0 Comments

  1. Just make sure that, in your celebration of diversity, you don’t treat people differently on the basis of race, ethnicity, and sex when it comes to hiring, promotions, and other workforce decisions. That’s illegal under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And such discrimination cannot be justified legally, empirically, logically, or morally. See this testimony: https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/archive/2-28-07/clegg2.html

    • Of course Roger, not discriminating in a legal sense is a given. However, forward-thinking organizations understand that equity is the goal of “new school” diversity efforts, not equality. We now know that treating everyone exactly the same is not only impossible (because of how the human brain works), but also ineffective, since people are different and have different needs, skills, styles, etc. Effective leaders know this and adjust accordingly in creating a more inclusive environment — which always elicits more brilliance and excellence. The real question is whether or not there is an unequitable impact of well-intended blanket policies, procedures or behaviors. Often there is, which is what “minorities” are bringing to light. My colleagues and I have worked with hundreds of leaders in various industries on how to treat people differently to get better results, and have yet to have HR or Legal shut it down.

      • Thanks, Susan. I’m glad that you agree that it is a “given” that nondiscrimination is legally required, and we can agree to disagree on the rest (for example, I don’t buy much of what is asserted these days about “implicit bias,” and recent articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education and New York Magazine support me). I urge those interested to read the EEOC testimony I linked to in my first post, as well as this supplement to it, which addresses both legal and policy issues: https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/archive/2-28-07/clegg1.html

  2. Unsurprisingly, the proof shared by the author (“the business case for diversity is clear…”) is merely a link to her own website where she seeks to draw customers to her consulting business.

    Why not link to the numerous independent sources that back up what you are saying? It would make a better impression on those whose opinions you ostensibly seek to sway.

    • Hi Jerry — I didn’t do that as a sell. I did it because I have numerous links on my site, so linking there was easier than trying to pick just one source to link to, or burdening the reader with lots and lots of outlinks (I also try not to be redundant, I’ve written on this before). Plus there’s nothing unethical about trying to connect with ideal clients in this space. 🙂 Hopefully you clicked on some of the links on my site, which lead to HBR and other sources. Also check out Scott E Page, Nancy Adler and Surowiecki. I have an entire document full of of links and citations called “Diversity ROI” on my Resources page.

  3. The problem with diversity is how it is taught in school and by HR in companies.
    I have had over 50 hours of diversity training in companies I have worked. This training was nothing more than Leftist extremism in the form of group identity politics.
    Diversity gets very divisive because it usually puts people into at least two groups: the oppressors and the victims of the alleged oppression. I could write a book about my experiences with diversity training and how it is really indoctrination.
    However, what the over 7000 students at the University of Delaware were forced to “learn,” all in the name of Diversity, makes my point.
    Here is but a small sample of the diversity indoctrination that ALL students in the dorms were forced to endure:
    “Hello, Mom? I’m a Racist!

    The media focused heavily on one part of the RA training called “Diversity Facilitation Training.” RAs were trained using definitions like these:

    A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination…

    REVERSE RACISM: A term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege. Those in denial use the term reverse racism to refer to hostile behavior by people of color toward whites, and to affirmative action policies, which allegedly give ‘preferential treatment’ to people of color over whites. In the U.S., there is no such thing as “reverse racism.”[2]

    The training was heavy-handed as it passed from RAs to students. Guerrier described it as leaving “a mental footprint on [students’] consciousness.” The staff actually called the program a treatment: “through the … curriculum experience (a treatment) specific attitudinal or behavioral changes (learning) will occur.” The fact that ResLife viewed students as patients in need of “treatment” for their problems revealed their utter lack of respect for the students and their freedom of conscience.”

    This kind of cultural Marxism re-education camp (all freshman and sophomore students must live in the dorms) went on for over three years before a threat of a law suit stopped it. However, even now, the people that run the dorms at the University of Delaware are trying to quietly (Shhh! don’t let the taxpayers paying for this public university know what is going on here!) bring some of this indoctrination back.

    You can read more about the U. of D. brainwashing here:
    http://www.thefire.org/article/9869.html

    Then there is the Democratic Party, which is, on the surface, very “diverse.” They have many different “people of color” (Question: when did White stop being a color?) as well as representations of genders, sexual orientations, ethnicity, etc.
    However, does the Democratic Party, whether you agree with them or not, have the same opinions on abortion? On increasing spending? On Affirmative Action? On raising taxes? On illegal immigration? etc.
    So where is the Intellectual Diversity in the Democratic Party? The Democratic Party is chock full of skin deep diversity, but lacks any real Intellectual Diversity.

