Jacob Rees Mogg revamping Civil Service training

[achillestoes]

It’s a sad day when you see Jacob Rees Mogg doing anything and you’re happy about it, but here we are. He is calling time on Civil Service training budgets being used for ‘ridiculous’ diversity courses that open the CS up to ‘mockery’ and don’t represent value for money. He’s writing to all government departments to make it clear that staff development should be about providing workers with the training needed to do their jobs.

I don’t like JRM but if anyone thinks the general public aren’t behind him on this, they’re deluded. Most people don’t believe training in your role should amount to moral indoctrination about your privilege, or requiring you to describe yourself within the frameworks of ideologies you don’t accept.

Why are we assuming that diversity training is all about gender? Is there anything wrong with giving training about discrimination on all grounds, including sex, race, disability, religion, and pregnancy? It would be lovely to think that no civil servant needs this, but highly naive.

Sex!

‘I think it's worthwhile working on that, but sounds like you think that's all a waste of time.’

I think it’s like everything else: you apply a cost-benefit analysis and you see where you come out. But people’s concerns have to be listened to. There’s an elitism involved with telling people they’re just wrong and they don’t matter, even when they have values you don’t care for or opinions your own experience resists.

I think we need to be careful about what we are celebrating here. I'm sure JRM would have zero issue with a totally male senior management.

It's regrettable that the impression is that all of the posters here lack the nuanced understanding of the difference. People might find that they have a specific item of agreement but the motivational reasoning that got people there may be very different as might be what they think needs to happen as a consequence of that item. It is sad but understandable if some people need to celebrate even some tiny nugget of what seems like common sense but the contemporary context feels at odds with common sense to many.

It's plausible that JRM's motivated reasoning is to abolish all training around protected characteristics or appropriate workplace behaviour (the latter would hardly be surprising after the recent stories about BJ).

I should think all of us would support the training that you outline. Likewise, I'd consider it helpful to see comparable training that would alert people to unhelpful perspectives about people with disabilities and other protected characteristics.

@littleburn

Glad to hear that. But my overall opinion on engineered shortlists is that they come with a cost as well. How many of the male senior managers are really convinced, rather than sitting there thinking they are being strong-armed into selecting less effective candidates?

I am a civil servant. Some training is around race, a little on religion, nothing on sex or maternity and little on disability.

We do however get almost weekly inclusion emails which are always very heavy on pronouns and gender, sometimes the LGB might get a line or two.

There’s an elitism involved with telling people they’re just wrong and they don’t matter, even when they have values you don’t care for or opinions your own experience resists.

And you're lauding JRM as a counter to that?

@TheSmallAssassin

Anyone can be a counter to that. It’s a cultural phenomenon. I happen to agree with JRM. I’m not rich or aristocratic. So if I’m excluded by this system, and not listened to, it’s a form of elitism.

I'm a recent CS recruit and participating in a mgmt training programme of which diversity awareness forms one of the modules.

I'll be honest - after reading threads like these I was all geared up for having to sit through a JRM version of gender-identification ridiculousness and it really wasn't.

For example we talked about what protected characteristics are and how you might manage a situation where one or more appear to be conflicting. We also talked about how it is worth putting in the effort to recruit diverse teams and not just 'people like us'. It was a place where as managers we could talk about our worries and the practical application of our legal requirements and work base policies.

I felt it was 3 hours well spent (online, so no travel costs etc) and I'm pleased that my employer is encouraging these conversations, including around sex-based discrimination in a department where women are underrepresented.

It was also a wake up call that I was in danger of letting my (valid and nuanced) views on gender dismiss anything else 'woke' that might fall within the inclusivity space. I do not want to be that person, running around with the DM and JRM shouting 'its PC gone mad'.

It’s a sad day when you see Jacob Rees Mogg doing anything and you’re happy about it, but here we are…

I don’t like JRM but if anyone thinks the general public aren’t behind him on this, they’re deluded.

Is this your interpretation of "lauding?"

Even by the standards of some of the more withholding people I've met, that's some way short of the general understanding of lauding.

The answer to that is to have better training, not to give up on all training.

