Why diversity training on campus is likely to disappoint

U.S. colleges and universities will be embracing diversity training with renewed vigor this fall.

In response to the killing of George Floyd, the massive Black Lives Matter protests and pressure from students, dozens of colleges and universities have made public commitments to new anti-racism initiatives.

The University of Florida will require all students, faculty and staff to undergo training on “racism, inclusion and bias.” Northeastern University will institute “cultural competency” and “anti-racism training” for every member of the campus community. And Ohio Wesleyan University will mandate “universal diversity, equity, and inclusion training.”

Given the vital importance of confronting past and present racism, we believe it is imperative that colleges and universities address racial disparities and discrimination in higher education head-on. However, as scholars who study race and social inequality, we know that diversity training suffers from “chronically disappointing results.” Recent research in psychology even suggests that diversity training may cause more problems than it solves.

What diversity training looks like
Called into a typical diversity training session, you may be told to complete a “privilege walk”: step forward if “you are a white male,” backward if your “ancestors were forced to come to the United States,” forward if “either of your parents graduated from college,” backward if you “grew up in an urban setting,” and so on.

You could be instructed to play “culture bingo.” In this game, you would earn points for knowing “what melanin is,” the “influence Zoot suits had on Chicano history” or your “Chinese birth sign.”

You might be informed that white folks use “white talk,” which is “task-oriented” and “intellectual,” while people of color use “color commentary,” which is “process-oriented” and “emotional.”

You will most definitely be encouraged to internalize an ever-expanding diversity lexicon. This vocabulary includes terms such as Latinx, microaggressions and white privilege.

It also features terms that are more obscure, like “adultism,” which is defined as “prejudiced thoughts and discriminatory actions against young people, in favor of the older.”

Disappointing results and unintended consequences
In terms of reducing bias and promoting equal opportunity, diversity training has “failed spectacularly,” according to the expert assessment of sociologists Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev. When Dobbin and Kalev evaluated the impact of diversity training at more than 800 companies over three decades, they found that the positive effects are short-lived and that compulsory training generates resistance and resentment.

“A company is better off doing nothing than mandatory diversity training,” Kalev concluded.

Some of the most popular training approaches are of dubious value. There is evidence, for example, that introducing people to the most commonly used readings about white privilege can reduce sympathy for poor whites, especially among social liberals.

There is also evidence that emphasizing cultural differences across racial groups can lead to an increased belief in fundamental biological differences among races. This means that well-intentioned efforts to celebrate diversity may in fact reinforce racial stereotyping.

With its emphasis on do’s and don’t’s, diversity training tends to be little more than a form of etiquette. It spells out rules that are just as rigid as those that govern the placement of salad forks and soup spoons. The fear of saying “the wrong thing” often leads to unproductive, highly scripted conversations.

This is the exact opposite of the kinds of debates and discussions that you would hope to find on a college campus.

The main beneficiaries of the forthcoming explosion in diversity programming will be the swelling ranks of “diversity and inclusion” consultants who stand to make a pretty penny. A one-day training session for around 50 people costs anywhere between US$2,000 and $6,000. Robin DiAngelo, the best-selling author of “White Fragility,” charges up to $15,000 per event.

In this belt-tightening era of COVID-19, should colleges and universities really be spending precious dollars on measures that have been “proven to fail”?

Alternatives to training
In our view, instead of pouring money into diversity training, colleges and universities would be better off using their limited resources to provide increased financial aid and better academic support systems for underrepresented students. The increasing number of scholarships and fellowships that have been established in George Floyd’s name are a welcome step in this direction.

We also recommend that schools invest more in expanding the full range of educational opportunities at their disposal to better understand and disrupt systemic racism.

This includes coursework, lecture series, discussion panels, student speak-outs, college-wide teach-ins, exhibitions, performances and common readings. Such an approach would enable universities to use the extensive knowledge and expertise that their faculty, students and staff already have on issues of race and inequality. It would be far better than relying on the kind of mass-produced, drive-through diversity training provided by outside “experts.”

Campus communities don’t need diversity consultants to lead workshops about terms such as “microaggressions,” “micro-invalidations” and “micro-insults.” Instead they should discuss thought-provoking works such as poet Claudia Rankine’s book “Citizen,” a personal account that “strips bare the everyday realities of racism.”

Rather than simply declaring that “illegal immigrant” is an unacceptable derogatory term, analyze Jason De Leon’s “The Land of Open Graves,” a vivid portrait that “pushes our understanding of how lives are lived and lost on the U.S.-Mexican border to a new level.”

