If employers, college presidents, government administrators, military commanders, and other institutional and organizational officials want to conduct diversity training, including diversity training rooted in Critical Race Theory and other aspects of Critical Social Justice Theory, that’s their business. We live in a free country (for now), and as such, they should be free to choose the kind of training that they want to subject their employees and members to—at least so long as they’re not doing so on a publicly accountable dime or engaging in illegal acts like discrimination (best of luck implementing Critical Race Theory or Critical Social Justice without discriminating, but anyway). My stance on Critical Social Justice and its specific Theories has always been the same: like any ideology or system of faith, people are welcome to implement it if they want, within the usual limits, but they should know what they’re getting into if they choose to do so. I don’t think these Theories or the “diversity” training that’s based upon them represent themselves honestly, so here’s a brief warning to those who wish to implement it, to let them know what they’re getting into and can step off into the abyss with their eyes open, rather than going in blind.
My contention is that it is irresponsible to the point of negligence for an organization or institution to adopt an environment that uses “diversity” training rooted in Critical Social Justice Theories like Critical Race Theory. Even if this claim is too strong, I would like for people in such a position to consider the circumstances they’re creating in terms of realistic risk assessment. People do not understand the risk they’re taking with this particular approach to the issue of diversity, and they need to.
As a sort of preamble, I’ll note that I have now covered the difference between “diversity,” as it is understood under the various Theories of Critical Social Justice (including Critical Race Theory) and diversity, as in the real thing that word usually represents, repeatedly. Here, I explain the contextually relevant use of the term “diversity” in encyclopedic style. Here, I wrote about “diversity” training at length. Here, I did a podcast about it. Here, I spoke about it publicly. And here is a resource I published from someone else explaining that there really is a difference between diversity training, which doesn’t use Critical Social Justice Theory, and “diversity” training, which does. Those resources provided, let me explain what you’re signing up for when you decide to ride the scare-quotes Critical Social Justice “diversity” tiger.
“Diversity” training using Critical Race Theory and Critical Social Justice (henceforth: “diversity” training) is designed to create exactly the kinds of divisions and problems in an organization that will generate conflict and hostile working or learning environments. (Expect lawsuits, eventually.) “Diversity” training using these Theories is designed to create the necessary conditions where conflict and a broken organizational culture will be the eventual result, like night follows day. Put more simply, “diversity” training is designed to create conditions for hostility, discomfort, polarization, conflict, and collapse in the institutions that use them. There are many reasons for this that go too far outside of the scope of this warning to articulate, but they can be summarized pretty neatly by pointing out that they increase sensitivity to certain types of issues, mandate taking action upon them, and engage in hostile, zero-sum thinking about them (rooted in what’s known as “conflict theory,” which is not an articulation of how to manage conflict but instead a way of convincing yourself conflict is what’s already happening and needs to be made visible and reversed).
“Diversity” training is designed in such a way that it will have predictable effects on different sorts of people within your organization or institution. Some people in the organization will become or join the activist core that drives for this kind of training and that seeks to make “diversity” activism a central project of the organization, consuming ever more resources. These people will buy in for either genuine or selfish motives and become “diversity” advocates. Not very many people exposed to a dull, unpleasant, unwanted “diversity” training at work will become part of the activist core, of course. What people who want to implement this stuff need to understand is that it only takes a few, maybe even one dedicated activist to do a lot of damage in the right circumstances. That person could well be the person who brought it in to begin with.
Another purpose of “diversity” training is to create people who are more sympathetic to the ideas in the Critical Theories being employed. These people are the good-faith sympathizers and adopters who aren’t wholly on board with everything in the training but think some of it is reasonable. These people tend to fall for the fact that “diversity” training portrays itself as having good intentions and fail to realize it has a divisive design, mostly because the relevant underlying Theory is very good at using nice terms like “diversity” and “anti-racism” to advertise itself. It is also very good at appealing to “harms” and “traumas” of unintended and “unconscious” or “implicit” biases and behaviors (like microaggressions) that the relatively compassionate, conscientious, and self-reflective are moved by. Creating as large a group of this sort as possible is crucial to the strategy of “diversity” training, so most of its energy will go into creating this sort of person in your organization.
