Can someone help me articulate my discomfort with this? Inclusion and diversity training.

I also see what you mean OP. I think your discomfort though comes more from the fact that you know this initiative is coming from largely male, ?white, middle-class people who do in fact deep down see themselves as "us" and women, LGBT people, the disabled, ethnic minorities and so on as "them" - who "we" are gracious enough to recognise as "diverse" and must make efforts to "include".

Whereas a true understanding of equality would recognise that all the above are "us" and not some kind of special categories to be patronised.

But, a course on these kinds of concepts could be great if it happened to be run by someone who was taking a genuinely equal approach. Maybe it would just help you to see where you might unconsciously fall into unequal ways of treating people or just might not be aware of things yourself. It might help you as a woman for example to be more aware of inequalities you could stand up to, or it might genuinely help someone to overcome elements of homophobia or racism in themselves.

So it doesn't have to be a bad thing, and I don't think even those labels have to be bad, it just depends how much hypocrisy and bullshit is going on!

I applaud your critical thinking though, don't let that disappear. I couldn't ever work in a big corporate situation because of this kind of thing driving me mad, but someone has to question it.

Keepithidden - I think both of those answers are problematic!

"Treating people as you would want to be treated yourself," implies that all people want and need the same things when they don't. I might like chicken sandwiches at a business meeting, but a vegetarian or someone who's gluten intolerant wouldn't welcome that.

"Treating people as they wish to be treated," is okay, so long as they don't assume they are entitled to have their wishes prioritised over the wishes of other people. That's certainly not just an issue of "extreme misogyinist cultures," either.

Surely, a better answer would be something along the lines as treating other people as human beings of value in line with the principles of human rights. Yes, there may be times where one person feeling they are exercising their rights results in feelings of oppression in another person, but there are ways of exploring this, teasing it out, ensuring all concerned feel safe and hopefully achieving a resolution. Intersectional approaches to privilege and oppression are really useful in framing situations like this.

OP you are stressing unnecessarily!

I have just gone through diversity & inclusion training and found it insightful and beneficial. It's not just about race and gender it's about appreciating other people's views, life stories, backgrounds etc.

It is mandatory for every single person in our v large company to take it so it has to be a good thing.

Are you saying you feel that the oppressive group(s) are getting to dictate how and by how much the changes in the organisation occur. Which is, of course, no liberation at all.

I don't want to dirupt the OP or the thread at all, but just thinking about this in another context. Isn't the above exactly what happened in appartheid-era South Africa?

It doesn't take any of the discomfort away of course, but should, encourage a bit of hope.

This thread also made me think back to some Diversity and Equality training I had a few years back. We were asked what equality meant and the answer I gave was "Treating people as you would want to be treated yourself". Apparently this was wrong and I should've been "treating people as they wish to be treated". Thinking back I should've flagged up the problems such an approach could've caused if I had been working with people from the more extreme mysoginist cultures.

It seems like there may be two issues here - one about the language used and the other (bigger one) about whether "training" is the solution to institutionalised discrimination and bigotry.

On the first one, language and the meaning of words change all the time for all sorts of reasons. In the 80's, the term "equalities training" or "equal ops training" was often used. But, then it was recognised that the issue wasn't just about having an "equal chance" because that implied that there was already a "level playing field." In the 90's, there was more talk of "anti-discrimination training," which gave the impression it was more direct at dealing with discrimination. But, the problem with that term is it seemed to start as a deficit, as a negative and the thought was that it should be seen as something positive and good instead.

I think somewhere after this, "diversity" came into use, acknowledging that different people could and should be valued for who they are and what they offer rather than striving to make them all equal / same. Similarly, "inclusion" was the flip side of anti-discrimination / exclusion with a more positive slant.

Whatever terms are used at any given time, it's really the concepts involved that are important, and while training can be an important component of shifting attitudes, practice and culture, it isn't the only one.

And that's what seems to be the second issue here - and often is, this idea amongst some in management (I think particularly in the public and voluntary sector, but not exclusively,) that the answer to most problems, including discrimination, bigotry and a not-very-diverse workforce is training. That just ain't so.

Thing is, it allows them to "look" like they are doing something if they order training, perhaps invest quite alot of money in it, make it mandatory even. But, often there isn't much "quality control" over whether the training is any good. More importantly, just sending folks on training isn't going to make a difference to organisational culture and practice that is institutionally racist, sexist, class prejudiced, etc.

For that to change, you need gutsy leadership willing to stick their necks out and even wield a stick to make sure things DO change. It has to be more than window dressing. They have to be prepared to get it in the neck AND be stabbed in the back for genuinely standing by the principles. It will mean taking steps against those who won't comply, including removing/getting them to move on. It will mean recruiting new folks who will promote the principles and support them if they face resistance. It's knowing it isn't going to be a quick fix but that in time, sometimes by baby steps, some times by leaps, things will change - and that you have to stay vigilant to ensure the culture, structure and practice doesn't regress into old patterns again.

Too often though, it's not like that, because particularly in large institutions, the real goal of those in charge is pretty much to maintain the status quo. That means not pissing folks off too much. That means not ruffling feathers. That means doing as little as possible that might result in actual change, but trying to make it "look" like you are doing something. It's window dressing.

Is this sort of what you think is going on at your firm?

Yes!

Actually, that'd be brilliant because they'd have to look it up and wonder what it meant, which I think would be a useful exercise in itself.

Shifting the Overton Window training

I love 'How not to be a dick training'.

I do think you're totally right, the language is really important. Paradigm-shift training or something.

I see what you meen I think mcmooncup. Are you saying you feel that the oppressive group(s) are getting to dictate how and by how much the changes in the organisation occur. Which is, of course, no liberation at all.

So maybe equality training would be a better way of framing it?

I think the thing is, it is a bit insulting to be told 'you need diversity training because this workplace is sexist, woman', isn't it?

But I would imagine they'll reply that the bit of the diversity training aimed at you is the bit that's alerting you to your privilege over [insert non-white-male-group that you're not here].

So you feel that culture change is needed rather than including others in the current regime? I get where you're coming from, but inclusion and diversity training is a good start. I'm in education and its all about inclusion, which is no bad thing, you do have to change attitudes and mind sets to be inclusive, recent conversation, I don't think x child can do woodwork, the noise of the machinery is upsetting him, response - child wears ear defenders and gets to do woodwork. Currently your workplace is excluding women and homosexuals, only a culture change will include them.

Mmm. Tricky.

I know what you're saying. I applied for a job recently that came with the disclaimer that they were committed to diversity whatsits and particularly the hiring of women, which had me raising my eyebrows and muttering about half of the human race.

But I think diversity itself isn't a bad word, because even in a perfect, equal world, we'd still exhibit diversity, wouldn't we? We'd not all be the same.

I think it'd be a difficult one to argue, TBH. But I'm familiar with those phrases being used a lot.