DEI frameworks often prime us to emphasize division and cultivate discord. The question is not whether racism occurred, but how it has occurred. This throws so many potential solutions out the window.
When we moved into a retirement community a few years ago, it took a long time for me to get past confusing one person with another. We were all old, gray-haired, mostly white people. Was this racism? Gee, I doubt it.
I love your insights, Angel. They make so much sense. But they might be more easily put into practice by removing them from the DEI framework. It is steeped in anti-racist rhetoric and has an aura of contempt for white people baked into it. It sounds like the training you received was better than most, but the underlying philosophy remained, especially when it comes to microaggressions and the assumptions about who is subject to them.
I'm relieved that your HR person didn't use their power to make your life miserable when confronting your uncensored personality. But is it possible that you were handled gently because you're a person of color? We’ll never know, but I can’t help wondering.
Microaggression is an interesting topic, worth addressing. I cringe inside when I remember doing exactly what you describe: at work, I once confused two Asian women with one another. One was a long-standing employee and the other was brand new, so your solution was right on the money.
In DEI, there’s an assumption that white people can only be perpetrators, never recipients, of microaggressions. I'm a fair skinned Jew, and apparently I "look Jewish," because strangers like to remind me of that fact out of the blue. As a child, I went to a day camp where I was one of a handful of Jews, and I was sometimes mistaken for the other Jewish girls who looked nothing like me. I'm a woman, so microaggressions and actual aggressions always were and will be a problem. And I'm a lesbian, so my short hair and gender-neutral clothes have often made me a target of homophobic threats, both physical and verbal, from both men and women. None of this is going to magically go away through “training.” A range of tactics and responses are required by me to get through life. I am sometimes wary, but if I walked around offended all the time, hating the human race, I'd be miserable.
Life is a collection of microaggressions and microkindnesses both given and received. If we love our fellow humans and want to have a happier life, it’s worth it to shine a light on our unconscious biases and strive to do better. But I don’t believe that DEI is the way.
Hi there, thanks for responding! To respond to each of your points:
I don't think it's all steeped in anti-racist rhetoric—and not all anti-racist rhetoric is wrong or bad. For example, FAIR Diversity (FAIRdiversity.org) and FAIR Advisor Sheena Mason's Theory of Racelessness (theoryofracelessness.org) are among many other alternative approaches that we can and should highlight and promote. We can bring new and better options forward that don't have the troubling underlying philosophy as a basis.
My HR person was also a "person of color," so I can say with confidence that my supposed race had nothing to do with it.
I certainly agree with you about the drawbacks of walking around being offended all the time. And you're right that no amount of training will eliminate threats or misunderstandings that cause upset. What the right kinds of trainings *can* do is limit those things in workplaces and schools, and give individuals the tools and perspectives that can help them navigate those circumstances, should they find themselves in them.
DEI, as it is often currently structured, is certainly not the way because it doesn't teach kindness and compassion, but there *are* DEI programs that do—such as FAIR Diversity and Chloé Valdary's Theory of Enchantment. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Thank you, Angel. I'm familiar with the work of both Sheena Mason and Chloé Valdary, and I find both of these women inspiring. But I don't think of them as exponents of DEI, because I equate DEI with the philosophy of woke "anti-racism." However, If Valdary and Mason consider their work as falling under the "DEI" rubric, then I need to expand my definition of the term.
I think both ladies consider their work to be in a DEI-type realm, only that they're looking to propose a different way of going about it. FAIR Diversity certainly fits that criterion. There's nothing wrong with anti-racism or DEI; there's something wrong with certain permutations of it. We shouldn't cede the principles or language whole cloth simply because they've been misused by others.
Yes, that's fair, except the use of the term "equity," which refers in the DEI model to manipulation of outcomes rather than equality of opportunity. The other two terms have been perverted or used cynically in DEI trainings, but when they refer to true diversity and inclusion, they are gold.
I've spent the majority of my working life in occupations traditionally dominated by women, and the number of what people might consider microaggressions I've faced as a male in those occupations has at times been off the charts. I also knew from experience there was little point in saying anything about it. Any time you can be considered "the other" by the majority you're going to face this. Obviously that doesn't make it right or excuse it, but it's just there. The Inclusion aspect of DEI only works when it's truly inclusive, and this is often not the case.
Steve, I know what you're saying. It is socially acceptable in progressive/liberal circles for women to diss men right to their faces, based on the usual stereotypes, in a way that would be unacceptable if the tables were turned. The term "toxic masculinity" strikes me as particularly pernicious. I say this as a lifelong lesbian feminist. Now, I've never lived with a man, so maybe I'm in no position to judge, but at the age of 70 I've had plenty of experience with male relatives, friends, teachers, doctors, bosses, etc., and have had many more wonderful interactions with men than horrible ones. We don't hear much talk about "toxic femininity," but I could tell you a few stories.
I agree "toxic femininity" is certainly a "thing," even though some might wish it wasn't. And in some occupations I think it's not only socially acceptable to diss men...it's expected. And since we're talking about the workplace, I think your observations and judgments are totally valid.
