Corporate Diversity Training

When they hear news of an upcoming diversity training program in their corporation, employees generally groan. Despite some who believe otherwise, this is not further indication that corporate America is dominated by a white male population determined to hold on to their preferred status. Rather, this is an honest response to the notion of spending hours listening to speakers and videos which try to ram someone's idea of the ideal workplace down their throats. Further, they may believe it is a waste of time (not to mention, an insult) to be forced to endure chastening for attitudes they do not hold or behaviors which they do not exhibit. These workers would be among the first to agree that there are instances where people need to be more informed and accepting of people from the variety of cultures which abound in today's society. Nor are they are averse to learning principles of how to do business in other cultural settings. The item which most find objectionable is the inescapable conviction that in the guise of equal opportunity and treatment, certain groups are using corporate diversity training to advance their own agendas.

It is interesting to note part of the origin of diversity workshops. In 1968, the day after the assassination of Martin Luther King, a white school teacher named Jane Elliot decided to address the problem of racism by dividing her third grade pupils into brown and blue-eyed groups. She allowed one group to be subject to verbal abuse and taunts, and gave preferential treatment to the other group. The next day, she reversed the positioning of the groups, and discovered that the new elite group did not take full advantage of their power over the former tormentors. This showed her that groups could learn how to be more empathetic and accepting. National attention came to rest on her experiment due to interviews and television programs. Extrapolating from this situation, minority underachievement came to be seen as the result of a white-dominated view of reality.

The need for workshops and instruction about such matters seemed reasonable, and by the 1980s, the workplace climate was such that attorneys could gain huge settlements from companies which were allegedly guilty of discrimination. Corporations were eager to spend some money on a diversity training program rather than risk lawsuits. Needless to say this need for corporate diversity training opened up a lucrative niche. This was quickly filled by those with a leftist agenda, who were infused with ideas from a civil-rights radicalism, and (ironically) often held a rather bitter, anti-white view of the world.

Corporations also began to see diversity training programs as important to survival as a company and as individuals intent on climbing the corporate ladder. A company which embraced the diversity training program was seen as progressive and 'good'. Those who resisted diversity training were seen as prejudiced and could cause the company's image to suffer. In an increasingly global workplace, companies could remain competitive by accepting workers who were from other cultures and were willing to work for lower wages. Therefore it became even more necessary that these workers were accepted. Also, a CEO or manager's bonus could be affected. It was no longer enough to affirm that one agreed that there would be no tolerance for discrimination. Now a CEO or other management personnel had to demonstrate concrete examples of how he or she had contributed to the diversity of the workplace through actions such as leading a diversity training program or workshop, or how recruitment of various people groups had been advanced. Those who could or would not comply were not given opportunity for further advancement.

At first glance, most of the subjects taught in corporate diversity training do not seem objectionable. It is important for people from various cultures to be able to work together and to understand the variety of ways that business is done in other countries. Gender differences should be used to bring a full-orbed view to projects. The value (in a business, not personal sense) of an employee should be based on what they contribute. Even the apostle James warned Christians against giving preferential treatment to certain people based on outward appearance or wealth: For if there comes unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him...and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? (James 2:2-4) As noted above, few persons object to corporate diversity training on the grounds that they wish to see a group of workers subject to discrimination or harassment. However, the problem comes in when the leaders of diversity training programs seek to go one step beyond equal treatment and try to conform all workers to a certain morality or way of thinking.

Such an attitude is evident in mandatory workshops and seminars which seek to force employees to positively and actively acknowledge employees who choose certain lifestyles. Of course, no one should wish to see such employees harmed or taunted, and persons of all ethnicities and persuasions should be treated in a civil manner. Yet the leaders of corporate diversity training programs are often not satisfied with this level of behavior and seem to be trying to force the approval of certain lifestyles. Refusing to acknowledge that a person can treat people civilly while still retaining opposing personal beliefs is strange behavior for those who claim to desire equal treatment for all groups, (including, presumably, those whose beliefs differ from their own). As long as such attitudes persist, their efforts appear more like brain washing than attempts to provide equal treatment. Likewise, insisting on uniform thinking about controversial subjects is hypocritical for those who claim to champion diversity.

Add to: File Insurance Business article Teen Photo Images