To explain the concept of “intersectionality,” replace “social identity wheel” exercises with an examination of the 1977 Combahee River Collective Statement, whose Black feminist authors insisted that it was not possible to “separate race from class from sex oppression.”

Facing urgent calls for action, colleges and universities have embraced diversity training to try to prove that they really are doing something to advance racial justice. But the relevant evidence suggests that in offering ineffective, superficial remedies to the complex problems of prejudice and exclusion, diversity training will shortchange campus communities and short-circuit critical thinking.

If colleges and universities want to effect meaningful social change, they will soon discover that diversity training is no substitute for education.


https://theconversation.com/why-diversity-training-on-campus-is-likely-to-disappoint-143644

Didgee wrote:U.S. colleges and universities will be embracing diversity training with renewed vigor this fall.

In response to the killing of George Floyd, the massive Black Lives Matter protests and pressure from students, dozens of colleges and universities have made public commitments to new anti-racism initiatives.

The University of Florida will require all students, faculty and staff to undergo training on “racism, inclusion and bias.” Northeastern University will institute “cultural competency” and “anti-racism training” for every member of the campus community. And Ohio Wesleyan University will mandate “universal diversity, equity, and inclusion training.”

Given the vital importance of confronting past and present racism, we believe it is imperative that colleges and universities address racial disparities and discrimination in higher education head-on. However, as scholars who study race and social inequality, we know that diversity training suffers from “chronically disappointing results.” Recent research in psychology even suggests that diversity training may cause more problems than it solves.

What diversity training looks like
Called into a typical diversity training session, you may be told to complete a “privilege walk”: step forward if “you are a white male,” backward if your “ancestors were forced to come to the United States,” forward if “either of your parents graduated from college,” backward if you “grew up in an urban setting,” and so on.

You could be instructed to play “culture bingo.” In this game, you would earn points for knowing “what melanin is,” the “influence Zoot suits had on Chicano history” or your “Chinese birth sign.”

You might be informed that white folks use “white talk,” which is “task-oriented” and “intellectual,” while people of color use “color commentary,” which is “process-oriented” and “emotional.”

You will most definitely be encouraged to internalize an ever-expanding diversity lexicon. This vocabulary includes terms such as Latinx, microaggressions and white privilege.

It also features terms that are more obscure, like “adultism,” which is defined as “prejudiced thoughts and discriminatory actions against young people, in favor of the older.”

Disappointing results and unintended consequences
In terms of reducing bias and promoting equal opportunity, diversity training has “failed spectacularly,” according to the expert assessment of sociologists Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev. When Dobbin and Kalev evaluated the impact of diversity training at more than 800 companies over three decades, they found that the positive effects are short-lived and that compulsory training generates resistance and resentment.

“A company is better off doing nothing than mandatory diversity training,” Kalev concluded.

Some of the most popular training approaches are of dubious value. There is evidence, for example, that introducing people to the most commonly used readings about white privilege can reduce sympathy for poor whites, especially among social liberals.

There is also evidence that emphasizing cultural differences across racial groups can lead to an increased belief in fundamental biological differences among races. This means that well-intentioned efforts to celebrate diversity may in fact reinforce racial stereotyping.

With its emphasis on do’s and don’t’s, diversity training tends to be little more than a form of etiquette. It spells out rules that are just as rigid as those that govern the placement of salad forks and soup spoons. The fear of saying “the wrong thing” often leads to unproductive, highly scripted conversations.

This is the exact opposite of the kinds of debates and discussions that you would hope to find on a college campus.

The main beneficiaries of the forthcoming explosion in diversity programming will be the swelling ranks of “diversity and inclusion” consultants who stand to make a pretty penny. A one-day training session for around 50 people costs anywhere between US$2,000 and $6,000. Robin DiAngelo, the best-selling author of “White Fragility,” charges up to $15,000 per event.

In this belt-tightening era of COVID-19, should colleges and universities really be spending precious dollars on measures that have been “proven to fail”?

Alternatives to training
In our view, instead of pouring money into diversity training, colleges and universities would be better off using their limited resources to provide increased financial aid and better academic support systems for underrepresented students. The increasing number of scholarships and fellowships that have been established in George Floyd’s name are a welcome step in this direction.

We also recommend that schools invest more in expanding the full range of educational opportunities at their disposal to better understand and disrupt systemic racism.

This includes coursework, lecture series, discussion panels, student speak-outs, college-wide teach-ins, exhibitions, performances and common readings. Such an approach would enable universities to use the extensive knowledge and expertise that their faculty, students and staff already have on issues of race and inequality. It would be far better than relying on the kind of mass-produced, drive-through diversity training provided by outside “experts.”

