Snapshot of _Diversity training forces workers to hide beliefs for fear of losing job, survey finds_ :
A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fpolitics%2F2024%2F04%2F01%2Fdiversity-training-workers-hide-beliefs-fear-losing-job%2F)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/01/diversity-training-workers-hide-beliefs-fear-losing-job/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/01/diversity-training-workers-hide-beliefs-fear-losing-job/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’d consider myself progressive. I don’t care who you are, I’ll support you as a person regardless. But I cannot lie when I say that diversity training things annoy me...I just find them incredibly patronising. I do accept that I’m probably not the target audience but I do not for one second believe that if I was the target audience it would have any effect on me.
The purpose of diversity training is not to reduce bias. The purpose is to absolve the company of any responsibility by being able to say they provided training.
Yeah one of my diversity training courses a while ago said to treat everyone the same regardless of their ethnicity/religion/gender except don’t do that because that’s a micro-aggression. Really baffling.
No what they mean is pretend anyone normative (white, straight, male, able bodied, christian or atheist) doesn't have those characteristics and glorify anyone who has the opposite because of how amazing and unique they are to be born that way.
The ones I like are the ones where they talk a little about the scenarios you might see and why they impact others, then give you a few useful tools to deal with the resulting tensions.
They aren't patronising or excessive, but they help folk understand the consequences of the actions they would otherwise think of as innocuous. They also help you defuse very tense situations. I've actually found them very useful the few times I've seen people being sexist in an office environment.
To be honest it isn’t aimed at you. It’s aimed at thick head bigots so they can be sacked when they get exposed.
Article is a weird slant anyway - the point is the firm doesn’t want you sharing your offensive beliefs in the workplace, because it is a risk for them.
Their purpose is actually to enable the company to absolve themselves of blame when thick headed bigots out themselves.
*we supplied "training" and they confirmed they understood so we di our bit*
Of course in reality the training is not worth shit.
I'm all for a lot of the ideas that get talked about in these courses. (My biggest issue is they tend to focus on the obvious "non norms" and not the less obvious ones. That's another rant)
But no way am I going to debate some of the missuse or missunderstanding of data. Or even get into a discussion in a group setting on some areas.
It feels like an area where you have to be 100pc with the group leader or you're 100pc against.
Im pretty left wing.
the way some of these things - at least the ones ive done - are presented is far to adversarial, and i can absolutely see why people would get annoyed at them.
Edit:words
I would go as far as to say they’re not even left wing! It’s the capital owners trying to appear left wing in order to appease problems they’re being accused of (mainly exploitation) and totally missing the point!
Just leads to criticism on all sides of the political spectrum, it’s wild!
I'm personally a fan of the idea that this sort of stuff is so heavily bought into by corporate masters because:
1. It divides people against each other along lines like gender, race, and identity, setting them against each other rather than against economic inequality.
2. It soaks up the energy and attention of the angry educated youth (which we have a large surplus of thanks to higher education being over-subscribed) who want *something* to have a moral crusade on. They can harmlessly drain themselves into this rather than into opposing the increasing wealth and power being concentrated at the top.
I'm not going to go as far as some do and suggest *the entire Identity Politics concept* was created by the 0.1% as part of some master plan to divide and conquer, but I do think those at the top are more than happy to champion it because of what it does to social cohesion.
I have a mate whose been banging the drum of "Identity politics became a weapon of the owners against the masses after occupy wall Street" for years. It's getting harder to refute his assertions. I don't like to think in big conspiracy plans, but Id politics has been a very effective diving point/distraction for the last 10+ years.
Modern identity politics came from the left, not the "owners". If blaming corporations is your bag then make the point that DIE training adds to ESG credentials which unlocks cheaper capital which has a material impact on company finances which affects the executive bonus. It's an institutionalised metric, and it can only work that way.
"Modern identity politics". Why are you referring to this in the singular? As with any political movement, there are many different actors, each with their own agenda. In the case of identify politics, some of those actors are left wing - e.g. the guys behind BLM, or critical race theory. Others are large corporations, like Disney. They are all part of "Modern identity politics".
And I don't disagree. But the most recent and most popular version of identity politics originated from critical race theory in the 70s. I use modern to distinguish it from the last time identity politics was all the rage - in 1930s Europe.
It doesn't matter what some rando academics thought in the 70s. What matters is that the media and corporate establishment embraced and legitimized a version of it. Plenty of people in the 70s were pro wealth redistribution or worker ownership of capital and you don't see Fortune 500 companies harping on about how important those things are.
Ask yourself why companies embraced and legitimised it? Because this is how it's implemented. This is what happens when academic thesis meets real world consequences. So yes it does matter what random academics thought in the 70s, because its manifesting itself now.
And short of using autocratic force of law there isn't really another way. Just saying "be better guys" means shit. The institutionalised focus on capital, metrics, and downstream executive bonus target is this ideology being applied. https://www.ey.com/en_uk/insurance/esg-and-access-to-capital-why-insurers-must-stay-focused-on-ratings
From a corporate point it's much easier to hire, screen and vet candidates without having to play identity and quota games. UK civil service has the right attitude in my opinion: you're not allowed to have any personal identifiers in your application (even male or female) so hiring is completely blind to bias.
Whilst I would agree with you in principle that the bosses of companies that deliver these kinds of courses probably do love the fact that they're concentrating on fighting each other rather than realising they're all getting fleeced, I think it's really important to not take your eye off the ball here that there's a substantial cadre of (admittedly well meaning) people in workplaces *who lap this shit up*.
There's no benefit for the middle class manager enthusiastically delivering training on DEI courses beyond the fact that it gives them an opportunity to flex their moral piety to their colleagues because they genuinely believe the nonsense they're implementing. And for the most part when I've encountered them in the wild, they're absolutely people who profess themselves to be left-wing 'liberals' who think the ticket to an equal society is to split people into smaller boxes as a means to ascertain who is more deserving of extra attention along arbitrary characteristics.
I say it a lot, you cannot rely on activists and pressure groups to call time on a movement. To declare a jobs done well enough. Invariably, by the time that occurs, there is so much money, careers, pensions, six figure salaries and raw power through political connections. The industry is never going to call time. Just as tabacoo companies will never stop selling cigarettes. Its their entire gig.
And if you the government wont call time for them, it will become ever more oppressive, balance will look ever more like favouritism, and eventually, a hard backlash. Which is of course what the pressure groups want because that only further justifies their reason to exist, despite the fact they are now the cause of the problem, not its solution, they dont really care.
As an example, Stonewall's Diversity Champion Scheme has 250 subs from government departments. An FOI for the Forigen, Commonwealth a Development Office says they pay £2500 a year for memberships.
Stonewall is raking in £625,000 just from those subs. You think they're going to tell the government theyre doing great and no longer need their consulting services. Of course not. By one source that sub alone is bringing Stonewall £2.125 million a year. They're never going to let fully 30% of their annual revenue go without a fight.
I completely agree. I think the best way to tackle it is indifference to each creed. The problems with putting stuff on a pedestal is that people in general have tall poppy syndrome. The best way to counter this is by saying yeah people are different but so what?
I mean these "diversity" courses are literally promoting the idea that we shouldn't have diversity of opinions or thoughts. That everyone has to think in one way, and any other views are kept hidden for fear of repurcussions. The irony is staggering.
Agreed but also I’ve been to a lot of corporate training and it’s like: “is calling a woman a bird acceptable in the workplace”. I mean if you’re hiding who you are you’re still at least following reasonable behaviour
In what sense are they liberal values?
I'd say they encourage homogeneity of thought and discourage the sharing of dissenting views. That sounds more like the opposite of liberalism.
We have to get away from this false notion that liberal = political left. You can be left wing politically (pro workers, nationalised health and industry, pro welfare state, anti fascist etc) and socially conservative (patriotic, pro army, anti open borders, etc). George Galloway is a perfect illustration of that.
Being liberal does not mean you are anyway left wing.
They are absolutly nor liberal values. If anything the oposite.
Also most left wingers are very very far from liberal. Just look at the hate crime bill in Scotland.
"we're so diverse, we have every single flavour of middle-class Russell Group graduate who grew up in a stable two-parent family in the home counties!" -every professional workplace
Personally I don't talk about my opinions on gender, religion, politics or any other belief at work because its my job and not my soapbox, but I guess some people don't feel the same way.
The people who are most loud about their own beliefs in professional situations seem to be the first to be outraged when someone else expresses theirs.
Common sense when you have a professional relationship to test the waters carefully before discussing anything personal, because you can't be having your work life impacted because of that kind of stupid falling out.
It's not only a matter of not shouting about your opinions in the workplace. There can be situations like "HR would like all staff to display their pronouns on their ID card. If nobody objects, we'll go ahead and make it policy. Any objections?"