Toxicity is a thing; I'm not sure how useful applying it to masculinity or femininity is—though I guess there are some traits unique to each that cause some to think it warrants distinction. I can be persuaded, but the obvious risk is that this sort of thing can be weaponized against people who actually didn't do anything wrong (or who did something wrong but understandable).
Considering that toxic masculinity has already been weaponized, I think that ship has sailed. But I do believe there are some marked distinctions between genders when it comes to toxic behaviors. What could be labeled toxic femininity often manifests itself socially, and tends to manifest more in social shaming or ostracizing as opposed to more direct attacks.
I'm honestly not a fan of any gender-based toxic labels. At the risk of running afoul of the language police, there are assholes and there are people who aren't assholes. That's independent of gender, race, or any other category (real or invented). Weaponizing labels is often used to excuse behavior that wouldn't otherwise be tolerated. It's ok to bash "the other," after all.
I love this. I think the main thing missing from some DEI programs is "benefit of the doubt." I think it is fashionable right now to not grant clemency, to not think well of people who make mistakes, to assume that errors due to unfamiliarity are actually due to bias. Everyone assumes all less-than-optimal behaviors stem from racism because this feeds the whole virtue signalling posture that is so popular at present. The problem with this assumption is that it dehumanizes people.
I hope that this idea of "reframing the problem" catches on. There are positive solutions available to all of these challenges—solutions that don't dehumanize people. What we need is leadership that a bit wiser and a bit more mature than what we have been seeing to lead the way.
Bravo, Angel, for stepping up to speak out on this issue. You are sowing the seeds of peace, love, and understanding—just what we need right now. 🌼
The basic problem with DEI writ large is that it's race-centric. Race essentialism was one of the hallmarks of National Socialism, and we all know how that ended. I'm not saying DEI is the same thing, but there are enough common traits it should be deeply concerning. Othering is a key component of race essentialism, and the move by California to ask for lineage information from Black employees should be a wake-up call for every thinking person. We're inching toward a very slippery and dangerous slope.
DEI in the main is based on twin concepts of superiority and inferiority, and requires labeling of participants in that way. It's also exclusionary by nature (try mentioning things like the Sedition Act or the abuse faced by Irish or Italian immigrants in this country and see how far you get). Elements of DEI might have a place in a humanist framework, but as it starts I think it does far more harm than good.
Yes, you're pointing to all the problems with the current framework. I don't at all deny or condone any of those things. What I'm saying is that there is a place for programs and protocols that help us work through workplace conflicts, bias in hiring, and other issues of that kind in a way that is constructive rather than destructive, and humanistic rather than essentialist. We don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Of course not. As I said, elements of it certainly DO have a place in what you describe. And some workplaces did have protocols in place prior to DEI that did what you describe. But most of those, sadly, have gone by the wayside.
Yes, power, and pursuit of power, all baked-in presumptions derived from Foucault and Freire, and Kimberlé Crenshaw. And we didn’t have “a session.” Teachers are stewing in DEI EVERY SINGLE DAY.
I so hope we find another way. Human beings are conscious animals at the end of the day (which is why people still delight in ostracizing others to get to the top). The framework used at the moment creates racism by pushing people into "their" color group. It's weird and it's harmful.
Years ago, Dinesh D'Souza (I believe) included an anecdote about his adaptation to an American high school--something that embarrassed him. He'd asked a (white) girl out to the prom; he then ran into the same girl, or so he thought, and mentioned their date--and it took him a moment to realize he'd gotten the wrong girl. He was used to seeing persons of his own ethnicity. When I was growing up, I had a few Asian classmates but when I walked around Chinatown with my father, who was always on the hunt for Canton china, I thought: everybody has black hair. Everybody's eyes are the same color and the same shape. I felt I could not tell Chinese people apart, and as an eight-year-old, this worried me. Things seem quite different now--the markers I saw as a child, hair color and eye color mainly, seem accompanied by many others--but my point now is we should be free to say these things without feeling they are automatically signs of racism.
Aug 22, 2022·edited Aug 22, 2022Liked by Angel Eduardo
Nice article. I would go further than the title and opine that DEI never produces good results. On its face, these words (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) of course carry positive connotation that I'm sure everyone here would agree with. However, in context and in practice, these words are upheld as an ideological, almost religious framework that often goes coerced, thus resulting in the very opposite effect than these words imply.
DEI advocates would sacrifice the principle of true diversity (that of viewpoint, experience, talent, and personality) for ideological conformity.
They would sacrifice the principle of true equality (that of opportunity) for equality of outcome, aka equity.
They would sacrifice true inclusion (that of all people, despite background) for exclusion of people with the "wrong" heritage, race, class, or beliefs.
The pathway to hell is paved with good intentions, unfortunately.
Since FAIR has its own DEI program that absolutely produces good results, I will have to disagree with you there. The context and practice aren't set in stone; we can ensure better programs win out. I would encourage you not to let the reality of the current moment deter you from pushing for something better in the future. There's no reason to cede the true meanings of diversity, equity, and inclusion to those who have misused and perverted them.