Campus communities don’t need diversity consultants to lead workshops about terms such as “microaggressions,” “micro-invalidations” and “micro-insults.” Instead they should discuss thought-provoking works such as poet Claudia Rankine’s book “Citizen,” a personal account that “strips bare the everyday realities of racism.”

Rather than simply declaring that “illegal immigrant” is an unacceptable derogatory term, analyze Jason De Leon’s “The Land of Open Graves,” a vivid portrait that “pushes our understanding of how lives are lived and lost on the U.S.-Mexican border to a new level.”

To explain the concept of “intersectionality,” replace “social identity wheel” exercises with an examination of the 1977 Combahee River Collective Statement, whose Black feminist authors insisted that it was not possible to “separate race from class from sex oppression.”

Facing urgent calls for action, colleges and universities have embraced diversity training to try to prove that they really are doing something to advance racial justice. But the relevant evidence suggests that in offering ineffective, superficial remedies to the complex problems of prejudice and exclusion, diversity training will shortchange campus communities and short-circuit critical thinking.

If colleges and universities want to effect meaningful social change, they will soon discover that diversity training is no substitute for education.

https://theconversation.com/why-diversity-training-on-campus-is-likely-to-disappoint-143644

I have to agree, though it amuses me to see recommendations about reading books when people on-line tell me that book-learning is no substitute for street learning.

What the author calls “diversity training,” and “culture bingo” or “white talk/color commentary” and criticizes as a “lexicon”, I would group in a category of ‘quick fixes’, which is no way to approach the matter.

People are inculcated into cultures, which deal not in single symbols, but in whole perspectives and mindsets.  That’s why I speak of zeitgeist and cultural inclination, or words to that effect.

When I use the word racist, I am most often not indicting a person for individual malfeasance—in fact, it’s not even an indictment—but for coming from a part of a culture or system that has its origins in racial bias.  An American southerner has in his mind, not malevolence, but what he was taught from his momma’s mouth.  His whole perspective is that of a culture, of which racism is a part.  He has values and barely conscious expectations about another race that causes him to act with malice, or at least indifference.

We also recommend that schools invest more in expanding the full range of educational opportunities at their disposal to better understand and disrupt systemic racism.

Instead of some sort of quick fix, a university student has the luxury of four years, perhaps more, in which to immerse him/herself in true learning, as the author points out.  He mentions Claudia Rankine’s book Citizen, and Jason De Leon’s The Land of Open Graves.  I recall that I lifted myself up out of an upper middle-class, Republican life, by reading John Howard Griffin’s book, Black Like Me, in which he recounted his journey through the deep south of the US, passing as a black man, at a time when African-Americans lived under racial segregation.  There were simple tips like: use the restroom before you fill the tank of your automobile, or you will be refused and told to leave.

It takes study and intense involvement to get outside ourselves and understand terms like ‘systemic racism’, and ‘present effects of past discrimination’.  People live in an existential world, and they don’t understand history, nor the effects of history on us.  What comes out of momma’s mouth is their only understanding, and as Marshall McLuhan said: “If all the world were hues of red, the one color we wouldn’t recognize is red”.  https://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/color.htm They don’t recognize themselves.  But, it’s all around us.  It is us.  People got a little view into the white-on-black world in the shocking death of George Floyd, but unless they are led to learn that this goes on all the time, they will conclude it’s just aberrant behavior.  But no...it is us.

Or you could save endless hours of misguided beliefs you have. To see that with the advent of science. People already see how racism is wrong. As it has no bases in science, different races.

All you need to understand is humans are one race and no matter the past. Today in many western countries people. Have the opportunity to better their lives. Or they can continually hold themselves back

Its not rocket science

If people wish to hold themselves back based on a perceived view of victim-hood. Then they will never succeed or be happy in society

As in the west we have the right to also protest and stand up to something we do not agree with

That is real privilege, compared to the many nations where its illegal to protest

Its the very fact that many kids protesting today are just about the most privileged in history and the issue is. Its their perceived view of entitlement. That is the issue

They simple have never had it so good as they do today

There are two elements to the equation: 1) the moral theory that racism is wrong; and 2) the fact that they, as white people, have that racism inside them.  I think most people accept the moral theory.  What they don't get is that racism is hidden inside them, like a disease, waiting to burst out.

What happened in the case of the death of George Floyd is that it burst out of the police officer, Derek Chauvin.  I believe in that moment many people saw themselves in Derek Chauvin.  Sure, they blamed racist cops; but deep down inside they saw themselves.

That's why it was an awakening that still persists.

Quill wrote:

...though it amuses me to see recommendations about reading books when people on-line tell me that book-learning is no substitute for street learning.