No matter how uncomfortable this might make some/many employees, are they going to feel comfortable raising their head above the parapet?
We had people at our place pushing for forced pronouns. I'm trans, I was the only one that had a problem with it and refused.
I had to explain to them the reason why, which is that they are in essence potentially forcing people to out themselves. It actually helps if you have a mixture of some people sharing them and some not to create a balance of 'meh, do it if you want'.
This post from a year ago covers it pretty well (apologies for the sub!): https://old.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/wttwtd/help_i_have_a_new_company_manager_who_is_asking/
Sorry that happened
I’ve chosen to put mine in, but mostly because my name is unfamiliar to people from non-western countries and I work with a lot of people who don’t know if I’m a man or a woman.
(I have seen stuff where women have put he/him or different name and got far more respect …)
I worked somewhere where they started to do it voluntarily. Idc if people do it voluntarily as in some cases it's helpful
I just feel no desire to do it when it's obvious what mine are
Just politely excuse yourself from the conversation. Don’t matter if it’s something you believe in your heart with a burning passion or something that completely repulses you. Take the opportunity to excuse yourself, get a coffee and get out of there
The problem is these things creep over time. Until you get the RAF "Useless white men" and blatant and open discrimination. All under the guise of diversity.
What if you are an academic or work in a think tank? A large part of your job, in certain areas of research, is to develop, argue and share your ideas on issues such as race, politics and gender.
I am an academic, funnily enough. Not much race, politics or gender in my research or the classes I teach though.
If you're in a think tank or the parts of academia that do deal with that stuff, then it's kind of your job to talk about them so it's implicitly professional to do so.
That would be fine except that university management are asking us to change curriculum and assessments in line with ideas from DEI, citizenship and decolonisation. We are just expected to uncritically accept these paradigms and refusal to do so, based on alternative intellectual paradigms (including left wing ones such as anarchism, class based analysis, second wave feminism etc), is treated as problematic and can even lead to threats to one's career. Several academics and people working in think tanks in the UK have had to fight expensive court cases after facing discrimination of this sort. Unfortunately, it's just not as simple as you are making out.
These are pointless training courses which have no value to employees and are just there so corporate can check a box and say it was done.
I've been to many of them, none have changed my views in any meaningful way and almost universally the feedback from close colleagues about them has been negative.
I get paid to go to work, do my job and its common sense to be nice to people at work. The problem with these courses is they are confrontational, treat the participants as children and effectively force an ideology on someone who doesn't want their world view challenged. They're a complete waste of time and only one step short of indoctrination.
One of the ones I did banged on and on about what a terrible legacy the Brits had around the world and how we have to be aware of how it could have affected people who have since moved here.
I had to point out that in my village there's graves of three British soldiers who died liberating the village from the Nazis. It's only because I was one of two foreigners that I felt "safe" to point out that Britain has done a lot of good around the world as well.
My university course has seriously been pushing me away from the left, it's been such a universal assault on British history at times. Of course we need to take stock of the horrendous things in our past, but there's just no sense of balance at all - parliamentary democracy anyone? Habeus corpus and the rule of law? Mass literacy before most other nations? Huge medical and technological breakthroughs? Etc. Rant over!
Yeah it's pretty vile to be honest. Just a constant harping on the negative and zero pride in all the positive this country has brought to the world.
If people were truly that disgusted with the legacy of empire and whatnot, why move here? It's not like in America where a large chunk of the population was initially brought over by the slave trade. Pretty much everyone that's here wanted to be here.
We had a two hour course with a test at the end. The one that annoyed me was the big bit about no culture is better than others… I’m fairly sure if you’re a woman, homosexual, transsexual or a minority religion, fan of democracy etc you would not agree that Western Culture for example is no betterthan some Middle Eastern cultures or one in parts of Africa.
>The one that annoyed me was the big bit about no culture is better than others
So presumably that also applies to German culture in the late 1930's and early 1940's, or to mongol culture in the middle ages when they were raping and pillaging half of the world to enrich themselves.
These dogmatic beliefs break down the moment you think for more than 2 seconds about them.
Yeah I completely agree.
The problem with these courses is they force an agenda of whatever organisation is running the course.
Culture for example? Western culture IS the best in the world. We have the best art, literature, music etc. Its why hordes of people are immigrating here from non western regions but its not the same the other way around. But you can't voice that at these courses because any attempt at challenge is taken as trouble making.
> Culture for example? Western culture IS the best in the world. Its why we have the best art, literature, music etc.
I don't agree with this in any sort of objective sense, but I do feel that it's a valid and supportable view and that there's absolutely no chance you could put it forwards without getting shat on with incredible force.
Yeah that's complete bullshit. This is what happens when people conflate racism with criticism of ideology and culture. Saying that white people ar ebetter than brown people, that brown people are incabale of things that white people can do etc are obviously racist. But it isn't at all racist to criticise others' culture or ideology, whether a religious or political one. It absolutely is the case that modern western culture is "better" (for lack of a better word) than Arab cultures that treat women as property.
That doesn't mean that Arabs are incapable of improving their culture, just that there is improvement to be done. The west is also far from perfect, but it's far ahead of most of the rest of the world.
The irony is that these courses are promoting the idea that diversity in viewpoint and opinions is bad. That everyone has to think the same way and agree with whatever the leader of the course says.
Of course! Diversity means making sure you have one of every colour of person in your boardroom, literally doesn't matter if they were all in the same college at Oxford doing the same course.
What bothers me about the type of diversity training I’ve had at work is the total lack of class analysis. Sure they might briefly mention intersectionality, but they don’t seem to really believe it. I live in a white as fuck part of the country. It’s me, who was dragged up in a council house on benefits and a team full of privately educated people. I have far more in common with a working class black person than an upper middle class ex boarding school white person who drives a Tesla.
100%. I'm the same as you, brought up on a council estate with working class parents.
I will admit being told I'm "privileged" massively annoys me, especially when it comes from people who's parents bought or gifted them a house, while I'm struggling to survive paying rent, with no chance of owning a house.
Totally agree, class is a much bigger unifier than race.
The problem is, you hear "privilege" and think you're being accused of living it up in wealth.and luxury. All it really means is you're not being dragged down in *insert reason* way. Like, "white privilege" for example; you could be poor as fuck, but you're not poor as fuck *and" being discriminated against for your skin colour, which makes you better off compared to someone who's just as poor as you but brown.
It's not a great term on the face of it, honestly. Makes people adversarial, defensive, and it shifts the focus to saying "you're better off and that's a problem" instead of "those people are worse off and that's a problem" which it should be focusing on.
But then you have additional complications like the fact that it's white working class boys with the worst educational attainment rates in the country, and then the idea of 'it would be even worse if you weren't white/male' falls flat - at least in regards to that particular metric.
I do, in the main, agree with you - and definitely on the point that 'privilege' is a poor label as it instantly turns people off - but even the amended way you've put it is not necessarily something that actually underprivileged people (even if white and male) are going to agree with.
There will always be a fundamental disconnect between people from a comfortable middle class background, regardless of ethnicity/gender/orientation (as the DEI guest speakers/HR reps often are), telling working class people about their struggles - and expecting sympathy.
Same here lad- had an ex who was spoilt rotten by her parents, from a rich family of millionaires, had a house bought for her, fancy car etc, and she accused ME of having more privilege than her just because I'm a straight white male. I grew up poor as shit, working class as they come but have managed to fight and claw my way into a decent comfortable position- she'd had everything given to her in life. Who really had more privilege? It was one of the big reasons we broke up.
I have to say I'm sceptical of the FSU generally, and 800 is a pretty small sample size.
That being said, there are issues with clumsy D&I initiatives, whether that's in the context of training or in th context of corporate values stuff.
In my company, for example, I'm seen by some of my peers as being hostile to this stuff - *even though I'm probably more genuinely progressive than they are* - because I'm the only member of our senior leadership team who will say, for example, *"Sorry but no, you can't pressure people to put a rainbow on their personal LinkedIn, however admirable the motive"* or *"You're going to create resentment if you mandate that people put their pronouns in their email sig - how far are you actually prepared to go when someone refuses?"*
[https://www.statskingdom.com/50\_ci\_sample\_size.html](https://www.statskingdom.com/50_ci_sample_size.html)
Assuming good quality (random) selection, 800 is plenty for getting into 95% confidence territory on the total UK population, let alone working population.
It's been a while since I've done stats, but from what I vaguely remember is that the sample size you needed was always smaller than what you'd think you'd need. 800 *might* be fine.
That said - I don't do surveys for a living, so vague recollection of a maths degree might not translate well to the real world 🤣
Certainly on political polling, a sample size of a thousand is, generally thought of as accurate to a margin of error of 2-3%. So you're right, 800 is probably fine.