Yes, in most instances, a "DEI" problem could be most effectively addressed by improving on issues that affect the organization as a whole well beyond the issue of DEI. In that way, DEI could actually have a net negative impact by diverting resources from more generally-applicable solutions.
Yes, I think it is sometimes used that way. Maybe more expensive, or even more threatening changes. An obvious example is companies like Amazon and Starbuck's responding to union drives with identity-based window-dressing.
I still find it amusing (and disgusting) that the poster child for progressive companies (Starbuck's) is so rabidly anti-union. I sometimes wonder how they'd respond if they were asked how they justified being such an example of white-supremacist Western paternalism by assuming they know best for their workers (who may be of color or otherwise oppressed). I'm being sarcastic, but only by a little bit.
Thanks for sharing your story and experience with the training. I’ve been in a similar position myself on numerous occasions. It takes courage to speak out and ask what seem like obvious questions and the blowback is almost always predictably bad. I have felt that being a “person of color” gives me some latitude to challenge the assumptions in poorly considered forms of DEI trainings. I also think we need a name to capture this decision to engage authentically and speak truth instead of nodding along to something you know is obviously wrong. Perhaps something is like to write about.
Aug 22, 2022·edited Aug 22, 2022Liked by Angel Eduardo
Interesting story--I will add this. Back a few years ago I was chattin' up a longtime friend of mine who happens to be black and another mama I know, whose son happens to be on the spectrum (I gotta kid like that too), came up to greet me and politely greeted my friend as well, after a moment of hesitation, with her wrong name (the name of another black mom in our community).
I corrected the error and introduced them and thought nothing of it until the second mama left and my friend said (the gist), "She has met me at least six times and ALWAYS gets my name wrong or asks for it like I'm a complete stranger. I'm so angry and offended--what, does she think all black folks look alike? Really? I'm like 4" shorter and a good 20 lbs heavier than that other mom...sheesh. Does she think it's not worth learning MY name because I'm not white or something? I'm so mad. Next time I won't even say hello back. I'm SO tired of this racist stupidity."
My friend was genuinely angry and she attributed this and prior incidents ALL to racism.
I empathized with my friend's understandably wounded feelings but added that I didn't think that other mom was racist--her son's favorite teacher was black and she was always very friendly to people of ALL colors. I said that I'd talk to her as it didn't seem like racism to me. So I did.
I went to the other mom and asked how after what I understand to have been SO MANY introductions she still was getting my friend's name wrong because my friend was very upset yet I know she (the mom to whom I was speaking) wasn't prejudiced.
This mom broke down in tears saying something close to this: " I'm so sorry, I'm so embarrassed. Well you know how my son has issues with facial recognition--part of being on the spectrum, right?" (Well, yes I did as my own older child had had the same issue and didn't even recognize me or my husband in a crowd until she was EIGHT). " Yes..." I said...
Through tears she said (approximately), " Well I have it too... I'm so embarrassed. I try to compensate. With people I see often I try to notice their purse or their shoes or something that they consistently wear that makes them stand out in my mind. It's all a trick I do to hide it. But I don't recall such details for anyone I meet every so often. It's like meeting someone for the first time until I recall facts about them--then those I remember, not the visuals. I don't understand it but I've always had it too, even though I'm not on the spectrum."
At the time this mom made her confession I actually knew of two OTHER people (one a teen, one a tween, both on the spectrum) who had facial recognition issues. I didn't know you could have this if you were NOT on the spectrum but I guess it's a "thing"...perhaps hereditary?
I went back to my friend and explained the situation . She took a deep breath and said OK... I'm sort of not buying it but for now... OK. Her expression was a bit skeptical, that I could see. Yet, I also saw a little bit of relief that maybe it wasn't racism after all... She knew I has some knowledge in the area...I'm CERTAIN if the other mom had admitted her challenge to my friend, without my intervention, that my friend wouldn't have bought it for a second...
This stuff happens too. When folks are SO intent about crying racism--they are not able to see other motives or reasons and are reluctant to let the race ball drop. This made me sad.
A bit of a strange end-of-story here. About two years ago this friend more or less canceled me for recommending FAIR. Indeed, TRUE STORY.
It happened after she complained about what she perceive as being "racism" in the comments section of an educational parent webinar we virtually attended (she found objections to CRT & 1619 curriculum racist, I found them justified and not racist...).
I'm grateful for FAIR but I know that some people who might most benefit won't even look... She actually REFUSED to even look. What a story, right?
Thank you for sharing this, Daisy. I'm sorry to hear that your friend responded so badly to FAIR. It's hard, but I think the best thing to do is not to give up on them. Let them know that you don't feel the same way about her that she does about you, and that your door remains open—and be sincere about that. With courage, curiosity, and compassion, we can do a whole hell of a lot.