It isn’t.
There is no comparison whatsoever. Books can tell you all they want but nothing, nothing, compares to “street learning” or real life lessons.
Nothing.

The attitude that minority ethnicities "hold themselves back" in majority-white societies isn't helpful either.

Sure, there are some non-white people who blame all their failures on racism. Just like there are white people who blame all their failures on some other trait -- being too short, too fat, too whatever.

But George Floyd didn't bring his death upon himself. If he were still around to defend himself, I think he'd blame the white cop who killed him for his death, not his "victim" mentality. Sometimes people really are victims.

Ben Reilly wrote:The attitude that minority ethnicities "hold themselves back" in majority-white societies isn't helpful either.

Sure, there are some non-white people who blame all their failures on racism. Just like there are white people who blame all their failures on some other trait -- being too short, too fat, too whatever.

But George Floyd didn't bring his death upon himself. If he were still around to defend himself, I think he'd blame the white cop who killed him for his death, not his "victim" mentality. Sometimes people really are victims.

What is stopping anyone furthering their lives?

George Floyd held a gun to a pregnant black woman and was convicted of multiple crimes

Nobody forced a gun against his head to commit these crimes.

You could argue he would have never even been stopped if he had chosen a different path and not one that led him into the path of a murderous cop

He like everyone else has a free will to decide how they live their lives

People will go through a mountain of shit and its those who come through past this and succeed, that people should look to

To many people take the easy option of blaming everyone else

For most people we hold the fate of our destiny in our own hands

Yes some people are less fortunate, but we are the only makers of our fortunes

Okay, so what about the people who never held a gun on a pregnant woman but still got abused by police because of their race?

What about the black kid who goes to jail for having weed in his locker, while a white kid gets a stern talking-to from his parents and teacher?

The system doesn't treat everyone the same. Thus, some people do get to blame the system, which does to this day victimize some people but not others.

Ben Reilly wrote:Okay, so what about the people who never held a gun on a pregnant woman but still got abused by police because of their race?

What about the black kid who goes to jail for having weed in his locker, while a white kid gets a stern talking-to from his parents and teacher?

The system doesn't treat everyone the same. Thus, some people do get to blame the system, which does to this day victimize some people but not others.

Re-read my second to last sentence

For "most" people we hold the fate of our destiny in our own hands

Even for those who have been mistreated which goes into the hundreds of millions. Many have been raped, abused, suffered violence, etc. Many still go onto succeed

Even those who do not hold the fate in their hands

They will still overcome, even the most horrific crimes done to them



Night

So you and I could both be living the same lives we currently lead, even if we were born in a war-torn African nation.

Sorry. Not buying it. Not saying it's impossible, but I'm saying it's exceedingly rare to be able to overcome the circumstances of your birth to such a dramatic extent.

Ben Reilly wrote:So you and I could both be living the same lives we currently lead, even if we were born in a war-torn African nation.

Sorry. Not buying it. Not saying it's impossible, but I'm saying it's exceedingly rare to be able to overcome the circumstances of your birth to such a dramatic extent.

Then you fail to look at human history where many people have overcome in what situations they were born into

Its not rare at all. You are just have a very poor view point of humans, as if they are incapable of bettering their lives when many do

As to Africa, i suggest you actually go there and see how with very little many are very happy

eddie wrote:Quill wrote:

...though it amuses me to see recommendations about reading books when people on-line tell me that book-learning is no substitute for street learning.

It isn’t.
There is no comparison whatsoever. Books can tell you all they want but nothing, nothing, compares to “street learning” or real life lessons.
Nothing.

Yes, but who has the time to experience everything? Most people get married, have children, and are forever after limited to going to work daily, going home, having dinner, going to bed. Over and over again. They retire, and seven years later (on average) they die.

TV is mostly pablum and given over to sales (advertising), but at least it is a medium outside of yourself. Books are the real expansion of awareness. It isn't driven by anything but pure curiosity.

Ben Reilly wrote:Okay, so what about the people who never held a gun on a pregnant woman but still got abused by police because of their race?

Why discuss facts that are not even in the picture?

Didgee wrote:U.S. colleges and universities will be embracing diversity training with renewed vigor this fall.

In response to the killing of George Floyd, the massive Black Lives Matter protests and pressure from students, dozens of colleges and universities have made public commitments to new anti-racism initiatives.

The University of Florida will require all students, faculty and staff to undergo training on “racism, inclusion and bias.” Northeastern University will institute “cultural competency” and “anti-racism training” for every member of the campus community. And Ohio Wesleyan University will mandate “universal diversity, equity, and inclusion training.”