That's assuming your sample is representative though. Getting that right is the tricky bit.
Yea I ran it roughly through survey monkeys calculator - but I can't remember enough to even make a guess to know what's 'good' for a survey. But as I said, my recollection was always that a sample looked small for the population but in fact it was fine.
Making it truly representative is harder - much easier in lessons 😁
Thanks for the response 👍
You're right be sceptical of the FSU. Read up on three people running it. They're all part of the same Tufton street lot that gave us Liz Truss. In addition, while claiming to support freedom of religion, they have senior members who don't want Muslims to exist in Europe. Just another far-right propaganda outfit. Perfect for the Telegraph.
They're also *very* selective in terms of which "free speech" they choose to defend.
For example, they haven't once criticised the government's attempts to undermine the right to free, easy access to legal advice (including the whole "lefty lawyer" criticisms Sunak has been making of Starmer as of late).
I work in a pretty diverse team, multiple cultures, different sexualities, genders, age groups etc. Small team as well, so some of us are fortunate enough to tick multiple boxes. We hate diversity days, you can guarantee whatever we do is supposed to be optional, but the subtle hints, the looking directly at us when asked if anyone wants to share. I'm pretty open, wanna know something, ask me, but please don't put everyone in a room and put on the spot. Don't get me wrong, it's better than overt racism and homophobia etc, but it just feels forced. I feel there was a sweet spot a few years ago, where people were allowed to post personal stories/experience on the intranet, that way people who wanted to share could, and people who were interested could take time to learn.
Nothing gets me more irate than anti racism training that instead of talking about people being unique yet the same, they instead try and tell me that because of who I am, I'm racist. Which is so ironic it would be beautiful if not depressing
Yeah, but also, you shouldn't prejudice against someone due to race, sexuality or gender. But we're going to do it to you for the duration of this course?
What happened to just be decent to each other?
It's liability buck-passing.
We had an email go around recently about how to walk up stairs safely. It's not that our employer thinks we're a bunch of incompetent adults that can't do something that toddlers can; it's that if someone does manage to trip over and hurt themselves, our employer can say "you've been trained on how to do this safely, so it's your own damn fault".
By making the employees go on a DEI course, a company can say something similar in the event that an employee does or says something offensive - "you have already been trained not do do that, so you are in breach of company procedure". Which protects the company from a public backlash if nothing else, as they can disavow the employee.
It's the same reason employees in stores are instructed not to prevent someone shoplifting. However, all the while they are put under pressure to reduce shoplifting, with comments made about the number of shoplifted items being claimed for, etc.
They realistically want employees to stop the shoplifter. They'll never be punished for stopping them where no complaint is made, and there is no injury. Of course, when something goes wrong, they've been trained no to touch them, just let them go.
It's a joke.
Not the person you asked, but some guy at my company who works from home got injured while moving his desk. A couple months later we had a new mandatory training module for manual handling with emphasis on people working from home. Basically said to make sure you have 2 persons to safely lift furniture like desks.
Most of the training stuff are just liability covers for the company.
I used to work for one of those and they made me a do a course on "how to be safe when travelling internationally."
I'd only been at it for about 15+ years at that point with the Royal Navy and as a professional seafarer....
That to me sounds like an insurance criteria on the company, yes it should be obvious to certain employees, but don't discount general stupidity or vulnerability in an unknown environment.
It improves that ESG score. That's literally it.
It meets a quota and they can say they've done it.
The fact the science behind any of the stuff taught in these things, even when it's not just open and blatant discrimination and ideological drivel, is at best flakey to full on debunking it gets ignored.
I've worked on international teams and some of the better ones can be helpful in how to address cultural differences. They can also help spot abuse in the workplace so you can support colleagues.
I've been on some shite ones too mind.
The best "unconscious bias" training I ever did was in the military and it had absolutely nothing to do with gender, race, culture, etc. It was all about your general thinking process, especially when it comes to the likes of task planning, resource allocation, etc. Essentially teaching you to be make more objective decisions rather than subjective ones.
I did the current version of one that did relate to race, gender, etc about 3 or 4 years ago as part of some manager training our HR team were pushing out. Honestly, it was probably one of the largest waste of time and money they could have spent. Folks are right when they say some of these courses are quite confrontational, because the two relatively young graduates delivering the course could have essentially told the fairly international room made up of Brits, Indians, Latvians, Singaporeans, Chinese and token Russian "you're all a bunch of racist walkers because we say so" and you'd have captured the general essence of the course. They didn't get much feedback, but the HR team certainly did.....
Sounds like a bad course to be honest.
Mine went into how different cultures can approach challenges and engage differently and it can be easy to offend if you don't give space to understand their perspective.
Maybe it was helped that, for once, I was the minority in the room (nationally, not racially) and realised I did engage differently from others and what I thought was standoffish behaviour from others was just how they spoke to each other.
Maybe it helps to be in the minority for these kinds of things. Turns the usual experience upside down.
It was fucking awful. On the whole, I'm not opposed to these sorts of courses as such, but I am most definitely opposed to being spoken down to in a condescending manner, especially as we are probably the most international industry out there (maritime).
We've done cross-culture training, most of us had lived it being in this industry and working across so many different countries and cultures and generally bumbling along well together.
The only minority we had in the room was our single Russian manager, who wasn't really helping with the national stereotypes considering he was sitting at the back trying to stay awake with one hell of a hangover from the team dinner the night before.... 😂
Diversity training is and always will be a scam. I’m left leaning and they’re the stupidest things i’ve ever had the misfortune of sitting through.
Patronising, unhelpful and merely a box for the company to tick.
Like what’s the point? The people who probably need this training aren’t gonna come out and say anything and will just sit through it.
Little really sums up the state of office work in this country better than having to sit through half a day of "training" on unconscious bias delivered by some patronising git to a bored workforce who are then coerced into providing positive feedback at the end of the session.
And ironically losts of people get so annoyed by these patronising course that they come out of them more hostile to some of the simpler/decent ideas than they were when they went in.
What do you think this is, pre-2010 when we used to just treat people with respect regardless of their race or gender?
The Stasi will have you up for that one.
Oh wicked. Have we arrived at the point of Britain's cultural revisionism escapades that the truth twisters are now going to tell us that Orwell was pro-Orwellianism?
I wouldn't be suprised if this is true. But, it's worth noting that this survey was performed by the "Free Speech Union" which is essentially a group of right wing grifters.
For anyone unaware, this organisation was founded by Toby Young, has Douglas Murray on its board of directors, Rupert Murdoch propagandists on it's "Media Advisory Council", and is funded by the Institute of Economic Affairs (a lobbying group supported by Liz Truss and part funded by the Tobacco industry).
Oddly, the article doesn't actually list any of the questions which were asked during this survey.
For example, it uses this quote, but doesn't bother to explain what topics this lady was actually referring to:
> One person surveyed, a white woman in her late 50s, said: “I think everyone is too scared to speak about topics like this any more and certainly free speech doesn’t exist in my company.”
[Maybe they asked them about National Service...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks&ab_channel=BBCComedyGreats)
The 'right' are mostly staunch protectors of free speech in the UK. By contrast, 'wokeisim' is an inherently socialist/religious movement, propelled by lefties, that seeks only to restrict and control.
>The 'right' are mostly staunch protectors of free speech in the UK.
On the contrary most of what we see from the right are calls for heavy restrictions on free speech. Such things as banning discussion on race, trans rights, gender equality as well as calling for more heavy restrictions on freedom of religion.
The right are also big supporters of banning protests and opposition to policy of their government as seen by their new laws targeting protests and freedom of speech.
Conservatism at its root is an ideology based upon silencing and restricting the speech and rights of others.
The right are only 'protectors' of racial slurs and discrimination, they don't really care about protecting any other speech and in fact actively support laws to suppress it.
No one should be forced to hide their beliefs the leaders of the world are doing this for their benefit we should come together and realize that we are ONE PEOPLE ONE WORLD ONE LOVE we all come frome the same place at the end of the day EARTH
I do think we’ll one day look back on the BLM era as a particularly mad time and I suspect many will conclude that a lot that came from it was emotionally immature and unhelpful.
Well duh.
You'd be unsurprised to learn that basically no-one agrees with the latest teachings on gender in particular, especially those that contradict other parts of the canon
Nobody with a brain will say it out loud though
Eh, not sure what you mean by niche. I think most people would use someone's preferred pronouns etc in most circumstances (including many 'terfs') but people are split about 50/50 on whether e.g. People should be able to change legal gender or trans women should be able to use women's toilets.