Thanks Angel--I did exactly that. She knows I'm here. I don't think she's ready to just be open minded, whether about hastily judging another parent or comments from parents not happy with curricula that breaks kids apart vs having them find commonality together. Oddly, it seems like this identity politics gives her a clear structure and "go to" explaination for issues that are otherwise complex--difficult. Making sense of people (and their mistakes and needing to forgive them) and questioning rhetoric is harder than just having a "go to" set of rules which is easy. The sad part is, following those rules makes you lose friends who care--and may make you miss making friends with others worth knowing (like that other mom who is very much worth knowing). I will continue to promote FAIR (other moms have been happy to know about all you guys do)! Thanks again for the excellent article.
In the 1970's, I was a blonde teenage ice cream scooper at the busiest Baskin Robbins in Michigan. It was a warm summer night, and the line was out the door. My co-workers and I were passing each other in the narrow work area behind the counter as we went from bin to bin piling cold balls of ice cream on cones or plopping them into cups. My customer, a black man, was scanning the labels on the bins, deciding on the flavor of the next treat, when he looked up and announced his decision to my co-worker, another blonde teen with her ponytail pulled through the back of her BR ball cap, just like mine. She looked confused, before I told him that I had been serving him. He quickly apologized. I told him not to worry about it because we all looked alike. The room had a good laugh.
Ah, the good old days when people could actually laugh about these things. If we had more humor and a more relaxed attitude about race and so many other topics, we would be so much better off. Giving others the benefit of the doubt: a blast from the past. Keep looking for the humor each and every day. And ice cream always helps regardless of the flavor.
Aug 22, 2022·edited Aug 22, 2022Liked by Angel Eduardo
Thank you for writing that, it reflects my experiences with DEI programs. I loved your idea of fostering more meet and greets during onboarding. I always thought it would be cool for companies to have a tool to randomly pair employees for a suggested 1-on-1 meet and greet on a weekly or monthly basis (can be done virtually). I am a big believer in the "mere exposure effect', fostering understanding by sheer exposure to others.
Also, I'd be curious to know what you think about networking groups based on racial identity in the workplace. I used to work at Nike where the DEI team there was pushing them hard. I thought they created more divisions than anything. To promote tolerance and understanding, I would think allowing people to come together based on shared interests or life stages (e.g. new parents) would be a lot more effective. It would cut across racial lines and allow employees to focus on what they have in common vs. how they are different.
I certainly agree that grouping people based on racialization or other identity categories is the wrong way to go, because it necessarily essentializes people, which I think is wrong. Grouping people based on shared interests or life stages, as you mentioned, is certainly a wonderful thing to do—and a great way to showcase how people from different "identity categories" actually have much more in common than not.
Angel, I enjoyed your article very much. I do have a few questions and observations: 1)what exactly does racislized mean and how does one know if they are in fact racialized and is racializtion a good or bad thing, and 2) i am curious if your DEI training or other DEI training assumes that micro or macro aggressions can only go in one direction? I have lived my life not being unaware of racial or other differences but rather trying to not stereotype others and to reach conclusions about a particular person based on my interaction with them or what they have actually said, written or done. Am I wrong in concluding that that type of life approach or philosophy is not part of DEI training or that DEI training possibly condemns such an attitude and way of dealing with others. Finally, I will conclude by asking if there is an end game with respect to any of this?
1. "Racialized" means, basically, "labeled according to race categories." The reason I use that term instead of simply saying "A white person" or "A black person" is because I reject the concept of race altogether, and refuse to reinforce or reify the idea that people can and should be categorized into "races." I highly encourage you to check out FAIR Advisor Sheena Mason's work on this: theoryofracelessness.org.
2. I'm sure there's a wide range of approaches that different DEI programs take, and I'm sure at least some of them think microaggressions or macro aggressions can only happen in one direction. You often hear about "people of color" being "incapable" of racism, because "racism" is defined as "prejudice plus power" and "people of color" have no power—institutional or otherwise. I reject that definition, and believe that if micro- or macroaggressions are a thing, they can be perpetrated by anyone.
And yes, I think that many DEI programs, or forms of anti-racism, would reject your approach of not trying to stereotype others. They would say that this is impossible; that you can't help but stereotype or express racism towards others, and that your perspective in effect ignores or tries to suppress this fact about you. I disagree with that as well.
3. As to what the end game is, it is to promote a common culture based on fairness, understanding, and humanity—to create a world where every human being's individuality is highlighted and respected, and the common humanity we all share is emphasized above all things. DEI can have a place in that world, if done the right way.
What a beautiful essay. It's tenderness that is lacking in DEI training. Attendees are taught to be harsh and judgmental to others and by extension, themselves. This doesn't create inner growth or understanding. It creates fear. Fear that we will make a mistake and have the swarm attack. This isolates everyone involved and makes us afraid to express ourselves, makes us only allowed to be on the look out for offenders of acceptable behavior.
When we moved into a retirement community a few years ago, it took a long time for me to get past confusing one person with another. We were all old, gray-haired, mostly white people. Was this racism? Gee, I doubt it.