Yet another purpose of “diversity” training is to raise awareness among everyone of the terms and thought of the “diversity” mindset. This will prevent those ideas from being so foreign when they inevitably come up later. That is, it seeks to use the “mere exposure effect” to make many of the people in your organization familiar with the terms and style of the “diversity” approach, especially those in the group described above. This will make it so that the “diversity”-peculiar terms, phrasing, and way of thinking will seem fairly standard, in the organizational jargon kind of way, when they become the centerpieces of a wildfire of discussion that will eventually arise anywhere enough “diversity” training has taken place.
A related purpose of “diversity” training is to signal to everyone in the mostly disinterested middle or opposition to “diversity” rooted in these Critical Theories that their views are not the ones empowered within the organization, so they should stay silent. Much of “diversity” training will focus on using the specialized terminology to create a web of rationales that can be used to undermine neutrality and discredit genuine opposition, mostly by accusing those who aren’t participating or who are opposed of various problematic dispositions, behaviors, stances, and attitudes that prevent them from wanting to fully engage with “diversity” and the Theories upon which it is based. People who endure these trainings disinterestedly will be reminded over and over again that there is no neutrality on the relevant “diversity” issues, and that to choose neutrality is to be opposed to “diversity.” Meanwhile, opposition will be signaled as a character flaw like lacking “cultural humility” or possessing “white fragility” or “brown fragility,” or as outright complicity in the “system of oppression” that is the problem “diversity” training is meant to overcome. These signals will be received, and the willingness of the people who disagree to speak up will be chilled, knowing there will be social and perhaps professional consequences.
“Diversity” training also creates an opportunity for particularly outspoken dissidents to be identified, publicly challenged, and possibly removed from the organization before they can disrupt the coming problems. Even the act of publicly challenging dissidents has the effect of strengthening the chilling atmosphere upon the group above, and it will lead more sympathetic groups to actively distrust these individuals and possibly to see them as troublemakers. Even the act of making the annoying “diversity” training session contentious when most participants want it to pass quickly and without incident will predispose many in the organization to have a negative attitude of dissidents and active opponents to “diversity” trainings. It’s important to realize that dissidents to “diversity” training will be identified as generally troublemaking and divisive by the “diversity” training itself. This is also strategically important.
At this point, it can be seen that “diversity” training is not likely to be helping to create the harmonious, diverse working environment its advocates advertise. It is, in fact, (though it will sound hyperbolic to say so) setting the necessary preconditions for an institutional civil war. If you don’t think so, imagine that it has the effects on different groups of participants described above, which are likely after enough “diversity” training has been implemented. A population of agitators will exist, even if small, with a fairly significant band of sympathetic support who will take their side in any conflict that arises. Meanwhile, people who think otherwise will be mostly cowed into silence, and people who might stand up to it have been discredited or removed. Just like a badly managed forest, all such an organization will need is certain conditions and an inopportunely dropped match to ignite a conflagration that management isn’t going to be able to control or put out very easily.
In fact, once enough “diversity” training has been done to accomplish the above goals, it’s only a matter of time. Organizational civil war will follow, again, like night after day. This is because the conditions are set and some trigger is inevitable. The trigger will take the form of some precipitating event, like an accusation of racism in the office or of the management or of the organization as a whole on the systemic level. This is like setting off a gender-reveal firework in the California brush in a “diversity” trained institution. Again, it’s inevitable that such a thing will eventually arise, even if none in the activist core ever manufacture it. Someone will eventually slip and make an inappropriate comment, or a product will be designed that strikes someone the wrong way, or someone will complain either from within the organization or from without, or something. Even in a highly chilled, highly tense, highly careful, or highly harmonious (if that occurs) environment, a mistake or mildly controversial event of the relevant types is inevitable.
If you take it as a probabilistic given (following similar logic to the infinite monkey theorem) that a precipitating event will occur eventually in any organization, as someone taking risk-management seriously should, you can understand why it is so important that the organizational culture is such that it can withstand such an eventuality without falling apart or erupting in internal civil war. Now, imagine you find yourself in the situation described above, which I contend has a high likelihood of being the result of applying enough “diversity” training rooted in the various Critical Theories of Critical Social Justice, like Critical Race Theory. Here’s how things will play out once the precipitating event hits.