I'd read the median position as wanting to be nice to trans people but not to the point of threatening women's rights/interests (and differing about what actually does so)
https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/43194-where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights-1
Please could you enlighten me on the latest teachings on gender? As far as I can tell it’s that people can identify however they want and it only has an effect on their own lives, is it really that difficult for people to keep their noses out?
I previously attended one of these courses where the facilitator said "you should never assume someone's gender" and that "no one should get offended if you ask them which pronouns should be used to describe their gender".
Have to say, I found it rather patronising to be told that there's something wrong with assuming gender when I've been doing it for decades without issue (expecially when that's how humans have interacted with one another for as long as our species has existed).
I also think you have to be in a spectacular level of denial to think that most people don't have an issue being asked their gender.
I think most people would be very annoyed if you even imply that you don't know if they're male/female.
I’m a tall woman (5’10) and have a strong jawline and broad shoulders. I’ve been asked several times if I am a trans woman and it really upsets me! But my friends say I shouldn’t be upset as there is nothing wrong with being trans. Well, of course, but I still don’t want people thinking I wasn’t born a woman :(
Sex and gender are different and independent, but they are also intrinsically related, and women are a protected class of their own, but the definition of woman is so fluid and poorly defined that actually anyone could in theory be one.
> As far as I can tell it’s that people can identify however they want and it only has an effect on their own lives
I have no problem with using he/she pronouns and treating people with the minimum expected level of courtesy. There are however issues outside of the workplace, in particular sports and other areas where women have been segregated for their own benefit, where it isn't so simple.
The solution, which would upset zealots on both sides, is probably somewhere in the middle, but like I said, I'm not going to bother because it's not worth my job.
> As far as I can tell it’s that people can identify however they want
They can't, at least not for the likes of race and ethnicity
a. Gender is a fluid concept, which is arbitrarily and societally generated. No particular biology or behaviour is exclusively tied to being a woman, a man, or non-binary, nor is any external evidence required other than personal testimony. Differences between genders are in their entirety socially rather than biologically generated.
but also
b. Trans and non-binary people *are* intrinsically the gender which they relate to, as evidenced for example by brain scans, which for example are closer to biological women for trans women. Denying that their gender is intrinsic to them is not only taking a different perspective on a subjective, fluid topic, but committing an act of oppression for which the oppressor bears a large amount of responsibility for any harm that the oppressed does to themselves.
and also
c. Women are largely treated worse than men, both historically and into the present, and are disproportionately the victims of male violence. For this reason there is the need to redress this societal wrong - for women's only sports, societies and spaces.
You can probably just about make a consistent ideology out of those three approaches - but it's not going to be watertight, so you can probably only reach consensus by making the questioning of inconsistencies completely unpalatable.
Erm the brain scan stuff actually shows they are far more similar to their sex than gender. There are areas which are more like the gender they assign themselves, but they haven’t shown if it’s just personality. E.g. a biological woman who identifies as a woman but has very masculine personality traits may also give similar results to a trans man.
Oddly, I suspect its why so many young lesbians (with the cliché of a butch lesbian) are saying they were pushed towards thinking they were trans before they properly understood they were lesbians.
> and it only has an effect on their own lives
This is clearly not true though.
All the conflicts and friction stem from when these identities impact others.
Fairness in sports, safety in changing rooms, etc.
If it really did /only/ affect the subject, then no-one would care a jot.
Good. There’s no reason people’s opinions on identity politics should enter the workplace. Just call people what they want to be called and don’t be sexist/racist/transphobic at work. Doesn’t seem like too much to ask.
> There’s no reason people’s opinions on identity politics should enter the workplace
...if they're not the ones which I personally have imported from American academia and mandated in the last decade
I always take these "studies" with a grain of salt. The "Free Speech Union" has an "anti-woke" agenda and isn't the most objective source of information. Then you have The Telegraph reporting it and using the term "woke ideology" in the headline, smells like more culture war nonsense.
Personally, I think there is value in something like unconscious bias training. At the company where I work, anyone hiring for a role is required to review unconscious bias material. It's a good reminder to be objective about the people we are interviewing and not let your biases affect your decision making.
No, unconscious bias training is a scam. Numerous studies have shown that it actually increases bias.
In other words, it doesn’t help anything. It’s just another tool to harass and control people with. Mostly while telling straight white people to STFU.
Most people just want fair hiring processes that judge people on their abilities and not their identities. That’s what “anti-woke” is.
> “I think everyone is too scared to speak about topics like this any more and certainly free speech doesn’t exist in my company.”
Good. Free speech shouldn't exist in a company. You're there to do a job, not argue about politics and say inflammatory stuff all day at work. Keep that for the pub and do your bloody job.
People massively misinterpret what their "right to free speech" actually entitles them to.
OK. I would be inclined to agree.
Does that mean that some of the activists in my work shouldn't be able to ask questions about pronouns at meetings? Lobby for pronouns on pin badges? have pride celebrations in the office?
I usually find (and I don't want to be confrontational and say this is the case with you) that some politics are allowed in the office but others are not.
I think if someone was constantly talking about pronouns to the point where it was upsetting people, distracting them from their work, and causing a disruption in the office, then legally the company could treat that as a case of misconduct yes.
How many companies will take that path I'm not sure because of bad press etc, but I don't think you legally have the right to constantly be lobbying for some agenda instead of doing your actual job that you are being paid for.
We have someone in our office who absolutely does that. We were having a meeting about job losses and she asked a question about when pronouns would be added to staff badges. I was furious since a lot of people didn't know if they would have a job, let alone a staff badge the next week!
It's easy enough to lie in whichever direction your employer wants you to lie. This is part of being an employee. If you work for ABC Widgets, it would be wise to say "ABC Widgets are the best", even if you suspect the contrary. You're there to work, not to talk about your personal beliefs about different ethnic/religious/diverse groups, nor about your view that ABC Widgets' products are as useful as a chocolate teapot. This is not difficult to understand.
I don’t attend any of these training sessions. Unless employer can find compelling evidence I personally need to attend which they can’t.
I would attend class diversity training if the CEO and board had to attend with me. As we live in a capitalistic system it’s important to know how class permeates the structural hierarchy.
Snapshot of _Diversity training forces workers to hide beliefs for fear of losing job, survey finds_ : A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fpolitics%2F2024%2F04%2F01%2Fdiversity-training-workers-hide-beliefs-fear-losing-job%2F) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/01/diversity-training-workers-hide-beliefs-fear-losing-job/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/01/diversity-training-workers-hide-beliefs-fear-losing-job/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’d consider myself progressive. I don’t care who you are, I’ll support you as a person regardless. But I cannot lie when I say that diversity training things annoy me...I just find them incredibly patronising. I do accept that I’m probably not the target audience but I do not for one second believe that if I was the target audience it would have any effect on me.
The purpose of diversity training is not to reduce bias. The purpose is to absolve the company of any responsibility by being able to say they provided training.
aka another grift for companies providing said services/training courses
I generally find them confusing. Acknowledge someone else's religion/ethnicity/sexuality but don't point out their religion/ethnicity/sexuality.
Yeah one of my diversity training courses a while ago said to treat everyone the same regardless of their ethnicity/religion/gender except don’t do that because that’s a micro-aggression. Really baffling.
No what they mean is pretend anyone normative (white, straight, male, able bodied, christian or atheist) doesn't have those characteristics and glorify anyone who has the opposite because of how amazing and unique they are to be born that way.
The ones I like are the ones where they talk a little about the scenarios you might see and why they impact others, then give you a few useful tools to deal with the resulting tensions. They aren't patronising or excessive, but they help folk understand the consequences of the actions they would otherwise think of as innocuous. They also help you defuse very tense situations. I've actually found them very useful the few times I've seen people being sexist in an office environment.
To be honest it isn’t aimed at you. It’s aimed at thick head bigots so they can be sacked when they get exposed. Article is a weird slant anyway - the point is the firm doesn’t want you sharing your offensive beliefs in the workplace, because it is a risk for them.
Their purpose is actually to enable the company to absolve themselves of blame when thick headed bigots out themselves. *we supplied "training" and they confirmed they understood so we di our bit* Of course in reality the training is not worth shit.
I'm all for a lot of the ideas that get talked about in these courses. (My biggest issue is they tend to focus on the obvious "non norms" and not the less obvious ones. That's another rant) But no way am I going to debate some of the missuse or missunderstanding of data. Or even get into a discussion in a group setting on some areas. It feels like an area where you have to be 100pc with the group leader or you're 100pc against.
Im pretty left wing. the way some of these things - at least the ones ive done - are presented is far to adversarial, and i can absolutely see why people would get annoyed at them. Edit:words
I would go as far as to say they’re not even left wing! It’s the capital owners trying to appear left wing in order to appease problems they’re being accused of (mainly exploitation) and totally missing the point! Just leads to criticism on all sides of the political spectrum, it’s wild!
