• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Diversity trainers react to Trump’s ban on diversity training in federal agencies

I dont have the experience that others have so its not really up to me to tell people their concerns are invalid. Actually diversity training solves precisely that, do you actually know if it doesnt or are you just assuming it doesnt? (curious)It gives people a better idea of how to work in a more diverse environment. The thing about misleading black caricatures is whether or not the artist intends on creating a misleading stereotype, such portrayals effect the way people who have no other context like in Japan (which in many ways is still pretty insular) view the outside world.

since media from Japan for instance is consumed by a worldwide audience, people need to know how to cater to different consumers. Diversity training and a good study of different cultures gives people an idea on what to do and what not to do.

i dont think it will come to teaching people to be offended because that already exists, well have to see what is actually being taught. Diversity training is pretty standard corporate PR, but its useful to have. Im not advocating for teaching people that they need to harass anyone over any mistakes but i do see the benefits of such training.
If diversity training is as benign as you're portraying it here--a lesson in cultural practices, taboos, histories, etc., with no judgment, "white privilege" dogma, feminist dogma, "critical race theory", activism, or politics--I agree that it could do some good. It would also have to avoid preaching the tenets of a progressive moral orthodoxy, e.g. using preferred gender pronouns, never asking a person "Where are you from?", avoiding 'gendered' expressions like "you guys", affirmation/acceptance of certain lifestyles, etc.

I agree that we'd actually have to see the training to make a judgment on whether it's as benign as you say it is. On spec, I'm much more skeptical than you that none of the above would feature in standard training.
 
If diversity training is as benign as you're portraying it here--a lesson in cultural practices, taboos, histories, etc., with no judgment, "white privilege" dogma, feminist dogma, "critical race theory", activism, or politics--I agree that it could do some good. It would also have to avoid preaching the tenets of a progressive moral orthodoxy, e.g. using preferred gender pronouns, never asking a person "Where are you from?", avoiding 'gendered' expressions like "you guys", affirmation/acceptance of certain lifestyles, etc.

I agree that we'd actually have to see the training to make a judgment on whether it's as benign as you say it is. On spec, I'm much more skeptical than you that none of the above would feature in standard training.
That is totally fair. I think you are arguing in good faith. Diversity training isnt the same as critical race theory and white privilege is pretty much learning about the benefits that are often conferred on white people that others dont enjoy of a systemic basis. Having privileges does not make someone evil or guilty of something. I used to be very wary of these programs but i would encourage getting info about them from the source. Preferred pronouns can be a subject that is difficult for one to approach ((it was certainly for me)) so training can be beneficial.

a criticism i would levy about these programs is these programs are only training the workers and do not tackle workplace discrimination on the level of the employer.
 
What possible benefit is there in taking offense when no offense is intended? Why wouldn't we want to steer people away from being offended rather than steering them towards it?

???? Because that is their intent. Just as Marxism sought to sow discord between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, neo Marxism and critical race theory seek to sow discord between the races. It is their purpose.
 
???? Because that is their intent. Just as Marxism sought to sow discord between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, neo Marxism and critical race theory seek to sow discord between the races. It is their purpose.
'
That sounds like right wing propoganda seeking to sow discord to me.
 
'
That sounds like right wing propoganda seeking to sow discord to me.


I suspect for you, much of reality seems like right wing propaganda.
 
Diversity training relies on science-free pseudo intellectual dogma. As a consequence, it often clashes with legitimate, verifiable scientific evidence, and reputable scientists.

"The button-down empirical and deductive fields, including all the hard sciences, have lived side by side with “critical theory,” postmodernism and its perception-based relatives. Since the creation in 1960s and ’70s of novel, justice-oriented fields, these incompatible worldviews have repelled one another. The faculty from these opposing perspectives, like blue and red voters, rarely mix in any context where reality might have to be discussed. For decades, the uneasy separation held, with the factions enduring an unhappy marriage for the good of the (college) kids."

The Campus Mob Came for Me—and You, Professor, Could Be Next - WSJ

Diversity training also increases unconscious biases , rather than diminish them.

"Although diversity and inclusion training is prevalent in corporate America, its impact is inconsistent. According to the evidence, sometimes the programs even have the opposite effect of what they intend. One 2016 study of 830 mandatory diversity training programs found that they often triggered a strong backlash against the ideas they promoted. “Trainers tell us that people often respond to compulsory courses with anger and resistance,” wrote sociologists Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev in the Harvard Business Review, “and many participants actually report more animosity toward other groups afterward.”