The precipitating event will be interpreted by the activist core as proof of systemic problems in the organization because that’s literally what they’re activists in doing. This will establish one pole, branded righteous and “anti-racist.” The sympathizers will generally agree and think the issue is important and tend to take their side, speaking in the terms they became familiar with and half-conversant in during their “diversity” training sessions. The dissidents will oppose it and form a second pole, which will be branded evil (racist, etc.). Furthermore, everyone in the middle who doesn’t take a side immediately will be pressured to do so, ramping up division and polarization. “Silence is violence.” “Silence is complicity.” “There is no neutral.” “Staying neutral is siding with oppression.” So, taking the dissident side is racist, and everyone who does so is racist by extension. Everyone who refuses to take a side automatically sides with the dissidents. Why would people think this? It’s exactly what “diversity” training exists to teach (this is conflict theory in application). Now your organization has the necessary conditions to undergo rapid and profound polarization around a moral issue that is considered virtually non-negotiable.
The internal culture of the institution will crack as it polarizes. Then the institutional “diversity” civil war will begin, “racists” versus “anti-racists,” with both terms representing misleading but morally charged lies. If the internal conflagration gets big enough, or if your organization is important enough, enough attention may be drawn to add in heavy activist pressure (and dissident resistance pressure) from the outside, replicating and amplifying the divisive characteristics of the inside and the stakes of the fight. This is bad for the organization, but that’s not a concern of the “diversity” trainers. Their goal is to produce “diversity,” not functioning organizations. Organizations are merely another means to this end. This point cannot be overstated, and it is very poorly understood. The utility of your organization to “diversity” trainers is not to enhance what your organization does but to leverage its capacity to be divert resources into achieving what it calls “diversity.”
To help you understand this last point in greater detail, “diversity” activists have two goals in mind, and those are both of the most likely outcomes of your organization’s “diversity” civil war. Either the organization folds to their pressure and becomes a “diversity” activist organ that diverts the maximum amount of resources to “diversity,” or it collapses, which will be rationalized as another racist organization dying. Both of these outcomes aren’t just adequate but positive goods to the sort of “diversity” ideology that’s rooted in Critical Theories of Social Justice, so it doesn’t necessarily have a vested interest in other operational goals, like optimizing the organization, meeting its stated mission (unless that’s already “diversity”), or even enabling it to survive in the relevant markets. It’s good to remember here that the Critical Theories at the heart of “diversity” training do not build. They do not even have the capacity to build. This is because Critical Theories are divorced by design from “traditional theories” that seek to know how to do things, like build products instead of activists, provide services, achieve their missions in the world, and make themselves profitable on their own merits. Therefore, conquering organizations for “diversity” or making them collapse for rejecting “diversity” are both winning outcomes for “diversity” activists.
What happens next is the more or less certain financial failure of the organization because either it will break apart and fail (organizational collapse) or it will start diverting a larger and larger percentage of its resources to “diversity” initiatives until it is dysfunctional (and will then collapse if dependent upon the oversaturated and mostly disinterested market to survive). As collapse becomes imminent, there are also two possibilities: both of which are also desirable to the “diversity” activists: collapse of an insufficiently “diverse” entity, as noted previously, or surviving as a “diversity” organ by being propped up by the copious amounts of foundation money doing that. In other words, the fate of essentially any organization that takes on enough “diversity” training puts itself at risk of being completely subverted to the mission of “diversity” (Critical Social Justice) instead of whatever its founding mission was. People who aren’t on board at this stage will not receive the funding necessary to sustain themselves and will be replaced by more compliant executives.
It’s not a bug of “diversity” training that it creates a divisive atmosphere and hostile working or learning environment. That’s what it’s designed to do for the Critical purpose. Best to understand this sooner than later.
35 comments
To challenge CSJ effectively we need to do it from an explicitly liberal standpoint. Unfortunately most people have forgotten what liberalism is. It can be explained in two words; “Freedom” and “Individualism”. This gives us free speech, freedom of expression, freedom to vote, free enquiry and free markets. Individualism rooted in a common humanity is the wonderful discovery of the Enlightenment and the solution to the tribalism and identity politics which CSJ is attempting to re-impose. Diversity training is the point of the spear and brings back a conflict theory mindset, which can only end in …. Conflict.
Wonderful, thanks!
I work for a large consultancy that has upped the rhetoric over the course of the last year.