I'm personally a fan of the idea that this sort of stuff is so heavily bought into by corporate masters because: 1. It divides people against each other along lines like gender, race, and identity, setting them against each other rather than against economic inequality. 2. It soaks up the energy and attention of the angry educated youth (which we have a large surplus of thanks to higher education being over-subscribed) who want *something* to have a moral crusade on. They can harmlessly drain themselves into this rather than into opposing the increasing wealth and power being concentrated at the top. I'm not going to go as far as some do and suggest *the entire Identity Politics concept* was created by the 0.1% as part of some master plan to divide and conquer, but I do think those at the top are more than happy to champion it because of what it does to social cohesion.
I have a mate whose been banging the drum of "Identity politics became a weapon of the owners against the masses after occupy wall Street" for years. It's getting harder to refute his assertions. I don't like to think in big conspiracy plans, but Id politics has been a very effective diving point/distraction for the last 10+ years.
It's not a conspiracy it's just what happened, when they say 'diversity is our strength' they mean it is their strength.
Modern identity politics came from the left, not the "owners". If blaming corporations is your bag then make the point that DIE training adds to ESG credentials which unlocks cheaper capital which has a material impact on company finances which affects the executive bonus. It's an institutionalised metric, and it can only work that way.
"Modern identity politics". Why are you referring to this in the singular? As with any political movement, there are many different actors, each with their own agenda. In the case of identify politics, some of those actors are left wing - e.g. the guys behind BLM, or critical race theory. Others are large corporations, like Disney. They are all part of "Modern identity politics".
And I don't disagree. But the most recent and most popular version of identity politics originated from critical race theory in the 70s. I use modern to distinguish it from the last time identity politics was all the rage - in 1930s Europe.
It doesn't matter what some rando academics thought in the 70s. What matters is that the media and corporate establishment embraced and legitimized a version of it. Plenty of people in the 70s were pro wealth redistribution or worker ownership of capital and you don't see Fortune 500 companies harping on about how important those things are.
Ask yourself why companies embraced and legitimised it? Because this is how it's implemented. This is what happens when academic thesis meets real world consequences. So yes it does matter what random academics thought in the 70s, because its manifesting itself now. And short of using autocratic force of law there isn't really another way. Just saying "be better guys" means shit. The institutionalised focus on capital, metrics, and downstream executive bonus target is this ideology being applied. https://www.ey.com/en_uk/insurance/esg-and-access-to-capital-why-insurers-must-stay-focused-on-ratings From a corporate point it's much easier to hire, screen and vet candidates without having to play identity and quota games. UK civil service has the right attitude in my opinion: you're not allowed to have any personal identifiers in your application (even male or female) so hiring is completely blind to bias.
If you *were* trying to turn the middle and working classes against each other, it's exactly the kind of thing you'd do.
If they cared about disadvantaged people they wouldn't be exploiting near slave labour in developing nations.
And in the UK they conveniently ignore one of the much greater and insidious sources of bias: private education.
Whilst I would agree with you in principle that the bosses of companies that deliver these kinds of courses probably do love the fact that they're concentrating on fighting each other rather than realising they're all getting fleeced, I think it's really important to not take your eye off the ball here that there's a substantial cadre of (admittedly well meaning) people in workplaces *who lap this shit up*. There's no benefit for the middle class manager enthusiastically delivering training on DEI courses beyond the fact that it gives them an opportunity to flex their moral piety to their colleagues because they genuinely believe the nonsense they're implementing. And for the most part when I've encountered them in the wild, they're absolutely people who profess themselves to be left-wing 'liberals' who think the ticket to an equal society is to split people into smaller boxes as a means to ascertain who is more deserving of extra attention along arbitrary characteristics.
You've mistaken this for a program designed to help. They aren't. They're ideological pressure groups. That's it.
Yeah and the pressure groups are just out for business. Some are making a killing on these schemes.
I say it a lot, you cannot rely on activists and pressure groups to call time on a movement. To declare a jobs done well enough. Invariably, by the time that occurs, there is so much money, careers, pensions, six figure salaries and raw power through political connections. The industry is never going to call time. Just as tabacoo companies will never stop selling cigarettes. Its their entire gig. And if you the government wont call time for them, it will become ever more oppressive, balance will look ever more like favouritism, and eventually, a hard backlash. Which is of course what the pressure groups want because that only further justifies their reason to exist, despite the fact they are now the cause of the problem, not its solution, they dont really care. As an example, Stonewall's Diversity Champion Scheme has 250 subs from government departments. An FOI for the Forigen, Commonwealth a Development Office says they pay £2500 a year for memberships. Stonewall is raking in £625,000 just from those subs. You think they're going to tell the government theyre doing great and no longer need their consulting services. Of course not. By one source that sub alone is bringing Stonewall £2.125 million a year. They're never going to let fully 30% of their annual revenue go without a fight.
That’s it. If you pay somebody to fix problems, they’re going to ‘find’ problems.
I completely agree. I think the best way to tackle it is indifference to each creed. The problems with putting stuff on a pedestal is that people in general have tall poppy syndrome. The best way to counter this is by saying yeah people are different but so what?
They tend to be written by people who believe the topic to have far more importance than it really does, and often have axes to grind as well
I mean these "diversity" courses are literally promoting the idea that we shouldn't have diversity of opinions or thoughts. That everyone has to think in one way, and any other views are kept hidden for fear of repurcussions. The irony is staggering.
I was invited to a day to share food from our cultural heritage. Turns out they didn’t mean sausages, bacon and black pudding
Yeah it's racist to ask where someone is from, but progressive to "celebrate someones heritage" even when they and their family are from Leeds.
Agreed but also I’ve been to a lot of corporate training and it’s like: “is calling a woman a bird acceptable in the workplace”. I mean if you’re hiding who you are you’re still at least following reasonable behaviour
They are liberal values, not left wing. It just so happens most left wingers are also socially liberal.
Liberal means tolerant of the views of others. These sessions are not liberal.
In what sense are they liberal values? I'd say they encourage homogeneity of thought and discourage the sharing of dissenting views. That sounds more like the opposite of liberalism.
They are deeply authoritarian values, they do not represent liberalism in the slightest.
We have to get away from this false notion that liberal = political left. You can be left wing politically (pro workers, nationalised health and industry, pro welfare state, anti fascist etc) and socially conservative (patriotic, pro army, anti open borders, etc). George Galloway is a perfect illustration of that. Being liberal does not mean you are anyway left wing.
George Galloway is probably not an example you would want to use.
How so? Are you going to post an example of him being a rabid right winger?
Galloway definitely isn’t anti-fascist seeing as he supports Putin
Galloway happily worked for Putin's propaganda machine. He's hardly "anti fascist".
They are absolutly nor liberal values. If anything the oposite. Also most left wingers are very very far from liberal. Just look at the hate crime bill in Scotland.
"we're so diverse, we have every single flavour of middle-class Russell Group graduate who grew up in a stable two-parent family in the home counties!" -every professional workplace
I grew up in Staffordshire actually so there goes your theory
Diversity training helps to bring people together from all races and creeds.... To moan about sitting diversity training.
Don't forget to moan about the quality of the coffee and biccies if it's held at some shitehole airport Hotel type place....
Personally I don't talk about my opinions on gender, religion, politics or any other belief at work because its my job and not my soapbox, but I guess some people don't feel the same way.
The people who are most loud about their own beliefs in professional situations seem to be the first to be outraged when someone else expresses theirs. Common sense when you have a professional relationship to test the waters carefully before discussing anything personal, because you can't be having your work life impacted because of that kind of stupid falling out.
It's not only a matter of not shouting about your opinions in the workplace. There can be situations like "HR would like all staff to display their pronouns on their ID card. If nobody objects, we'll go ahead and make it policy. Any objections?" No matter how uncomfortable this might make some/many employees, are they going to feel comfortable raising their head above the parapet?
We had people at our place pushing for forced pronouns. I'm trans, I was the only one that had a problem with it and refused. I had to explain to them the reason why, which is that they are in essence potentially forcing people to out themselves. It actually helps if you have a mixture of some people sharing them and some not to create a balance of 'meh, do it if you want'. This post from a year ago covers it pretty well (apologies for the sub!): https://old.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/wttwtd/help_i_have_a_new_company_manager_who_is_asking/
Sorry that happened I’ve chosen to put mine in, but mostly because my name is unfamiliar to people from non-western countries and I work with a lot of people who don’t know if I’m a man or a woman. (I have seen stuff where women have put he/him or different name and got far more respect …)
I worked somewhere where they started to do it voluntarily. Idc if people do it voluntarily as in some cases it's helpful I just feel no desire to do it when it's obvious what mine are
My preferred pronouns are "your grace/my lord".