    The goal of US business with their diversity programs, from their diversity mission statements, was to get different perspectives on how to exceed their customers’ expectations, improve stockholders value, and improve general problem solving throughout the company.
    So why are most diversity training programs using group identity politics to indoctrinate employees with Leftist extremism?
    CEOs were hoping that diversity would reduce discrimination law suits. Instead, since diversity training started in US businesses in 1992, discrimination law suits have skyrocketed. Perhaps this could be because people don’t like being called oppressors when they are innocent of the charge. Also, the alleged victims of this oppression had no idea that they were so thoroughly oppressed by their employers. So they file a discrimination law suit any time they think they were not treated well. Isn’t it great that people can now get justice every time some oppressor has the unmitigated gall to disagree with the oppressed on any issue in the workplace?

    Don’t get me wrong here; discrimination does occur in the workplace. In fact, I have been a victim of it myself. However, I have also been the victim of false accusations of discrimination and I have seen other people’s careers ruined by false accusations of discrimination.

    And we wonder why diversity has a bad reputation?
    Diversity will always have a bad reputation as long as it is used to indoctrinate employees (and students in US universities such as the 7000 students in the University of Delaware dorms) with Leftist extremism instead of trying to get different perspectives on exceeding customers’ expectations, improving stockholders value, and general problem solving throughout a company. The Democratic Party is proof that being rich in skin deep diversity does NOT in any way guarantee Intellectual Diversity. The goal is supposed to be Intellectual Diversity, not some political indoctrination of employees through mandatory training programs.
    Source: https://www.thefire.org/cases/university-of-delaware-students-required-to-undergo-ideological-reeducation/
    Of course there is a business case against diversity (unless you mean ONLY view point diversity).
    See:
    https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bus.iastate.edu%2Femullen%2Fmgmt472%2FBusiness%2520Case%2520for%2520Diversity%2520Doesn't%2520Add%2520Up.doc

    • Hi “Brainiac”! Well, that’s a pretty epic comment that goes way beyond the scope of my article and this forum (the workplace). I’d be happy to unpack each of your arguments and present “alternative facts” 🙂 and perspectives but it doesn’t sound like you’ve got that homo sapiens curiosity I talked about in my piece. I’m sorry to hear you had such a negative experience with “old school” diversity — that’s a real bummer! I too was once a politically conservative student attending a state university. If you’re ever curious to learn about “new school” diversity and whether us pesky extreme leftist Marxist brainiacs might be up to something other than indoctrinating hapless souls into some mysterious subversive agenda, feel free to reach out — or read my other columns!

      • Actually, half my comments directly talked about the workplace and thus this forum. How could you miss that? Of course you would agree that University students do become members of the workplace, even Diversity employees, right? Thus all my comments are relevant. You ignored this, so repeating for those needing: http://bit.ly/2l7xSwA
        The “New School” Diversity industry (and it is a very lucrative industry) promotes and pushes the insidiously evil and racist concept of “White Privilege” a.k.a. “White Male Privilege” just like “old school” diversity did. This is “taught” in the public sector, private sector, grade school, high school, colleges/university; it is extremely difficult not to be exposed to this in the US.
        Why is White Privilege an evil and racist concept?
        • There is no scientifically valid evidence that proves White Privilege even exists. There is more than enough to prove it doesn’t exist:
        • There are more Whites receiving government assistance (food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, etc.) than any other race. What happened to their White Privilege?
        • Two parent Black families have a poverty rate of 7% while one parent White families have a poverty rate of 23%! This is over triple the poverty of Black two parent families, so there is a “Two Parent Privilege”, but alas, no White Privilege.
        • In every category that is used to prove that Whites have it better (education, jobs, wealth, incarceration rates, etc.), Asian Americans are doing better than Whites. So, that must mean there is an Asian Privilege, correct? (No.)
        • 7 out of every 10 people who commit suicide in the US are White Males. What happened to White Privilege here? And why is the Media and the usual activist groups not screaming for Government to do something about this crisis for this group?
        Harvard Law Grad Ben Shapiro uses facts, stats, logic, and reality to further debunk the racist myth of White Privilege here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrxZRuL65wQ
        Who is Ben Shapiro? The guy who in 2016 was the #1 Journalistic Target of Anti-Semitism: http://www.dailywire.com/news/10093/report-daily-wires-ben-shapiro-1-journalistic-james-barrett
        Yet new and old school Diversity still pushes this racist myth. There is even an annual conference of White Privilege fans and promoters. Here is what one Presenter said at the 2016 White Privilege Conference: White Privilege Conference: Almost Everything Bad Is Tied To Christianity – http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/16/white-privilege-conference-almost-everything-bad-is-tied-to-christianity/
        The people at the White Privilege conference took what they “learned” such as the bigoted anti-Christian presentation and then “teach” that in schools and companies across the USA.
        And you don’t think this causes more division when taught by Diversity presenters in both the private and public sectors?