Personally, I think they played their cards quite well. The training we received recently was on the topic of “active bystander”, thus avoiding the traps of divisive context, stereotyping etc – not one single piece of CRT jargon (unless you include “active bystander”). I thought it was quite good, worth the 20 mins. All about maintaining fair game, understanding when to intervene, when to have a quiet word, or when to accept. In short, no need to freak out every time offence is given / taken, plenty of ways to resolve conflict. Different strokes for different folks.
Critical Race Theory and the like, at best prompt us to undertake a bit of soul-searching, and to exercise more “sensitivity”. What they completely lack is the practice of “resilience”, if anything, invoke the opposite. These days, we ought to practice both sensitivity and resilience. Can’t have one without the other.
I’d be hesitant to pan all these narratives outright. There are *some* elements of validity. The topic has, like many others, becomes deeply divisive, little room for healthy discourse. Let’s be careful not to widen the gap any further and entrench the false narratives and myths we are trying to dispel.
I like the publications on here, important to challenge the unchallenged, although the narrative is starting to sound more and more like Richard Dawkins. I agree with Richard Dawkins, but can’t listen to the insolent prick.
Or perhaps I’ve gone soft with all my diversity training?
You’re diversity training is nearly complete, comrade. Soon you will comply for the greater good.
Your diversity training is nearly complete, comrade. Soon you will comply for the greater good. Muahaha
I have littledoubt this guy has fully come around by now. These folks ain’t exactly subtle.
Thank you Dr Lindsay for standing up for the truth….
Woke propaganda is endemic here in the UK – not that people recognise it as such….
It is a counterfeit morality, obscuring authentic virtue.
Before any organization, takes on diversity, it should understand it origin, which is Hegelian Dialectics.. Understanding Dialectics is the key to understanding the ideology behind such warped topics like diversity.
Take the dialectic based ideal of Black and White to group and define people, when in Fact, there is not one single human upon this earth, who could pass a color meter test of White or Black. The terms White and Black were chosen, because Hegelian dialectics only operate properly, when subjects are in complete opposition. Antitheses will not work if subjects are not framed in opposition.
Factually humans range from light pink to dark brown, which are complementary color tones. Second, there are no humans who’s thinking abilities are derived via their skin tone. This makes the dialectic ideal of Black VS White a completely false narrative. Therefore, any diversity training set in the dialectic of Black VS White is a baseless and completely false narrative.
Hey folks. I generally agree about Critical Race Theory being both a narrow and speculative hypothesis and a real destructive force as an explanation of everything, which it pro ports to do. I just read this book by “Don’t Label Me” by Irshad Manji where she says pretty much the same things you folks and others have been saying. Her literary device of having a conversation with a dog put me off at first but grew on me as she explained why diversity efforts coming from progressives are unworkable in their current form. She says, and backs it up with some research, that the techniques , attitudes and assumptions used in CRT and adjacent ideologies about race go against what we know about the psychology of any healthy relationships, unearthing biases or changing attitudes. Seeing each other as individuals is how we get past our tribal instinct. Sounds rather liberal. She is calls herself a pluralist and sees much of the re racial rhetoric as very dangerous and corrosive for us all. Her background is as a Muslim reformist lesbian feminist brown person so this may give her a bit of cred with people who may not be sure what they think but don’t want to hear from people they think don’t have “skin in the game” (another great book). May be a little fluffy for some but perhaps a book you could pass on to friends you think will be open to this light touch. Although she pulls no punches while being light hearted. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/39863471-don-t-label-me
I’ll give him a B- on the essay. The author could be more effective if he’d cite an example or two wherein “diversity” training resulted in the civil war he predicts.
The New York Times.
There’s an example.
I don’t want to agree with your comment, but I’m afraid I do. Both confirmation of the hypothesis and illumination of its mechanisms would be achieved by such evidence.
I might be less generous: between the lack of evidence and the poor writing style, I would put straight C on this one. It’s not failing, it’s passable, and it has some content and decent logic (if at times excessively pure), but even B-level may be a bit above it.
Are there examples you can cite where this has played out in full, especially the financial ruin of a department or organization?
Yeah. Given most of the most valuable companies in the world have D&I programs and they are the most valuable companies in the world I feel this cycle doesn’t exist or exists only on the margin.