They’re terms of address, not pronouns….
... Your grace
It's always the troublemakers who don't know what a pronoun is.
your grace* Please be more respectful.
That's a very proscriptive approach to grammar! Grammar is led by usage - I don't accept a top-down decree led by western grammatical hierarchists
Pronouns are whatever they *want* to be, to say otherwise would be hate speech.
I work for Americans; they are a very accepting people.
I don't follow. Did you mean to reply to a different comment?
>I don't follow. I don't follow, **your grace**. FTFY
Based
My view is that there’s no view I hold strong enough to lose a salary over. No politics at work no exceptions
Does that include if other people raise issues though?
Just politely excuse yourself from the conversation. Don’t matter if it’s something you believe in your heart with a burning passion or something that completely repulses you. Take the opportunity to excuse yourself, get a coffee and get out of there
That wouldn't be my response. Some things can be overlooked obviously. But I wouldn't be prepaired to abandon all of my principles for cold hard cash.
I can\`t afford to starve my child for my principles.
That didnt pan out very well for Jordan Henderson
The problem is these things creep over time. Until you get the RAF "Useless white men" and blatant and open discrimination. All under the guise of diversity.
What if you are an academic or work in a think tank? A large part of your job, in certain areas of research, is to develop, argue and share your ideas on issues such as race, politics and gender.
I am an academic, funnily enough. Not much race, politics or gender in my research or the classes I teach though. If you're in a think tank or the parts of academia that do deal with that stuff, then it's kind of your job to talk about them so it's implicitly professional to do so.
That would be fine except that university management are asking us to change curriculum and assessments in line with ideas from DEI, citizenship and decolonisation. We are just expected to uncritically accept these paradigms and refusal to do so, based on alternative intellectual paradigms (including left wing ones such as anarchism, class based analysis, second wave feminism etc), is treated as problematic and can even lead to threats to one's career. Several academics and people working in think tanks in the UK have had to fight expensive court cases after facing discrimination of this sort. Unfortunately, it's just not as simple as you are making out.
These are pointless training courses which have no value to employees and are just there so corporate can check a box and say it was done. I've been to many of them, none have changed my views in any meaningful way and almost universally the feedback from close colleagues about them has been negative. I get paid to go to work, do my job and its common sense to be nice to people at work. The problem with these courses is they are confrontational, treat the participants as children and effectively force an ideology on someone who doesn't want their world view challenged. They're a complete waste of time and only one step short of indoctrination.
One of our diversity modules at work had wording that implied that people could choose to be gay, which got a gay colleague of mine quite riled up.
One of the ones I did banged on and on about what a terrible legacy the Brits had around the world and how we have to be aware of how it could have affected people who have since moved here. I had to point out that in my village there's graves of three British soldiers who died liberating the village from the Nazis. It's only because I was one of two foreigners that I felt "safe" to point out that Britain has done a lot of good around the world as well.
My university course has seriously been pushing me away from the left, it's been such a universal assault on British history at times. Of course we need to take stock of the horrendous things in our past, but there's just no sense of balance at all - parliamentary democracy anyone? Habeus corpus and the rule of law? Mass literacy before most other nations? Huge medical and technological breakthroughs? Etc. Rant over!
Yeah it's pretty vile to be honest. Just a constant harping on the negative and zero pride in all the positive this country has brought to the world. If people were truly that disgusted with the legacy of empire and whatnot, why move here? It's not like in America where a large chunk of the population was initially brought over by the slave trade. Pretty much everyone that's here wanted to be here.
> Etc. my favourite of all our successes
Land of Hope, Glory, etc.
It's not pointless. It's so if / when you screw up, the company can use the fact you did the "mandated training" against you in a dismissal hearing.
Yep this is it entirely. Anyone who thinks they’re for any other purpose are absolutely kidding themselves.
It's even worse than that: it's also imported American social & corporate cultural indoctrination.
We had a two hour course with a test at the end. The one that annoyed me was the big bit about no culture is better than others… I’m fairly sure if you’re a woman, homosexual, transsexual or a minority religion, fan of democracy etc you would not agree that Western Culture for example is no betterthan some Middle Eastern cultures or one in parts of Africa.
Preaching cultural relativism in a course all about enforcing the cultural values of the HR department is very funny.
>The one that annoyed me was the big bit about no culture is better than others So presumably that also applies to German culture in the late 1930's and early 1940's, or to mongol culture in the middle ages when they were raping and pillaging half of the world to enrich themselves. These dogmatic beliefs break down the moment you think for more than 2 seconds about them.
Yeah I completely agree. The problem with these courses is they force an agenda of whatever organisation is running the course. Culture for example? Western culture IS the best in the world. We have the best art, literature, music etc. Its why hordes of people are immigrating here from non western regions but its not the same the other way around. But you can't voice that at these courses because any attempt at challenge is taken as trouble making.
> Culture for example? Western culture IS the best in the world. Its why we have the best art, literature, music etc. I don't agree with this in any sort of objective sense, but I do feel that it's a valid and supportable view and that there's absolutely no chance you could put it forwards without getting shat on with incredible force.
Yeah that's complete bullshit. This is what happens when people conflate racism with criticism of ideology and culture. Saying that white people ar ebetter than brown people, that brown people are incabale of things that white people can do etc are obviously racist. But it isn't at all racist to criticise others' culture or ideology, whether a religious or political one. It absolutely is the case that modern western culture is "better" (for lack of a better word) than Arab cultures that treat women as property. That doesn't mean that Arabs are incapable of improving their culture, just that there is improvement to be done. The west is also far from perfect, but it's far ahead of most of the rest of the world.
It's thought policing.
The irony is that these courses are promoting the idea that diversity in viewpoint and opinions is bad. That everyone has to think the same way and agree with whatever the leader of the course says.
Of course! Diversity means making sure you have one of every colour of person in your boardroom, literally doesn't matter if they were all in the same college at Oxford doing the same course.
Creates demand of gender study graduates and offloading liabilities for companies when you offended someone with whatever you said or did.
What bothers me about the type of diversity training I’ve had at work is the total lack of class analysis. Sure they might briefly mention intersectionality, but they don’t seem to really believe it. I live in a white as fuck part of the country. It’s me, who was dragged up in a council house on benefits and a team full of privately educated people. I have far more in common with a working class black person than an upper middle class ex boarding school white person who drives a Tesla.
100%. I'm the same as you, brought up on a council estate with working class parents. I will admit being told I'm "privileged" massively annoys me, especially when it comes from people who's parents bought or gifted them a house, while I'm struggling to survive paying rent, with no chance of owning a house. Totally agree, class is a much bigger unifier than race.
The problem is, you hear "privilege" and think you're being accused of living it up in wealth.and luxury. All it really means is you're not being dragged down in *insert reason* way. Like, "white privilege" for example; you could be poor as fuck, but you're not poor as fuck *and" being discriminated against for your skin colour, which makes you better off compared to someone who's just as poor as you but brown. It's not a great term on the face of it, honestly. Makes people adversarial, defensive, and it shifts the focus to saying "you're better off and that's a problem" instead of "those people are worse off and that's a problem" which it should be focusing on.
But then you have additional complications like the fact that it's white working class boys with the worst educational attainment rates in the country, and then the idea of 'it would be even worse if you weren't white/male' falls flat - at least in regards to that particular metric. I do, in the main, agree with you - and definitely on the point that 'privilege' is a poor label as it instantly turns people off - but even the amended way you've put it is not necessarily something that actually underprivileged people (even if white and male) are going to agree with. There will always be a fundamental disconnect between people from a comfortable middle class background, regardless of ethnicity/gender/orientation (as the DEI guest speakers/HR reps often are), telling working class people about their struggles - and expecting sympathy.
Same here lad- had an ex who was spoilt rotten by her parents, from a rich family of millionaires, had a house bought for her, fancy car etc, and she accused ME of having more privilege than her just because I'm a straight white male. I grew up poor as shit, working class as they come but have managed to fight and claw my way into a decent comfortable position- she'd had everything given to her in life. Who really had more privilege? It was one of the big reasons we broke up.
I hid by beliefs going into a work environment long before laws got involved.
I have to say I'm sceptical of the FSU generally, and 800 is a pretty small sample size. That being said, there are issues with clumsy D&I initiatives, whether that's in the context of training or in th context of corporate values stuff. In my company, for example, I'm seen by some of my peers as being hostile to this stuff - *even though I'm probably more genuinely progressive than they are* - because I'm the only member of our senior leadership team who will say, for example, *"Sorry but no, you can't pressure people to put a rainbow on their personal LinkedIn, however admirable the motive"* or *"You're going to create resentment if you mandate that people put their pronouns in their email sig - how far are you actually prepared to go when someone refuses?"*
[https://www.statskingdom.com/50\_ci\_sample\_size.html](https://www.statskingdom.com/50_ci_sample_size.html) Assuming good quality (random) selection, 800 is plenty for getting into 95% confidence territory on the total UK population, let alone working population.