        • Hello again! I only get into long discussions on the Internet with folks who are (a) asking curious or thoughtful questions, (b) presenting new perspectives I haven’t heard before, (c) presenting facts I haven’t heard before, or (d) contributing to the readership’s creativity through problem solving. I’m not seeing any of those in your comments, and none of your points refute my original article. Not everyone appreciates what I write, and that’s OK, since lots of other people do! I wish you both well on your journey. Bye!

          • Susana, you are being dismissive again. The White Privilege facts mentioned by Brainiac met all your criteria by itself. The White Privilege discussion did: (a) ask curious questions => How can we change this (Diversity extremism)?, (b) presented new perspectives => Two Parent Privilege, White Privilege is a myth, plus many more, (c) presented facts you haven’t heard before => every bullet point in the White Privilege facts discussion (I don’t believe you heard these facts before), and (d) contributed to the readership’s creativity through problem solving => stop Diversity proponents from pushing the racist White Privilege narrative (this is just one of several examples). This would definitely solve some of the division Diversity programs cause in the workplace.
            The Ben Shapiro video (in Brainiac’s post) alone arguably met all your criteria as well. Did you watch it?
            A CEO getting fired (Brendan Eich when at Mozilla) because of his company’s Diversity program, even though his opinions did not affect anything he did at work absolutely refuted one of your main points (if not THE main point) of your article: that Diversity is not divisive. I guess I just expected some Diversity of thought and inclusiveness of perspective here and not dismissiveness; maybe next time.

      • Wow! Someone who values Diversity would have responded to the reality of the Diversity thought control program at the University of Delaware (see: https://www.thefire.org/please-report-to-your-resident-assistant-to-discuss-your-sexual-identityits-mandatory-thought-reform-at-the-university-of-delaware/) with shock and ask “How do we change this?” since variations of it are going on at all US universities now. Also, a person who values Diversity would want to know how we can stop the University of DE type program from entering the workforce since literally tens of thousands of students that were forced to go through it are now in the workplace with some even employed in the Diversity Industry itself.
        This University of DE mindset that has too often bled into private sector Diversity programs has paved the way for how people like CEOs can get fired for having the wrong opinion (outside of the workplace) on a topic that is near and dear to corporate Diversity (think Brendan Eich, co-founder of Mozilla and creator of the JavaScript programming language, who was fired from Mozilla for having the wrong opinion on gay marriage, even though his opinion did not influence anything he did in the workplace at all – the Diversity thought police strike again; Mozilla acting just like the University of DE’s Diversity program).
        Instead your reaction is to attempt to deflect – beyond the scope of my article and this forum (the workplace”), you said – with some condescension and ridicule thrown in for bad measure. There is a link proving the business case for Diversity doesn’t add up, which is most definitely within your “scope.” See: https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bus.iastate.edu%2Femullen%2Fmgmt472%2FBusiness%2520Case%2520for%2520Diversity%2520Doesn't%2520Add%2520Up.doc
        Unfortunately, the reality is that most Diversity programs do cause divisions and even destroy people’s lives, just ask Brendan Eich and all the people who don’t have their stories make it into the Media.