Apple, Google, Microsoft, Tesla, Amazon all publish D&I metrics now and focus efforts on hiring and creating diverse environments. These companies, unlike raw materials companies, depend on humans working together at scale to succeed.
How does society responsibly deal with the fact an entire sections of it (black and native Americans primarily) were denied access to voting, borrowing / banking, living in certain areas and jobs? These things have multi generational consequences – our grandparents matter – and it seems that a useful goal is to have the working population of a company be similar in makeup to the population of the society.
We had diversity training at a mid-sized company I worked at and they talked about ways of speaking and thinking to avoid alienating others but they didn’t go so far as to stay “feelings = reality”. It’s unlikely the leaders would knowingly tank their organization and it’s likely those leaders know more about organizational management and success than Mr. Lindsey does. I see no leadership credentials or history in his bio and there is no examples or evidence provided above. If there’s no experience and no evidence I suggest discounting it.
Amazon actually doesn’t focus heavily on the kind of Diversity training that the author describes. They do have D&I metrics & departments, but they exist primarily to constructively critique Amazon’s own HR & recruiting departments (at Amazon, these are separate), rather than as a company-wide indoctrination program. Amazon takes more of a Whitehall approach to D&I rather than a CRT approach.
Evergreen State College? I’ve heard they’ve halved their enrollment in the past 3 years.
This is my first comment on this site so I’d like to take a moment to express my appreciation.
To all the principles of the site and the contributors / commentators; Thank you.
It’s incredibly refreshing to read thoughtful and respectful discussion on a range of incredibly difficult topics.
It’s also saddening due to the painfully obvious spotlight it shines on the flaws of CT, et al.
Hopefully the continued shining of said spotlight can begin to reveal the space between the far ends of the spectrum and aid in the process of finding a reasonable balance.
Wrapping that up, I’m not formally educated nor academically credentialled so please take my comment(s) as such; a thoughtful layman’s perspective.
[Also, please have grace for any mistakes in grammar and / or punctuation] 😉
@Martin28 and others who commented on his train of thought – for what it’s worth:
My observation of this conversation and a few others I’ve read on this site is that there’s a disconnect between logic and emotion which hinders Martin28’s request for a better strategy.
[I could be wrong so, please correct me where I may be.]
Rather than looking at this topic [or any other] as a question of either/or, I submit a both/and perspective; “Feelings (emotions) follow Choices (logic)”.
This reality is often overlooked in many discussions, debates, and arguments however, I find it useful when engaging difficult conversations that frustrate my logical sensibilities.
It’s easy to exclude logic as a factor in how we feel because in general people tend to feel very strongly and then equate their feeling(s) with truth.
That said, it’s interesting to note that just prior to the emotional response – a choice (logical process) to agree – with whatever idea or perspective – was made.
Choice is a logical process whether one is aware of the process or not.
The logical process of choice is often dismissed as irrelevant because the emotion is so overwhelming to the holder of the feeling.
Regardless, there is a straight line between the feeling that resulted and the choice to agree with the idea that formed the feeling.
The moment we decide (also a choice made logically) that “because I feel it – “my feeling = truth” we run the risk of cementing fallacy into our belief systems, though it’s worth noting that once any choice or decision is made – we will certainly feel the result of that choice.
The trick is to figure out how encourage the holder of a false emotional based belief to focus in on how they arrived at the emotionally based truth to begin with – and [if we’re lucky] hopefully insert a balance of perspective that can bring the person back to some sort of equilibrium [assuming the person isn’t so militant that you can have a reasonable conversation in the first place].
For obvious reasons I find this strategy easier during one on one encounters rather than in a group setting but, the point I’m trying to make is that logic and emotion are designed to work in concert.
You literally cannot have one without the other.
If we continue to try and separate the two then, we run the risk of polarizing ourselves and missing opportunities to aid others in more effective ways of thinking.
When we validate a person’s “feelings” as legitimate – to them – and point out that feelings =/= truth merely because they are felt – and – assuming the person is -willing- to listen and consider then, we have a shot at marrying logic to emotion [a powerful combination] as it relates to moving the needle in a divisive conversation back to center.
This methodology requires a tremendous amount of introspection and patience which is one reason why divisive conversations become toxic so easily.