I love your insights, Angel. They make so much sense. But they might be more easily put into practice by removing them from the DEI framework. It is steeped in anti-racist rhetoric and has an aura of contempt for white people baked into it. It sounds like the training you received was better than most, but the underlying philosophy remained, especially when it comes to microaggressions and the assumptions about who is subject to them.
I'm relieved that your HR person didn't use their power to make your life miserable when confronting your uncensored personality. But is it possible that you were handled gently because you're a person of color? We’ll never know, but I can’t help wondering.
Microaggression is an interesting topic, worth addressing. I cringe inside when I remember doing exactly what you describe: at work, I once confused two Asian women with one another. One was a long-standing employee and the other was brand new, so your solution was right on the money.
In DEI, there’s an assumption that white people can only be perpetrators, never recipients, of microaggressions. I'm a fair skinned Jew, and apparently I "look Jewish," because strangers like to remind me of that fact out of the blue. As a child, I went to a day camp where I was one of a handful of Jews, and I was sometimes mistaken for the other Jewish girls who looked nothing like me. I'm a woman, so microaggressions and actual aggressions always were and will be a problem. And I'm a lesbian, so my short hair and gender-neutral clothes have often made me a target of homophobic threats, both physical and verbal, from both men and women. None of this is going to magically go away through “training.” A range of tactics and responses are required by me to get through life. I am sometimes wary, but if I walked around offended all the time, hating the human race, I'd be miserable.
Life is a collection of microaggressions and microkindnesses both given and received. If we love our fellow humans and want to have a happier life, it’s worth it to shine a light on our unconscious biases and strive to do better. But I don’t believe that DEI is the way.
Hi there, thanks for responding! To respond to each of your points:
I don't think it's all steeped in anti-racist rhetoric—and not all anti-racist rhetoric is wrong or bad. For example, FAIR Diversity (FAIRdiversity.org) and FAIR Advisor Sheena Mason's Theory of Racelessness (theoryofracelessness.org) are among many other alternative approaches that we can and should highlight and promote. We can bring new and better options forward that don't have the troubling underlying philosophy as a basis.
My HR person was also a "person of color," so I can say with confidence that my supposed race had nothing to do with it.
I certainly agree with you about the drawbacks of walking around being offended all the time. And you're right that no amount of training will eliminate threats or misunderstandings that cause upset. What the right kinds of trainings *can* do is limit those things in workplaces and schools, and give individuals the tools and perspectives that can help them navigate those circumstances, should they find themselves in them.
DEI, as it is often currently structured, is certainly not the way because it doesn't teach kindness and compassion, but there *are* DEI programs that do—such as FAIR Diversity and Chloé Valdary's Theory of Enchantment. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Thank you, Angel. I'm familiar with the work of both Sheena Mason and Chloé Valdary, and I find both of these women inspiring. But I don't think of them as exponents of DEI, because I equate DEI with the philosophy of woke "anti-racism." However, If Valdary and Mason consider their work as falling under the "DEI" rubric, then I need to expand my definition of the term.
I think both ladies consider their work to be in a DEI-type realm, only that they're looking to propose a different way of going about it. FAIR Diversity certainly fits that criterion. There's nothing wrong with anti-racism or DEI; there's something wrong with certain permutations of it. We shouldn't cede the principles or language whole cloth simply because they've been misused by others.
Yes, that's fair, except the use of the term "equity," which refers in the DEI model to manipulation of outcomes rather than equality of opportunity. The other two terms have been perverted or used cynically in DEI trainings, but when they refer to true diversity and inclusion, they are gold.
Even "equity" is good as originally defined: the quality of being fair and impartial.
True!
I've spent the majority of my working life in occupations traditionally dominated by women, and the number of what people might consider microaggressions I've faced as a male in those occupations has at times been off the charts. I also knew from experience there was little point in saying anything about it. Any time you can be considered "the other" by the majority you're going to face this. Obviously that doesn't make it right or excuse it, but it's just there. The Inclusion aspect of DEI only works when it's truly inclusive, and this is often not the case.
Steve, I know what you're saying. It is socially acceptable in progressive/liberal circles for women to diss men right to their faces, based on the usual stereotypes, in a way that would be unacceptable if the tables were turned. The term "toxic masculinity" strikes me as particularly pernicious. I say this as a lifelong lesbian feminist. Now, I've never lived with a man, so maybe I'm in no position to judge, but at the age of 70 I've had plenty of experience with male relatives, friends, teachers, doctors, bosses, etc., and have had many more wonderful interactions with men than horrible ones. We don't hear much talk about "toxic femininity," but I could tell you a few stories.
I agree "toxic femininity" is certainly a "thing," even though some might wish it wasn't. And in some occupations I think it's not only socially acceptable to diss men...it's expected. And since we're talking about the workplace, I think your observations and judgments are totally valid.
Toxicity is a thing; I'm not sure how useful applying it to masculinity or femininity is—though I guess there are some traits unique to each that cause some to think it warrants distinction. I can be persuaded, but the obvious risk is that this sort of thing can be weaponized against people who actually didn't do anything wrong (or who did something wrong but understandable).