  4. Susan, someone who values Diversity would have responded to the reality of the Diversity thought control program at the University of Delaware (see Brainiac’s link to this) with shock and ask “How do we change
    this?” since variations of it are going on at all US universities now. Also, a person who values Diversity would want to know how we can stop the University of DE type program from entering the workforce since literally tens of thousands of students that were forced to go through it are now in the workplace with some even employed in the Diversity Industry itself. This University of DE mindset that has too often bled into private sector Diversity programs has paved the way for how people like CEOs can get fired for having the wrong opinion (outside of the workplace) on a topic that is near and dear to corporate Diversity – e.g., Brendan Eich, co-founder of Mozilla and creator of the JavaScript programming language, who was fired from Mozilla for having the wrong opinion on gay marriage, even though his opinion did not influence anything he did in the workplace at all – the Diversity thought police strike again; Mozilla acting just like the University of DE’s Diversity program. Instead your reaction is to attempt to deflect with some condescension and ridicule thrown in for bad measure. Unfortunately, the reality is that most Diversity programs do cause divisions and some even destroy people’s lives, just ask Brendan Eich and all the people who don’t have their stories make it into the Media.

    • See above reply.

    • Guys – why are you trolling Susana? It sounds like you’re both angry and want to waste her time. She’s contributing something to the world with her article. Why don’t you write an article as well on your thoughts and feelings instead of leaving it in her comment feed?

      • So, stating facts is now trolling? People disagreeing with her and backing that up with facts is somehow “angry”? Why aren’t the facts, which you failed to refute, even MORE of “contributing something to the world”? What is a comment feed’s purpose? To post comments? Especially comments backed up by facts?

        • You’re not stating facts. You’re piling on with angry, rhetorical questions. You’re not attempting to dialogue – you’re starting a diatribe. She’s trying to contribute something nice to the world and you’re just criticizing her, telling her how she should respond. It’s clear you have some strong opinions. Instead of trying to tear down someone’s writing (easy), put your own thoughts together and write an article (hard). That’s what someone with original thoughts of his/her own would do.

          • Me thinks you project too much. You are being the troll here, not those you complain about, and you are dismissive. There are statistics in the comments which are facts. You are trolling when you deny stats are facts. Don’t be so silly.
            Repeating for those needing:
            The problem with diversity is how it is taught in school and by HR in companies.
            I have had over 50 hours of diversity training in companies I have worked. This training was nothing more than Leftist extremism in the form of group identity politics.
            Diversity gets very divisive because it usually puts people into at least two groups: the oppressors and the victims of the alleged oppression. I could write a book about my experiences with diversity training and how it is really indoctrination.
            Someone who values Diversity would have responded to the reality of the Diversity thought control program at the University of Delaware (see: https://www.thefire.org/ple…with shock and ask “How do we change this?” since variations of it are going on at all US universities now. Also, a person who values Diversity would want to know how we can stop the University of DE type program from entering the workforce since literally tens of thousands of students that were forced to go through it are now in the workplace with some even employed in the Diversity Industry itself.
            This University of DE mindset that has too often bled into private sector Diversity programs has paved the way for how people like CEOs can get fired for having the wrong opinion (outside of the workplace) on a topic that is near and dear to corporate Diversity (think Brendan Eich, co-founder of Mozilla and creator of the JavaScript programming language, who was fired from Mozilla for having the wrong opinion on gay marriage, even though his opinion did not influence anything he did in the workplace at all – the Diversity thought police strike again; Mozilla acting just like the University of DE’s Diversity program).
            Instead your reaction is to attempt to deflect – beyond the scope of my article and this forum (the workplace”), you said – with some condescension and ridicule thrown in for bad measure. Unfortunately, the reality is that most Diversity programs do cause divisions and even destroy people’s lives, just ask Brendan Eich and all the people who don’t have their stories make it into the Media.
            Of course there is a business case against diversity (unless you mean ONLY view point diversity).
            See:
            https://view.officeapps.liv

            There are other comments. In fact, if you look at all the comments that Susana didn’t like, and put them together, it would make an outstanding article.
            So, did you even read this before you claimed there are no facts here? Read the links.
            By the way, Susana, a diversity consultant (as in one who makes money from diversity) writing an article saying something nice and cheer-leading diversity is not the selfless act you make it out to be. She is free to make an honest living as a diversity consultant – nothing wrong with that, but writing an article that ignores the harsh reality of diversity (see the “Repeating for those needing” section) needs to be corrected. This is leadership, speaking truth to the power of diversity (think the firing of a CEO, Brendan Eich, type of power), even if the article is “nice.”

  5. Great article, Susana. Multiple perspectives provide great strength and insights to the business and business results. See you’re getting some blow back below and wanted to tell you how much I appreciated your insight.

    • Thank you! People like you make a such a difference for people like me, and very likely to those around you. Onward and upward!


Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment *
Name *
Email *
Website