I know this is a general and simplistic point that doesn’t address any given sub-point however, I believe it’s a good place to begin working through the challenge of resisting manipulation.
I hope this helps a bit and thanks for the opportunity to contribute and keep up the good work!
Diversity training is 1984 in practice because the real goal of this misnomer is to eliminate all discussion and dissenting views
Wow… our whole culture is being ‘diversity trained’ right now! before our eyes!
If we are to oppose such DEI sessions under these intolerant conditions, we need a clear way of speaking up. I’m thinking that declaring yourself a liberal and then defending liberal principles is the way to go. “As a liberal, I support the idea of a colorblind society. This seems to be opposed to that, so I can’t support it.” You can also support free speech and due process, universal truths, etc. This should throw them because most people in these sessions also would identify as liberals. But, we need more ammunition. Chapter 10 of Cynical Theories is a good start, but we need more discussions on the foundations of liberal thought. I think people take these ideals for granted, but we no longer can do that in the face of anti-racism. Thank you for your great work!
You clearly have more faith in humanity than I do. It sounds like you believe most of the HR folks, CT people in industry are using reason to form their opinions on diversity and so on-not emotion. It’s a losing battle to reason with emotion.
I think that the CT ideologues feel that they are using reason, or some distant facsimile of it. They have no problem adopting the trappings of academia with citing sources, however the sources tend to be a massive self-referential loop.
This was the problem I had with one of the other contributors here recently – essentially trying to reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. In that, you are absolutely correct. But, I think Martin is on the right track here.
The primary aspiration of the “Woke” crowd is positional good, not ascertaining truth. Thus, the most effective tactic is to maneuver the Wokist into a position of being out-grouped (no easy task, but doable). I firmly believe this one dynamic drives many of the phenomena we see among the “Woke”, from conspicuous virtue to progressive stack Struggle Sessions.
I lack access to Psychology Literature, so I’m not aware of any work being done in this area. The only things I’ve seen that approach the applied psychology of the Left is here:
https://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/touching-the-raw-amygdala-an-analysis-of-liberal-debate-tactics-preface/
That series starts off strong, but sadly loses steam in its prescribed applications. I think Martin here is on the right track in identifying first as a liberal, then identifying liberal principles that most people can agree with before rejecting the “Woke” ideology.
The trick is in how to frame liberal principles in concise ways that are objectionable only to the most rabid of ideologues. The radical left developed this over decades so effectively that they’ve changed the meanings of words, while their lexicon has now entered the mainstream. The strategy is to make an emotional appeal, and then smuggle in all sorts of nonsense.
You see this tactic displayed in nearly every public policy “debate” today. It’s so prevalent because it works. Traditional Western discourse rightly rejects emotional appeals, but the modern academy is actively rejecting the Western tradition. If logic and reason are more powerful, and I think they are, they need to be cloaked in emotional appeal.
gmmayo70-You raise good points. First, however, you needn’t lack access to psych research or any research (medicine, genetics, etc) for that matter! The US govt provides it through National Center for Biotechnology Information website. Here’s the link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. For example, I entered “dark triad in personality psychology” and got hundreds of hits. jstor.org is another digital library.
I clicked on the link to anonymous conservative you provided and read much of it-but not all yet. Anyway, I agree with the author’s/ your/ Martiln’s plan to quietly interject reason into emotional arguments. Typically, illiberals/CT people are more interested in being liked and looking admirable than anything else. Narcissists too, but I repeat myself. Its painful to them to not be affirmed.
I agree the key is to turn the focus on speaker, not the listener. Since many social justice people lack empathy, it’s of little/no value to have them consider how other people feel. They don’t get it! People with high levels of narcissism don’t have emotional borders; they think others think the same way they do. Also, they need validation as they tend to feel empty inside.
By the way, the in/out group theory operate in just about every repressive society , such as the CCP, former USSR and so on.
CT ideology has been present for decades-most people just didn’t notice it. Now, many more see it. That’s a positive. I look at reversing the trend this way: CT is a lot like being overweight. It took time to put on the pounds, so it’s going to take time to get rid of them.
