily, though, both these people are still in diversity positions. One is a Director of the Diversity program at a California school, and the other holds multiple community and diversity related roles.
And then we get to some of the tech crowd and diversity/community/evangelist position people who are openly anti-male, like Randi Harper, running an anti-harassment support organization while setting her Twitter handle things like "Kill All Men", submitting bio pics to conferences with her drinking from a mug with "Male Tears" on the side. Or Adria Richards, Coraline Ehmke, famous for joining open source projects with codes of conduct that were not "aggressive enough" (her own words) and then trying to get contributors kicked out of those projects for things they'd said elsewhere in life. And then losing her shit when people pointed out the numerous times she'd advocated for violence elsewhere in life, until GitHub, who had hired her for "Community Safety" had to fire her for obvious hypocrisy.
There are people who are working (not just in tech) in DEI to restore some balance (because there absolutely are areas that are profoundly sexist, racist, and so on) whose laudable work is being undershadowed by people who obviously have unresolved issues in their personal life or in their mental health who see working in DEI as some form of ... therapy or catharsis for them.
reply