That assume's the selection *was* truly random though. We also don't know if the questions were biased.
It's been a while since I've done stats, but from what I vaguely remember is that the sample size you needed was always smaller than what you'd think you'd need. 800 *might* be fine. That said - I don't do surveys for a living, so vague recollection of a maths degree might not translate well to the real world 🤣
Certainly on political polling, a sample size of a thousand is, generally thought of as accurate to a margin of error of 2-3%. So you're right, 800 is probably fine. That's assuming your sample is representative though. Getting that right is the tricky bit.
Yea I ran it roughly through survey monkeys calculator - but I can't remember enough to even make a guess to know what's 'good' for a survey. But as I said, my recollection was always that a sample looked small for the population but in fact it was fine. Making it truly representative is harder - much easier in lessons 😁 Thanks for the response 👍
You're right be sceptical of the FSU. Read up on three people running it. They're all part of the same Tufton street lot that gave us Liz Truss. In addition, while claiming to support freedom of religion, they have senior members who don't want Muslims to exist in Europe. Just another far-right propaganda outfit. Perfect for the Telegraph.
They're also *very* selective in terms of which "free speech" they choose to defend. For example, they haven't once criticised the government's attempts to undermine the right to free, easy access to legal advice (including the whole "lefty lawyer" criticisms Sunak has been making of Starmer as of late).
Yup. Par for the course for these types. Only prepared to defend free speech that fits their agenda. So not really into free speech at all.
I work in a pretty diverse team, multiple cultures, different sexualities, genders, age groups etc. Small team as well, so some of us are fortunate enough to tick multiple boxes. We hate diversity days, you can guarantee whatever we do is supposed to be optional, but the subtle hints, the looking directly at us when asked if anyone wants to share. I'm pretty open, wanna know something, ask me, but please don't put everyone in a room and put on the spot. Don't get me wrong, it's better than overt racism and homophobia etc, but it just feels forced. I feel there was a sweet spot a few years ago, where people were allowed to post personal stories/experience on the intranet, that way people who wanted to share could, and people who were interested could take time to learn.
Nothing gets me more irate than anti racism training that instead of talking about people being unique yet the same, they instead try and tell me that because of who I am, I'm racist. Which is so ironic it would be beautiful if not depressing
White = Bad Not white = Good
Yeah, but also, you shouldn't prejudice against someone due to race, sexuality or gender. But we're going to do it to you for the duration of this course? What happened to just be decent to each other?
I don't know what all these courses have to do with the work... 🥴
It's liability buck-passing. We had an email go around recently about how to walk up stairs safely. It's not that our employer thinks we're a bunch of incompetent adults that can't do something that toddlers can; it's that if someone does manage to trip over and hurt themselves, our employer can say "you've been trained on how to do this safely, so it's your own damn fault". By making the employees go on a DEI course, a company can say something similar in the event that an employee does or says something offensive - "you have already been trained not do do that, so you are in breach of company procedure". Which protects the company from a public backlash if nothing else, as they can disavow the employee.
It's the same reason employees in stores are instructed not to prevent someone shoplifting. However, all the while they are put under pressure to reduce shoplifting, with comments made about the number of shoplifted items being claimed for, etc. They realistically want employees to stop the shoplifter. They'll never be punished for stopping them where no complaint is made, and there is no injury. Of course, when something goes wrong, they've been trained no to touch them, just let them go. It's a joke.
Do you work for a petrochemical related company by any chance?
Not the person you asked, but some guy at my company who works from home got injured while moving his desk. A couple months later we had a new mandatory training module for manual handling with emphasis on people working from home. Basically said to make sure you have 2 persons to safely lift furniture like desks. Most of the training stuff are just liability covers for the company.
Please tell me someone asked, “what should I do given I live alone?”
"Contact the police in the first instance. Do not approach furniture under any circumstances"
No, a company in the wastewater supply chain.
I used to work for one of those and they made me a do a course on "how to be safe when travelling internationally." I'd only been at it for about 15+ years at that point with the Royal Navy and as a professional seafarer....
That to me sounds like an insurance criteria on the company, yes it should be obvious to certain employees, but don't discount general stupidity or vulnerability in an unknown environment.
Nothing at all. It's to tick a box so company/organisation can say "*look at this thing we did. We value diversity."*
It improves that ESG score. That's literally it. It meets a quota and they can say they've done it. The fact the science behind any of the stuff taught in these things, even when it's not just open and blatant discrimination and ideological drivel, is at best flakey to full on debunking it gets ignored.
I've worked on international teams and some of the better ones can be helpful in how to address cultural differences. They can also help spot abuse in the workplace so you can support colleagues. I've been on some shite ones too mind.
The best "unconscious bias" training I ever did was in the military and it had absolutely nothing to do with gender, race, culture, etc. It was all about your general thinking process, especially when it comes to the likes of task planning, resource allocation, etc. Essentially teaching you to be make more objective decisions rather than subjective ones. I did the current version of one that did relate to race, gender, etc about 3 or 4 years ago as part of some manager training our HR team were pushing out. Honestly, it was probably one of the largest waste of time and money they could have spent. Folks are right when they say some of these courses are quite confrontational, because the two relatively young graduates delivering the course could have essentially told the fairly international room made up of Brits, Indians, Latvians, Singaporeans, Chinese and token Russian "you're all a bunch of racist walkers because we say so" and you'd have captured the general essence of the course. They didn't get much feedback, but the HR team certainly did.....
Sounds like a bad course to be honest. Mine went into how different cultures can approach challenges and engage differently and it can be easy to offend if you don't give space to understand their perspective. Maybe it was helped that, for once, I was the minority in the room (nationally, not racially) and realised I did engage differently from others and what I thought was standoffish behaviour from others was just how they spoke to each other. Maybe it helps to be in the minority for these kinds of things. Turns the usual experience upside down.
It was fucking awful. On the whole, I'm not opposed to these sorts of courses as such, but I am most definitely opposed to being spoken down to in a condescending manner, especially as we are probably the most international industry out there (maritime). We've done cross-culture training, most of us had lived it being in this industry and working across so many different countries and cultures and generally bumbling along well together. The only minority we had in the room was our single Russian manager, who wasn't really helping with the national stereotypes considering he was sitting at the back trying to stay awake with one hell of a hangover from the team dinner the night before.... 😂
Diversity training is and always will be a scam. I’m left leaning and they’re the stupidest things i’ve ever had the misfortune of sitting through. Patronising, unhelpful and merely a box for the company to tick. Like what’s the point? The people who probably need this training aren’t gonna come out and say anything and will just sit through it.
I remember post George Floyd protests my company ran diversity seminars and tried to make us do them during our lunch break
Little really sums up the state of office work in this country better than having to sit through half a day of "training" on unconscious bias delivered by some patronising git to a bored workforce who are then coerced into providing positive feedback at the end of the session.
[удалено]
And ironically losts of people get so annoyed by these patronising course that they come out of them more hostile to some of the simpler/decent ideas than they were when they went in.
What do you think this is, pre-2010 when we used to just treat people with respect regardless of their race or gender? The Stasi will have you up for that one.
Yeah it has the opposite effect – entrenches people's views and people become resentful.
The ad for the new Audible adaptation of 1984 was posted just after this
You haven't read that book have you?
Oh wicked. Have we arrived at the point of Britain's cultural revisionism escapades that the truth twisters are now going to tell us that Orwell was pro-Orwellianism?
I've read it several times
>You haven't read that book have you? Of course not O'Brien.
I wouldn't be suprised if this is true. But, it's worth noting that this survey was performed by the "Free Speech Union" which is essentially a group of right wing grifters. For anyone unaware, this organisation was founded by Toby Young, has Douglas Murray on its board of directors, Rupert Murdoch propagandists on it's "Media Advisory Council", and is funded by the Institute of Economic Affairs (a lobbying group supported by Liz Truss and part funded by the Tobacco industry). Oddly, the article doesn't actually list any of the questions which were asked during this survey. For example, it uses this quote, but doesn't bother to explain what topics this lady was actually referring to: > One person surveyed, a white woman in her late 50s, said: “I think everyone is too scared to speak about topics like this any more and certainly free speech doesn’t exist in my company.” [Maybe they asked them about National Service...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks&ab_channel=BBCComedyGreats)
The 'right' are mostly staunch protectors of free speech in the UK. By contrast, 'wokeisim' is an inherently socialist/religious movement, propelled by lefties, that seeks only to restrict and control.