Considering that toxic masculinity has already been weaponized, I think that ship has sailed. But I do believe there are some marked distinctions between genders when it comes to toxic behaviors. What could be labeled toxic femininity often manifests itself socially, and tends to manifest more in social shaming or ostracizing as opposed to more direct attacks.
I'm honestly not a fan of any gender-based toxic labels. At the risk of running afoul of the language police, there are assholes and there are people who aren't assholes. That's independent of gender, race, or any other category (real or invented). Weaponizing labels is often used to excuse behavior that wouldn't otherwise be tolerated. It's ok to bash "the other," after all.
Microkindness - love it!
The cool thing about microkindnesses is that even in tiny doses they produce an outsized benefit.
I love this. I think the main thing missing from some DEI programs is "benefit of the doubt." I think it is fashionable right now to not grant clemency, to not think well of people who make mistakes, to assume that errors due to unfamiliarity are actually due to bias. Everyone assumes all less-than-optimal behaviors stem from racism because this feeds the whole virtue signalling posture that is so popular at present. The problem with this assumption is that it dehumanizes people.
I hope that this idea of "reframing the problem" catches on. There are positive solutions available to all of these challenges—solutions that don't dehumanize people. What we need is leadership that a bit wiser and a bit more mature than what we have been seeing to lead the way.
Bravo, Angel, for stepping up to speak out on this issue. You are sowing the seeds of peace, love, and understanding—just what we need right now. 🌼
The basic problem with DEI writ large is that it's race-centric. Race essentialism was one of the hallmarks of National Socialism, and we all know how that ended. I'm not saying DEI is the same thing, but there are enough common traits it should be deeply concerning. Othering is a key component of race essentialism, and the move by California to ask for lineage information from Black employees should be a wake-up call for every thinking person. We're inching toward a very slippery and dangerous slope.
DEI in the main is based on twin concepts of superiority and inferiority, and requires labeling of participants in that way. It's also exclusionary by nature (try mentioning things like the Sedition Act or the abuse faced by Irish or Italian immigrants in this country and see how far you get). Elements of DEI might have a place in a humanist framework, but as it starts I think it does far more harm than good.
Hi Steve,
Yes, you're pointing to all the problems with the current framework. I don't at all deny or condone any of those things. What I'm saying is that there is a place for programs and protocols that help us work through workplace conflicts, bias in hiring, and other issues of that kind in a way that is constructive rather than destructive, and humanistic rather than essentialist. We don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Of course not. As I said, elements of it certainly DO have a place in what you describe. And some workplaces did have protocols in place prior to DEI that did what you describe. But most of those, sadly, have gone by the wayside.
Let's change that.
Yes, power, and pursuit of power, all baked-in presumptions derived from Foucault and Freire, and Kimberlé Crenshaw. And we didn’t have “a session.” Teachers are stewing in DEI EVERY SINGLE DAY.
I so hope we find another way. Human beings are conscious animals at the end of the day (which is why people still delight in ostracizing others to get to the top). The framework used at the moment creates racism by pushing people into "their" color group. It's weird and it's harmful.
There are already better ways!
FAIRdiversity.org
theoryofracelessness.org
theoryofenchantment.com
I've been a subscriber for over a year now! Definitely love their work.
I just saw the other two links. Thanks much. Headed there now.
Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
Eric Hoffer
So true about DEI
Years ago, Dinesh D'Souza (I believe) included an anecdote about his adaptation to an American high school--something that embarrassed him. He'd asked a (white) girl out to the prom; he then ran into the same girl, or so he thought, and mentioned their date--and it took him a moment to realize he'd gotten the wrong girl. He was used to seeing persons of his own ethnicity. When I was growing up, I had a few Asian classmates but when I walked around Chinatown with my father, who was always on the hunt for Canton china, I thought: everybody has black hair. Everybody's eyes are the same color and the same shape. I felt I could not tell Chinese people apart, and as an eight-year-old, this worried me. Things seem quite different now--the markers I saw as a child, hair color and eye color mainly, seem accompanied by many others--but my point now is we should be free to say these things without feeling they are automatically signs of racism.
Nice article. I would go further than the title and opine that DEI never produces good results. On its face, these words (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) of course carry positive connotation that I'm sure everyone here would agree with. However, in context and in practice, these words are upheld as an ideological, almost religious framework that often goes coerced, thus resulting in the very opposite effect than these words imply.
DEI advocates would sacrifice the principle of true diversity (that of viewpoint, experience, talent, and personality) for ideological conformity.
They would sacrifice the principle of true equality (that of opportunity) for equality of outcome, aka equity.
They would sacrifice true inclusion (that of all people, despite background) for exclusion of people with the "wrong" heritage, race, class, or beliefs.
The pathway to hell is paved with good intentions, unfortunately.
Hi Eric,
Since FAIR has its own DEI program that absolutely produces good results, I will have to disagree with you there. The context and practice aren't set in stone; we can ensure better programs win out. I would encourage you not to let the reality of the current moment deter you from pushing for something better in the future. There's no reason to cede the true meanings of diversity, equity, and inclusion to those who have misused and perverted them.