Given the vital importance of confronting past and present racism, we believe it is imperative that colleges and universities address racial disparities and discrimination in higher education head-on. However, as scholars who study race and social inequality, we know that diversity training suffers from “chronically disappointing results.” Recent research in psychology even suggests that diversity training may cause more problems than it solves.

What diversity training looks like
Called into a typical diversity training session, you may be told to complete a “privilege walk”: step forward if “you are a white male,” backward if your “ancestors were forced to come to the United States,” forward if “either of your parents graduated from college,” backward if you “grew up in an urban setting,” and so on.

You could be instructed to play “culture bingo.” In this game, you would earn points for knowing “what melanin is,” the “influence Zoot suits had on Chicano history” or your “Chinese birth sign.”

You might be informed that white folks use “white talk,” which is “task-oriented” and “intellectual,” while people of color use “color commentary,” which is “process-oriented” and “emotional.”

You will most definitely be encouraged to internalize an ever-expanding diversity lexicon. This vocabulary includes terms such as Latinx, microaggressions and white privilege.

It also features terms that are more obscure, like “adultism,” which is defined as “prejudiced thoughts and discriminatory actions against young people, in favor of the older.”

Disappointing results and unintended consequences
In terms of reducing bias and promoting equal opportunity, diversity training has “failed spectacularly,” according to the expert assessment of sociologists Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev. When Dobbin and Kalev evaluated the impact of diversity training at more than 800 companies over three decades, they found that the positive effects are short-lived and that compulsory training generates resistance and resentment.

“A company is better off doing nothing than mandatory diversity training,” Kalev concluded.

Some of the most popular training approaches are of dubious value. There is evidence, for example, that introducing people to the most commonly used readings about white privilege can reduce sympathy for poor whites, especially among social liberals.

There is also evidence that emphasizing cultural differences across racial groups can lead to an increased belief in fundamental biological differences among races. This means that well-intentioned efforts to celebrate diversity may in fact reinforce racial stereotyping.

With its emphasis on do’s and don’t’s, diversity training tends to be little more than a form of etiquette. It spells out rules that are just as rigid as those that govern the placement of salad forks and soup spoons. The fear of saying “the wrong thing” often leads to unproductive, highly scripted conversations.

This is the exact opposite of the kinds of debates and discussions that you would hope to find on a college campus.

The main beneficiaries of the forthcoming explosion in diversity programming will be the swelling ranks of “diversity and inclusion” consultants who stand to make a pretty penny. A one-day training session for around 50 people costs anywhere between US$2,000 and $6,000. Robin DiAngelo, the best-selling author of “White Fragility,” charges up to $15,000 per event.

In this belt-tightening era of COVID-19, should colleges and universities really be spending precious dollars on measures that have been “proven to fail”?

Alternatives to training
In our view, instead of pouring money into diversity training, colleges and universities would be better off using their limited resources to provide increased financial aid and better academic support systems for underrepresented students. The increasing number of scholarships and fellowships that have been established in George Floyd’s name are a welcome step in this direction.

We also recommend that schools invest more in expanding the full range of educational opportunities at their disposal to better understand and disrupt systemic racism.

This includes coursework, lecture series, discussion panels, student speak-outs, college-wide teach-ins, exhibitions, performances and common readings. Such an approach would enable universities to use the extensive knowledge and expertise that their faculty, students and staff already have on issues of race and inequality. It would be far better than relying on the kind of mass-produced, drive-through diversity training provided by outside “experts.”

Campus communities don’t need diversity consultants to lead workshops about terms such as “microaggressions,” “micro-invalidations” and “micro-insults.” Instead they should discuss thought-provoking works such as poet Claudia Rankine’s book “Citizen,” a personal account that “strips bare the everyday realities of racism.”

Rather than simply declaring that “illegal immigrant” is an unacceptable derogatory term, analyze Jason De Leon’s “The Land of Open Graves,” a vivid portrait that “pushes our understanding of how lives are lived and lost on the U.S.-Mexican border to a new level.”

To explain the concept of “intersectionality,” replace “social identity wheel” exercises with an examination of the 1977 Combahee River Collective Statement, whose Black feminist authors insisted that it was not possible to “separate race from class from sex oppression.”

Facing urgent calls for action, colleges and universities have embraced diversity training to try to prove that they really are doing something to advance racial justice. But the relevant evidence suggests that in offering ineffective, superficial remedies to the complex problems of prejudice and exclusion, diversity training will shortchange campus communities and short-circuit critical thinking.

If colleges and universities want to effect meaningful social change, they will soon discover that diversity training is no substitute for education.


https://theconversation.com/why-diversity-training-on-campus-is-likely-to-disappoint-143644

Complete load of bollocks!!!