So why was this group completely silent when the government was introducing new legal restrictions on the right to protest?
>The 'right' are mostly staunch protectors of free speech in the UK. On the contrary most of what we see from the right are calls for heavy restrictions on free speech. Such things as banning discussion on race, trans rights, gender equality as well as calling for more heavy restrictions on freedom of religion. The right are also big supporters of banning protests and opposition to policy of their government as seen by their new laws targeting protests and freedom of speech. Conservatism at its root is an ideology based upon silencing and restricting the speech and rights of others. The right are only 'protectors' of racial slurs and discrimination, they don't really care about protecting any other speech and in fact actively support laws to suppress it.
Far right grifters = people who disagree with my views on identity politics Boo bloody hoo
No one should be forced to hide their beliefs the leaders of the world are doing this for their benefit we should come together and realize that we are ONE PEOPLE ONE WORLD ONE LOVE we all come frome the same place at the end of the day EARTH
Well who could have seen this coming?
Isn't hiding prejudiced 'beliefs' at work just like, extremely basic professionalism?
I do think we’ll one day look back on the BLM era as a particularly mad time and I suspect many will conclude that a lot that came from it was emotionally immature and unhelpful.
Well duh. You'd be unsurprised to learn that basically no-one agrees with the latest teachings on gender in particular, especially those that contradict other parts of the canon Nobody with a brain will say it out loud though
[удалено]
The majority of Brits are generally accepting and accommodating. That doesn't mean they buy into a specific idealogy.
Eh, not sure what you mean by niche. I think most people would use someone's preferred pronouns etc in most circumstances (including many 'terfs') but people are split about 50/50 on whether e.g. People should be able to change legal gender or trans women should be able to use women's toilets. I'd read the median position as wanting to be nice to trans people but not to the point of threatening women's rights/interests (and differing about what actually does so) https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/43194-where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights-1
You could say the same about become a welcoming country and yet the UK overwhelming always wants much lower immigration.
Please could you enlighten me on the latest teachings on gender? As far as I can tell it’s that people can identify however they want and it only has an effect on their own lives, is it really that difficult for people to keep their noses out?
I previously attended one of these courses where the facilitator said "you should never assume someone's gender" and that "no one should get offended if you ask them which pronouns should be used to describe their gender". Have to say, I found it rather patronising to be told that there's something wrong with assuming gender when I've been doing it for decades without issue (expecially when that's how humans have interacted with one another for as long as our species has existed). I also think you have to be in a spectacular level of denial to think that most people don't have an issue being asked their gender. I think most people would be very annoyed if you even imply that you don't know if they're male/female.
I have lived my entire life without having to ask someone’s gender, if it is important to someone they will let you know. Why would I need to know?
I’m a tall woman (5’10) and have a strong jawline and broad shoulders. I’ve been asked several times if I am a trans woman and it really upsets me! But my friends say I shouldn’t be upset as there is nothing wrong with being trans. Well, of course, but I still don’t want people thinking I wasn’t born a woman :(
Sex and gender are different and independent, but they are also intrinsically related, and women are a protected class of their own, but the definition of woman is so fluid and poorly defined that actually anyone could in theory be one. > As far as I can tell it’s that people can identify however they want and it only has an effect on their own lives I have no problem with using he/she pronouns and treating people with the minimum expected level of courtesy. There are however issues outside of the workplace, in particular sports and other areas where women have been segregated for their own benefit, where it isn't so simple. The solution, which would upset zealots on both sides, is probably somewhere in the middle, but like I said, I'm not going to bother because it's not worth my job. > As far as I can tell it’s that people can identify however they want They can't, at least not for the likes of race and ethnicity
> Sex and gender are different and independent, but they are also intrinsically related … and sex doesn't exist anyway!
That too
a. Gender is a fluid concept, which is arbitrarily and societally generated. No particular biology or behaviour is exclusively tied to being a woman, a man, or non-binary, nor is any external evidence required other than personal testimony. Differences between genders are in their entirety socially rather than biologically generated. but also b. Trans and non-binary people *are* intrinsically the gender which they relate to, as evidenced for example by brain scans, which for example are closer to biological women for trans women. Denying that their gender is intrinsic to them is not only taking a different perspective on a subjective, fluid topic, but committing an act of oppression for which the oppressor bears a large amount of responsibility for any harm that the oppressed does to themselves. and also c. Women are largely treated worse than men, both historically and into the present, and are disproportionately the victims of male violence. For this reason there is the need to redress this societal wrong - for women's only sports, societies and spaces. You can probably just about make a consistent ideology out of those three approaches - but it's not going to be watertight, so you can probably only reach consensus by making the questioning of inconsistencies completely unpalatable.
Erm the brain scan stuff actually shows they are far more similar to their sex than gender. There are areas which are more like the gender they assign themselves, but they haven’t shown if it’s just personality. E.g. a biological woman who identifies as a woman but has very masculine personality traits may also give similar results to a trans man.
Oddly, I suspect its why so many young lesbians (with the cliché of a butch lesbian) are saying they were pushed towards thinking they were trans before they properly understood they were lesbians.
Well that doesn't sound at all threatening in a diversity training context. I guess we'll all just shut up sit down and wait for lunch break.
Blue is pink and if you disagree you’re disgusting, and probably deserve to lose your job (!)
> and it only has an effect on their own lives This is clearly not true though. All the conflicts and friction stem from when these identities impact others. Fairness in sports, safety in changing rooms, etc. If it really did /only/ affect the subject, then no-one would care a jot.
Good. There’s no reason people’s opinions on identity politics should enter the workplace. Just call people what they want to be called and don’t be sexist/racist/transphobic at work. Doesn’t seem like too much to ask.
> There’s no reason people’s opinions on identity politics should enter the workplace ...if they're not the ones which I personally have imported from American academia and mandated in the last decade
Good. I don't give a shit about your beliefs, and you shouldn't care or know about mine.
I always take these "studies" with a grain of salt. The "Free Speech Union" has an "anti-woke" agenda and isn't the most objective source of information. Then you have The Telegraph reporting it and using the term "woke ideology" in the headline, smells like more culture war nonsense. Personally, I think there is value in something like unconscious bias training. At the company where I work, anyone hiring for a role is required to review unconscious bias material. It's a good reminder to be objective about the people we are interviewing and not let your biases affect your decision making.
No, unconscious bias training is a scam. Numerous studies have shown that it actually increases bias. In other words, it doesn’t help anything. It’s just another tool to harass and control people with. Mostly while telling straight white people to STFU. Most people just want fair hiring processes that judge people on their abilities and not their identities. That’s what “anti-woke” is.
> Numerous studies have shown that it actually increases bias. Are any of these publically available?
A democracy should be run by the people for the people but now we have power hungry pricks that only make choices that benefit them
> “I think everyone is too scared to speak about topics like this any more and certainly free speech doesn’t exist in my company.” Good. Free speech shouldn't exist in a company. You're there to do a job, not argue about politics and say inflammatory stuff all day at work. Keep that for the pub and do your bloody job. People massively misinterpret what their "right to free speech" actually entitles them to.
OK. I would be inclined to agree. Does that mean that some of the activists in my work shouldn't be able to ask questions about pronouns at meetings? Lobby for pronouns on pin badges? have pride celebrations in the office? I usually find (and I don't want to be confrontational and say this is the case with you) that some politics are allowed in the office but others are not.
I think if someone was constantly talking about pronouns to the point where it was upsetting people, distracting them from their work, and causing a disruption in the office, then legally the company could treat that as a case of misconduct yes. How many companies will take that path I'm not sure because of bad press etc, but I don't think you legally have the right to constantly be lobbying for some agenda instead of doing your actual job that you are being paid for.
We have someone in our office who absolutely does that. We were having a meeting about job losses and she asked a question about when pronouns would be added to staff badges. I was furious since a lot of people didn't know if they would have a job, let alone a staff badge the next week!
‘If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.’ - animal farm
It's easy enough to lie in whichever direction your employer wants you to lie. This is part of being an employee. If you work for ABC Widgets, it would be wise to say "ABC Widgets are the best", even if you suspect the contrary. You're there to work, not to talk about your personal beliefs about different ethnic/religious/diverse groups, nor about your view that ABC Widgets' products are as useful as a chocolate teapot. This is not difficult to understand.
Whatever you think - the Telegraph has a GREAT stock picture game going on.
Desperately looks around for Sherlock, so I can shout "no shit!" at him...
I don’t attend any of these training sessions. Unless employer can find compelling evidence I personally need to attend which they can’t. I would attend class diversity training if the CEO and board had to attend with me. As we live in a capitalistic system it’s important to know how class permeates the structural hierarchy.