Diversity (and other) Training at Work

[Beowulfa]

As the earlier thread about workplace diversity training delivered by a named individual has been deleted, I thought it might be useful to remind lurkers that it is completely appropriate to review and query the contents of any course you're instructed/encouraged to attend.

If I go on a workplace course on lab/workshop safety, I expect the provider to be familiar with COSSH.

If I go on a workplace course on research data, I expect the provider to be familiar with the GDPR.

If I go on a workplace course on diversity, I expect the provider to be familiar with the Equality Act.

If any course misquotes the relevant legislation I would question it, and also raise with HR why this wasn't noted when the course was commissioned.

Yes, very good advice.

Agree completely.

Also, I'm pretty bored of "training" which more closely resembles the pre-recorded Sad Stories of X-Factor contestants than actual training which leads to new knowledge on relevant topics

I'd also like to know what happens if training is one-sided, in terms of relating it to equality and inclusion, but without balance.

As I have said, I'd like to know how Equality and Diversity trainers in general, as well as those with particular specialisms, are representing other people's legal rights to disbelieve in gender identity ideology.

Or critical race theory, or whatever.

I would suspect there are parallels between clearly poorly considered EDI training being delivered in our public institutions and equally poor RSHE resource provided in schools.

Burgeoning industries will always get some questionable actors, especially if unregulated

Absolutely. There's a massive difference between inviting someone into a school for a session where their story (ex prisoners, ex drug addicts, famous sportspeople etc) is an explicit part of the presentation - often aiming to encourage children to make better choices.
It's problematic where those offering training relating to legal responsibilities that schools/ employers have, are overtly interested in changing society / schools / workplaces to suit their personal interests rather than the best interests of children..

If a potential trainer demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the law, especially if they openly misrepresent it then it's fair to assume that the training they offer will be flawed, biased and sometimes dangerous.

An important thing to remember is if/when the court summons start flying your employers legal team is not your legal team. Their job is to protect your employer.

Your testimony is public record so if your job had responsibilty and there are specific legislation you need to be aware of go to the source document (the legislation and case law) and read it and make sure your policy documents clearly outlines how you comply with the law. And any training has to reinforce the policy not "nearly align" with the policy
For obvious reasons you should insure that policy documents are dated and changes tracked.

If you even suspect that you would be involved in work place litigation (civil or criminal) ask HR if they have officers insurance and if you are included on the policy.

Remember your employers legal team is not your legal team.

Thank you for starting a thread; I was about to do so myself.
I would be interested in the outcome/experience of the OP from the other thread (anonymised maybe) as I think how HR deal with issues like equality and diversity is something we should share info about as much as possible.

I just find it ridiculous how normal professional standards appear to dissolve when "diversity" is mentioned.

As part of my job I send people on an expensive residential training course. If I found out the provider was misquoting workplace HSE legislation I'd be fucking furious and demanding a refund.

That's a really helpful post SolasAnla
Professionals everywhere are being deskilled and encouraged to remove / ignore basic safeguarding principles, all legally based because....... reasons and be kind.
We all need to focus on what the law says, ignore Stonewall "the law as I would like it to be" and insist that training and advice is legally and ethically solid.

Look what a mess these diversity officers created for themselves:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/02/diversity-officer-guilty-racism-telling-colleague-must-have/

I would also be asking how big the budget is for training. I worked for a national media company where there would be huge "away days" outside the building which produced very little if anything.

Thanks to everyone for your advice on the previous thread.

And for the laugh 😉.

I've started to put together a letter to my boss raising some questions about the purpose of the training and some questions around legal compliance. I'm using some info from Sex Matters which is really helpful.

I'll let you know how it goes.

Without any names.

(although it strikes me if you put yourself up on the internet with your life story, and selling your training, other people on the interent are free to discuss and critique your offer. But whatever, another rule, to protect the feelings of only one group of people...)

That sounds great Ozymandiax. Enjoy!

I am an EDI trainer and I always refer to the wording of the protected characteristics. I skim over trans and say it is emerging practice and refer to the Forstater case. I always sense huge relief.

When I say skim I don’t mean I leave it out or diminish it, I just explain it the same way I do other PCs.

Yes, I think they should all be given the same amount of weight and discussion time, far too many organisations appear to think there is only one protected characteristic.

2, although 'menopause' could be mistaken for a third, given the frequency of communication and lack of clarity on who this affects.

Disclaimer - in my organisation only, judging by EDI comms

Yes, I don't support menopause being made a separate characteristic, it's already covered under "sex".

Have a look at Simon Fanshawe's work. He was a founder of Stonewall, and now does what seems to be really solid, thoughtful diversity work (not tick box stuff).

Caveat: I haven't done his training, and I have nothing to do with his company - but I've heard him interviewed about it by Julian Vigo (iirc) and other critical thinkers.

Given that employers are liable and not the companies delivering faulty training, I'm surprised more companies don't seem to do due diligence.

Thank you for starting the original thread. I didn't manage to get through it all and was hoping to finish it to tonight. It did take a turn as I thought it would, as they tend to go. Anyway, wishing you all the best for the training session.

It was an interesting thread, and the derailment and everything that went with it was like a real time example of what one might be up against.

I look forward to you reporting back!

Why was that thread deleted? FGS.
It was funny as well as interesting