So if JRM doesn't believe in eating your first born, right thinking people should? It's totally bonkers. You should have the courage to hold opinions that you believe in, not be constantly look over your shoulder to see who they're aligning with. To refuse to contemplate an idea because you don't like who came up with it, is very narrow minded.

‘So if JRM doesn't believe in eating your first born, right thinking people should?’

This is about the size of it.

@TheMildManneredMilitant

I believe there’s a purpose to some EDI training. I just think - and this is the case for nearly all well-meaning initiatives - there’s a real possibility of growth beyond purpose, and this is what has happened with unconscious bias and CRT entering the CS. We don’t need most of it and it’s expensive and divisive. Some of it’s fine.

@TheMildManneredMilitant As a matter of interest, did your training get all the protected characteristics right - ie sex not gender? was it very clear that gender identity is not a protected characteristic?

There is that risk, but I'd say in the case I'm referring to they were genuinely onboard with it. If anything they are pretty decent people, who thought they were doing the right thing and were very uncomfortable that the 'right thing' meant they were always appointing more men just like them! Maybe some of them will feel women are being foisted on them, I don't know. But if more women get the opportunity to shine at interview and are appointed, then I think that's a good thing.

If you are providing a decent service I would wager that 99.99% of the time yours or your client/customers gender identity or sexual orientation is completely irrelevant your job.

///

This should be on billboard's.

Diversity and inclusivity only seems important when considering gender bollocks. Customers or staff with disabilities or those who aren't neuro typical? Soooo last year darling plus there's no more rainbow colour left for them.

A nice thing about MN is his frequently were reminded that if we agree with one thing a person says we're aligning ourselves with every one of their values

@SallyLockheart gender reassignment mentioned not gender ID - can't remember actual specific wording but it must have been made clear because I was all ready to highlight the difference if not.

This is good.

In my last workplace, they had us all do unconscious bias training. What a waste of money! Not evidence based, either the foundation, or the outcomes, for one thing.

But it barely touched on our actual jobs, on things that might be going on in our workplace, or the services we provide. There was no discussion of whether our bias affected how we served our patrons.

What we did get was 10 hours of being told what we were supposed to think about a variety of social topics, an underlying assumption that we agreed with the course leader, how to bring our speech in line with those views, and a few disparaging remarks about Catholics. I remember wondering whether there were any observant Catholics among our staff - it seemed likely - and how they felt about the training.

Completely inappropriate and a waste of public resources.

@littleburn

Sure. As I say, some of this training is probably a good thing.

Oh and to add that I am very clear in my organisation that sex is a protected characteristic and gender reassignment (not identity) is a protected characteristic. We do not conflate or confuse sex and gender and are clear thar there is no hierarchy of equalities when it comes to our legal duties under the EA2010. When we take action to address inequalities (such as the training I just mentioned) it is evidence based, e.g. from our staff data.

Anyway, my point is that not everyone involved in work around equality is captured. Quite a number of us do our jobs properly, on an evidence-led basis and in line with our duties under the EA2010, not on the basis of Stonewall law or whoever shouts the loudest 😁

The answer to that is to have better training, not to give up on all training.

I agree, especially around impact assessments and public sector equality duty. However I was merely answering the question about whether we are incorrectly assuming much of the inclusion work centres gender. In my experience it currently does, not necessarily in the training but in comms around inclusion.

Part of the justification for sort-of retaining unconscious bias training in the CS (ministers have been trying to get rid for a few years now) is:

• lack of thought about what to replace it with
• plenty of hard data indicating that people with certain protected characteristics are facing issues within the CS (eg noting via the annual people people that they've experienced bullying or harassment, and in performance appraisal data where eg disabled colleagues, older colleagues, and colleagues with caring responsibilities are often marked as poor performers). Contrary to popular belief these characteristics are included in UB training.

JRM has been sent out to give the CS a public kicking because it provides an excellent distraction.

I came on to comment on the civil service but I've been distracted by the bird people and it may sound harsh but why are they identifying as such fancy, flamboyantly beautiful birds that seem so at odds with how they come across onscreen? Why cardinals and blue jays rather than starlings or crows? It really is identity substituting for personality.

It reminds me of "Global Butterflies" eye roll