Yes, in most instances, a "DEI" problem could be most effectively addressed by improving on issues that affect the organization as a whole well beyond the issue of DEI. In that way, DEI could actually have a net negative impact by diverting resources from more generally-applicable solutions.
Yes, I think it is sometimes used that way. Maybe more expensive, or even more threatening changes. An obvious example is companies like Amazon and Starbuck's responding to union drives with identity-based window-dressing.
I still find it amusing (and disgusting) that the poster child for progressive companies (Starbuck's) is so rabidly anti-union. I sometimes wonder how they'd respond if they were asked how they justified being such an example of white-supremacist Western paternalism by assuming they know best for their workers (who may be of color or otherwise oppressed). I'm being sarcastic, but only by a little bit.
Thanks for sharing your story and experience with the training. I’ve been in a similar position myself on numerous occasions. It takes courage to speak out and ask what seem like obvious questions and the blowback is almost always predictably bad. I have felt that being a “person of color” gives me some latitude to challenge the assumptions in poorly considered forms of DEI trainings. I also think we need a name to capture this decision to engage authentically and speak truth instead of nodding along to something you know is obviously wrong. Perhaps something is like to write about.
Interesting story--I will add this. Back a few years ago I was chattin' up a longtime friend of mine who happens to be black and another mama I know, whose son happens to be on the spectrum (I gotta kid like that too), came up to greet me and politely greeted my friend as well, after a moment of hesitation, with her wrong name (the name of another black mom in our community).
I corrected the error and introduced them and thought nothing of it until the second mama left and my friend said (the gist), "She has met me at least six times and ALWAYS gets my name wrong or asks for it like I'm a complete stranger. I'm so angry and offended--what, does she think all black folks look alike? Really? I'm like 4" shorter and a good 20 lbs heavier than that other mom...sheesh. Does she think it's not worth learning MY name because I'm not white or something? I'm so mad. Next time I won't even say hello back. I'm SO tired of this racist stupidity."
My friend was genuinely angry and she attributed this and prior incidents ALL to racism.
I empathized with my friend's understandably wounded feelings but added that I didn't think that other mom was racist--her son's favorite teacher was black and she was always very friendly to people of ALL colors. I said that I'd talk to her as it didn't seem like racism to me. So I did.
I went to the other mom and asked how after what I understand to have been SO MANY introductions she still was getting my friend's name wrong because my friend was very upset yet I know she (the mom to whom I was speaking) wasn't prejudiced.
This mom broke down in tears saying something close to this: " I'm so sorry, I'm so embarrassed. Well you know how my son has issues with facial recognition--part of being on the spectrum, right?" (Well, yes I did as my own older child had had the same issue and didn't even recognize me or my husband in a crowd until she was EIGHT). " Yes..." I said...
Through tears she said (approximately), " Well I have it too... I'm so embarrassed. I try to compensate. With people I see often I try to notice their purse or their shoes or something that they consistently wear that makes them stand out in my mind. It's all a trick I do to hide it. But I don't recall such details for anyone I meet every so often. It's like meeting someone for the first time until I recall facts about them--then those I remember, not the visuals. I don't understand it but I've always had it too, even though I'm not on the spectrum."
At the time this mom made her confession I actually knew of two OTHER people (one a teen, one a tween, both on the spectrum) who had facial recognition issues. I didn't know you could have this if you were NOT on the spectrum but I guess it's a "thing"...perhaps hereditary?
I went back to my friend and explained the situation . She took a deep breath and said OK... I'm sort of not buying it but for now... OK. Her expression was a bit skeptical, that I could see. Yet, I also saw a little bit of relief that maybe it wasn't racism after all... She knew I has some knowledge in the area...I'm CERTAIN if the other mom had admitted her challenge to my friend, without my intervention, that my friend wouldn't have bought it for a second...
This stuff happens too. When folks are SO intent about crying racism--they are not able to see other motives or reasons and are reluctant to let the race ball drop. This made me sad.
A bit of a strange end-of-story here. About two years ago this friend more or less canceled me for recommending FAIR. Indeed, TRUE STORY.
It happened after she complained about what she perceive as being "racism" in the comments section of an educational parent webinar we virtually attended (she found objections to CRT & 1619 curriculum racist, I found them justified and not racist...).
I'm grateful for FAIR but I know that some people who might most benefit won't even look... She actually REFUSED to even look. What a story, right?
Thank you for sharing this, Daisy. I'm sorry to hear that your friend responded so badly to FAIR. It's hard, but I think the best thing to do is not to give up on them. Let them know that you don't feel the same way about her that she does about you, and that your door remains open—and be sincere about that. With courage, curiosity, and compassion, we can do a whole hell of a lot.
Thanks Angel--I did exactly that. She knows I'm here. I don't think she's ready to just be open minded, whether about hastily judging another parent or comments from parents not happy with curricula that breaks kids apart vs having them find commonality together. Oddly, it seems like this identity politics gives her a clear structure and "go to" explaination for issues that are otherwise complex--difficult. Making sense of people (and their mistakes and needing to forgive them) and questioning rhetoric is harder than just having a "go to" set of rules which is easy. The sad part is, following those rules makes you lose friends who care--and may make you miss making friends with others worth knowing (like that other mom who is very much worth knowing). I will continue to promote FAIR (other moms have been happy to know about all you guys do)! Thanks again for the excellent article.