Is your company’s diversity training making you more biased?


--------

Trump simply stopped wasteful gov spending on programs that don't deliver the results they're advertised as having. This is 'racist' to you, because;

1. You don't know what diversity training is
2. You haven't read the pertinent literature about the effects of diversity training
3. You blindly fumble around in the dark looking for something to blame Trump for
Sorry if this has already been addressed, but I couldn't help but notice these statements from your last link:

The problem is not with the programs themselves. They make a strong case for valuing differences — not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it leads to much higher levels of performance. Inclusive companies have a demonstrated advantage, both in financial performance and in general levels of innovation, and being around others from different backgrounds has been shown to make people more creative and hardworking. Drawing on multiple perspectives leads teams to see a greater number of solutions to problems. The training itself is increasingly well-designed, sound in its messages and convincing in its delivery.

Why, then, does it spark a backlash? The answer has to do with biases deeply entrenched in most people’s patterns of thinking — attitudes not about race or gender per se, but about the nature of autonomy and choice, and about group membership.


The people who need this training are rejecting it because of the very biases that the training is trying to educate them about. The people who most need this education are the ones most resentful and bitter about it. Textbook irony.
 
I suspect for you, much of reality seems like right wing propaganda.
Not at all. Most of reality is real. The paranoid rants about 'tyrants' and Freedom should be taken for what it is though.
 
Not at all. Most of reality is real. The paranoid rants about 'tyrants' and Freedom should be taken for what it is though.

And now you are imagining I said anything about tyrants and freedom.
 
???? Because that is their intent. Just as Marxism sought to sow discord between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, neo Marxism and critical race theory seek to sow discord between the races. It is their purpose.
Maybe so, but many here contend that critical race theory doesn't feature in diversity training, and I can't prove otherwise. Can you?
 
Maybe so, but many here contend that critical race theory doesn't feature in diversity training, and I can't prove otherwise. Can you?


Probably most of the time, critical race theory does feature in diversity training but it is not necessarily an inherent part of it. The left is seeking to characterize Trumps policy as abolishing any and all "diversity training" "racial sensitivity" training when neither the letter to all department heads or his executive order even as much as mentions either.
 
Probably most of the time, critical race theory does feature in diversity training but it is not necessarily an inherent part of it. The left is seeking to characterize Trumps policy as abolishing any and all "diversity training" "racial sensitivity" training when neither the letter to all department heads or his executive order even as much as mentions either.
Until you said this, I actually hadn't read the memorandum.

You're absolutely right. The characterization of the memo as "a ban on diversity training within federal agencies" is a bald-faced lie. It's very specific as to what it seeks to eliminate, and everything it talks about eliminating very much deserves to be eliminated.

I apologize. I guess I got "fake news"ed. 😖
 
'
That sounds like right wing propoganda seeking to sow discord to me.


Hannah Jones, the Author of the 1619 project, in response to an article stating we should call all the riots the 1619 riots tweeted
"It would be an honor. Thank you"

download-1.jpg

Sowing discord was the intent and she is proud of the riots accomplished.
 
Last edited:
I apologize. I guess I got "fake news"ed. 😖

Unfortunately these days you can just call it the news. Now the norm as opposed to the exception. Even Wallace worked the BS into his question at the debate claiming Trump banned "racial sensitivity training"
 
Unfortunately these days you can just call it the news. Now the norm as opposed to the exception. Even Wallace worked the BS into his question at the debate claiming Trump banned "racial sensitivity training"
That's not as much of a lie--in the sense that a lot of progressives genuinely believe slamming white people as a privileged and clueless aristocracy is an integral part of bolstering sensitivity to other races.

In other words, the question makes an arrogant presumption, but I don't think it was intended to be untruthful.

"A ban on diversity training within federal agencies", by contrast, is a bald-faced lie. I don't care how far gone somebody is, I refuse to believe they genuinely can't tell the difference between diversity training and critical race theory.
 
That's not as much of a lie--in the sense that a lot of progressives genuinely believe slamming white people as a privileged and clueless aristocracy is an integral part of bolstering sensitivity to other races.

In other words, the question makes an arrogant presumption, but I don't think it was intended to be untruthful......

Based upon years of watching Wallace I would disagree in that it was intentional. He used to be pretty good at hiding his never Trump bias, but it seems this last year he stopped even trying.
 
Back
Top Bottom