The only trouble is, that comes off as a cliche Boomerism. If such language could truly be effective, it would have been, given as people have been saying such things for four or five decades now. Maybe the better thing to say is “in a professional environment, it is crucial that we not allow personal grievances, especially ones that have very little to do with your coworkers and the workplace, to interfere with the business environment. It is our expectation that concerns about the things this proposed training is about be brought directly to your direct supervising manager, who is responsible for them. Unless there is a genuine concern about discrimination that the business as a whole is legally liable for, we do not believe that such a process of indoctrination is responsible or reasonable, because by definition it simply cannot consider the realities of the environment. As such, the overall Human Resources policy of our company will be guided by only one theory: case law.”
This essay for all intents and purposes describes the life cycle of a virus, the only difference being this breed of virus is not a pseudo-organism infecting and taking over cells but a method to infect and taking over going business concerns and their resources.
Tars-I see your analogy. I think people agree CRT is nonsense. We can critique it and highlight its inconsistencies and fallacies all we want: however, I don’t think CRT will spontaneously remit. So what is the treatment?
The treatment is for it to be generally recognised that Woke theory and the things which depend from it are faith positions. So should be treated and recognised as such. So just like the Catholics coming in and converting everyone to Catholicism or else would not be done so “chritical” theory would not be done.
Also someone will do an analysis of the business effectiveness of CT vs non CT trained places and demonstrate in money terms that it’s bad.
Various police forces here in the UK were “diversity” trained by Stonewall the woke captured former LGB now just Tetc charity. The Northampton force gave it up since collecting the necessary data from each and every interaction with the public was using time and resources for no demonstrable purposes. Other police forces have quietly done the same.
Diversity is just another word for Forced Integration, AKA mandatory acceptance of the unacceptable, inclusion of the unwanted, and tolerance of the intolerable , false justification of a failed theory that has never worked anywhere, at any time, anyplace on the planet. Diversity is always based on giving nonwhites what white people have already earned after generations of long hard work, risk, hazards, losses, and wars.
“Diversity is always based on giving nonwhites what white people have already earned after generations of long hard work, risk, hazards, losses, and wars.”
I disagree. The blessings of the hard work, freedom, etc are available to anyone. Opportunity is the great gift of the free society and it has been, and should always be, given liberally to all who live here (speaking of the US).
For real, you sound like a racist. Everyone should have the same opportunities or right to work regardless of their ancestors or racial background. People like you delegitimize the work James and others do, as opponents can point and say “look, they are a bunch of racists after all!”.
Please, have a long hard think about why you comment is racist, and not at all in line with what James is talking about.
Yes, when you look at life through the lens of race, everything is racism.
People who look at the world through the lens of race are RACISTS , no matter what they claim or say.
The reality of Diversity today is closer to John P than to Gordon.
The take-away for me on your essay is: power-seeking, revenue- seeking, people conspire to ruin others in the pursuit of more money and power. Also, I agree that “diversity education” is highly divisive.
The corporate setting where diversity “education” is mandated is more likely to be filled with smart and well-educated people. Except HR, of course; but that’s another issue. Research reliably demonstrates it’s smart and educated people who fall for scams. By the way, common sense, unlike intelligence, is not normally distributed! So, there will be scam victims-those who buy into the necessity of diversity.
What should be done? Well, for some, there is value in pretending you agree. At least there may be solace in knowing that you’ve manipulated the educator. I know when faced with a person who is impervious to logic and evidence, I fog. Fogging is a type of assertiveness skill. Its effective when speaking to people who are behaving manipulatively or aggressively. Don’t argue with them, be calm and let them think you’re not challenging them. The big however is-you did just challenge them and they don’t realize it!. (It’s so nuanced, the aggressor is likely to think you actually agree with him or her and are willing to do what they demand).
Here’s a fun P.T. Barnum quote: clowns are the pegs on which the circus is hung.
Have you guys considered putting a modifier on these CRT (and other postmodern afflicted words)? This is done with various technology protocols that come from the same root but are used in different various ways.
For example: CRT based “Diversity”, “Inclusion”, and “Equity” would be prepended with a lowercase “c” to identify it as “Critically Theory” based. So cDiversity, cInclusion, and cEquity respectively or for the all inclusive cDIE.
Just a thought, keep up the good work!
I think that quarantining CRT/CSJT jargon inside scare-quotes achieves the purpose.
I like that except raise it to small letter in upper position – meaning Inclusion taken to the inth power, the infinite “c” power which warps all.