Thanks for reading and engaging, Daisy. I know it's tough, but if Daryl Davis can do what he's done, we can do this.
In the 1970's, I was a blonde teenage ice cream scooper at the busiest Baskin Robbins in Michigan. It was a warm summer night, and the line was out the door. My co-workers and I were passing each other in the narrow work area behind the counter as we went from bin to bin piling cold balls of ice cream on cones or plopping them into cups. My customer, a black man, was scanning the labels on the bins, deciding on the flavor of the next treat, when he looked up and announced his decision to my co-worker, another blonde teen with her ponytail pulled through the back of her BR ball cap, just like mine. She looked confused, before I told him that I had been serving him. He quickly apologized. I told him not to worry about it because we all looked alike. The room had a good laugh.
Ah, the good old days when people could actually laugh about these things. If we had more humor and a more relaxed attitude about race and so many other topics, we would be so much better off. Giving others the benefit of the doubt: a blast from the past. Keep looking for the humor each and every day. And ice cream always helps regardless of the flavor.
Thank you for writing that, it reflects my experiences with DEI programs. I loved your idea of fostering more meet and greets during onboarding. I always thought it would be cool for companies to have a tool to randomly pair employees for a suggested 1-on-1 meet and greet on a weekly or monthly basis (can be done virtually). I am a big believer in the "mere exposure effect', fostering understanding by sheer exposure to others.
Also, I'd be curious to know what you think about networking groups based on racial identity in the workplace. I used to work at Nike where the DEI team there was pushing them hard. I thought they created more divisions than anything. To promote tolerance and understanding, I would think allowing people to come together based on shared interests or life stages (e.g. new parents) would be a lot more effective. It would cut across racial lines and allow employees to focus on what they have in common vs. how they are different.
Thanks!
I certainly agree that grouping people based on racialization or other identity categories is the wrong way to go, because it necessarily essentializes people, which I think is wrong. Grouping people based on shared interests or life stages, as you mentioned, is certainly a wonderful thing to do—and a great way to showcase how people from different "identity categories" actually have much more in common than not.
Thank you 🙂
It used to be that "group think" was a bad thing. Now with "affinity groups" it's all the rage. Literally.
Angel, I enjoyed your article very much. I do have a few questions and observations: 1)what exactly does racislized mean and how does one know if they are in fact racialized and is racializtion a good or bad thing, and 2) i am curious if your DEI training or other DEI training assumes that micro or macro aggressions can only go in one direction? I have lived my life not being unaware of racial or other differences but rather trying to not stereotype others and to reach conclusions about a particular person based on my interaction with them or what they have actually said, written or done. Am I wrong in concluding that that type of life approach or philosophy is not part of DEI training or that DEI training possibly condemns such an attitude and way of dealing with others. Finally, I will conclude by asking if there is an end game with respect to any of this?
Hi Michael,
Thank you for your questions!
1. "Racialized" means, basically, "labeled according to race categories." The reason I use that term instead of simply saying "A white person" or "A black person" is because I reject the concept of race altogether, and refuse to reinforce or reify the idea that people can and should be categorized into "races." I highly encourage you to check out FAIR Advisor Sheena Mason's work on this: theoryofracelessness.org.
2. I'm sure there's a wide range of approaches that different DEI programs take, and I'm sure at least some of them think microaggressions or macro aggressions can only happen in one direction. You often hear about "people of color" being "incapable" of racism, because "racism" is defined as "prejudice plus power" and "people of color" have no power—institutional or otherwise. I reject that definition, and believe that if micro- or macroaggressions are a thing, they can be perpetrated by anyone.
And yes, I think that many DEI programs, or forms of anti-racism, would reject your approach of not trying to stereotype others. They would say that this is impossible; that you can't help but stereotype or express racism towards others, and that your perspective in effect ignores or tries to suppress this fact about you. I disagree with that as well.
3. As to what the end game is, it is to promote a common culture based on fairness, understanding, and humanity—to create a world where every human being's individuality is highlighted and respected, and the common humanity we all share is emphasized above all things. DEI can have a place in that world, if done the right way.
Appreciate your thoughtful and wise comments. We need more (a lot more) voices such as yours if we are to heal our country. Keep up the great work.
Excellent piece, Angel! I really appreciated the balanced viewpoint you presented here.
Thanks Angel. Very balanced approach to this difficult topic!
What a beautiful essay. It's tenderness that is lacking in DEI training. Attendees are taught to be harsh and judgmental to others and by extension, themselves. This doesn't create inner growth or understanding. It creates fear. Fear that we will make a mistake and have the swarm attack. This isolates everyone involved and makes us afraid to express ourselves, makes us only allowed to be on the look out for offenders of acceptable behavior.