A demand for mandatory diversity training is the knee-jerk response when we learn that someone at a prominent institution displayed an egregious form of cultural intolerance.
Last year, after a barista initiated the arrest of two Black men for daring to hold a business meeting in a Starbucks, the corporation responded to public outrage by announcing a one-time mandatory diversity training program. More recently, Gucci responded to public anger over a clothing item resembling a blackface caricature by declaring that the luxury brand would provide internal training to “increase inclusivity, diversity, participation and cultural awareness.”
These responses by Starbucks and Gucci are par for the course. Mandatory diversity training is a common response to cultural intolerance because, if for no other reason, it signals that we are doing something. However, there is little to no evidentiary support to suggest that mandatory diversity training increases cultural tolerance.
I fear that these mandates are tantamount to communication and reputation management tactics with the primary objective of guarding organizations against further embarrassment instead of analyzing and challenging systemic and structural inequities. I write this with the understanding that the vast majority of people demanding and implementing diversity programs are well-intentioned. More often as not, the most vocal proponents of these initiatives are from aggrieved communities.
Yet, decades of research data indicate that these reactionary, mandatory, and often one-day training sessions fail to move the needle on bias and discrimination. I believe we can and must do better.
I agree with the foundational premise driving targeted communities and their allies to push for such mandatory sessions. Yet, far too often such sessions leave a significant gap between our espoused values and our organizational practices. Many diversity initiatives seem to only prepare people to avoid and diplomatically extricate themselves from flare-ups of interpersonal and intercultural conflicts. They do not seem to facilitate conversations about equity and social justice.
I fear that cultural tolerance training redistributes our energy and angst away from the catalyzing event and serves to extinguish the flames of creativity we need to develop communities that are more just. I agree with Audre Lorde, who identified the pursuit of peaceful tolerance as the “grossest reformism” and wrote that “difference must be not merely tolerated, but seen as a fund of necessary polarities between which our creativity can spark like a dialectic.”
Stated another way, while we must rid our societies of intolerance, replacing it with tolerance is not enough.
Photo by @antenna on Unsplash
In Intersectionality, Patricia Hill Collins and Sirma Bilge voiced a similar concern when they argued that diversity initiatives tend to be used to “ensure the smooth functioning of an institution” and often come at the expense of analyzing and responding to oppressive structures.
The authors acknowledge that many diversity advocates are working hard to create programs that are responsive to community needs. Unfortunately, those efforts are often watered-down because of the absence of an articulated commitment to social justice and “talk of oppression, intersecting oppressions, and similar structural phenomena.”
When social justice and an interrogation of policies, practices, and procedures are not hardwired into our conversations about reforms, we are unlikely to sufficiently challenge systemic and structural inequities.
Contestation of Ideas is Essential
One pervasive problem with many diversity initiatives is an utter disregard of the importance of creating environments in which a contestation of ideas can occur. They are in the business of equipping individuals with the skills they need to politely avoid heated discussions and intercultural conflicts about sensitive issues. Conflict avoidance, not the facilitation of political and social engagement, seems to be their raison d'etre.
The problem with a conflict avoidance approach is that conflict is inevitable and can be highly productive. We cannot and should not want to shelter ourselves from difference. We will inevitably engage folks who do not think, look, or love like us.
The question we must ask is not how to eliminate conflicts but instead how do we prepare “diversity” workshop participants to constructively engage and use our differences as creative and culturally transformative sparks? Intercultural disputes can catalyze interpersonal growth and a meaningful exchange of ideas, if we view them in the proper light.
Collins’ and Bilge’s research points to an alternative. They ask us to view cultural conflicts and ideological disagreements as opportunities for generative dialogue. They advocate using a dialogical approach that teaches people to talk about and listen to different points of views.
Grappling with social inequality requires that educators equip learners, whether they are college students or workshop participants, to actively negotiate their real and perceived differences. For Collins and Bilge, a social justice initiative built on the foundation of deliberative dialogue “is a starting point for building intellectual coalitions of consensus and contestation.”
While exploring several cultural changes in higher education that they forward are hindering the cognitive and social development of students, Greg Lukianoff’s and Jonathan Haidt’s The Coddling of the American Mind provides some additional support Collins and Bilge’s defense of deliberative dialogue.
The authors present “productive disagreement” as an essential life skill that prepares students to be serious thinkers capable of providing solutions to the most vexing social problems. For Lukianoff and Haidt, “positive disagreement” requires a willingness to engage in “thoughtful arguments.”
They laud formalized and structured debates for preparing students to be more intellectually and culturally humble by encouraging them to entertain the legitimacy of opposing perspectives and teaching them to “distinguish between a critique of ideas and a personal attack.” This depersonalization of critique is necessary to cultivate a culture of sharing where inklings of ideas can blossom into generative and innovative experiences.
One could surmise that Lukianoff and Haidt would willingly defend the argument that Starbucks and Gucci would be better off hiring a few debate coaches to help them create a culture of inquiry and contestation instead of funding watered-down diversity initiatives.
Emory’s Social Justice Innovation Institute is committed to harnessing the innovative potential of “productive disagreements.” Following the recommendation of Collins and Bilge, we will mine our cultural tensions for a diverse array of ideas and equip participants with the tools needed to build “intellectual coalitions of consensus and contestation.”
At SJII, we firmly believe that a commitment to sharing and openly contesting ideas is an essential component of a social justice practice – one capable of successfully challenging systemic and structural inequities.
Ed Lee III, EdD
Curriculum Director & Lead Facilitator
Social+Justice Innovation Institute
References
Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2016). Intersectionality. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Lorde, A. (1984). Sister Outsider: Essay and Speeches. Freedom, California: Crossing Press.
Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2018). The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. New York, NY: Penguin Press.