Thursday, January 24, 2008

'Diversity Training' Is Not Only Useless For the Most Part, It is Actually Counterproductive

The WP Washington Post reports on a "A comprehensive review of 31 years of data from 830 mid-size to large U.S. workplaces":
"The analysis did not find that all diversity training is useless. Rather, it showed that mandatory programs — often undertaken mainly with an eye to avoiding liability in discrimination lawsuits — were the problem....
“When attendance is voluntary, diversity training is followed by an increase in managerial diversity,” said Alexandra Kalev, a sociologist at the University of Arizona, who led the research. “Most employers, however, force their managers and workers to go through training, and this is the least effective option in terms of increasing diversity. . . . Forcing people to go through training creates a backlash against diversity.” " [found (here)]

JB Comments: If aggression is used to force pro-diversity attitudes, of course there will be negative reaction. These pro-diversity corporate indoctrination programs are forced by lawsuits, by official aggression. Those who assume that power-greedy officials might also be well-meaning and sincere in their use of increase of aggression for pro-diversity, 'anti-racism' programs like the corporate ones, are profoundly wrong and naive at best. When officials say they must have more power against the citizenry, it doesn't matter in the least what they say its for, only the bottom line in terms of power is relevant. Note especially how they have it set up so as to smear those who object to the power-grab: all objectors can be described as racist, anti-diversity, prejudiced, etc. What if they did Christianity training programs under threat of discrimination lawsuits, in another country, threatening loss of employment to unwilling participants; would any professor, journalist or leftist, no matter how highly educated, have the least difficulty in identifying the procedure as official aggression?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Legislative Alerts and Updates • Current Legislation • Key Votes • Capitol Hill Basics

No Gun Confiscations During Emergencies

Vitter Amendment
Senate Roll Call No. 202
109th Congress, 2nd Session

Agreed to: 84-16 (see complete tally)

On July 13, 2006, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed Emergency Powers language by an 84-16 vote. The amendment, introduced by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), provides that no money can be used by federal agents to confiscate firearms during a declared state of emergency. The amendment was added to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill (HR 5441). A vote IN FAVOR of the amendment is rated as a pro-gun vote. NOTE: HR 5441 was signed into law by President Bush on October 4, 2006 (Public Law No: 109-295). The Emergency Powers provision consisted of compromise language that included elements of the Vitter amendment and the Jindal bill (passed on July 25, 2006).

Vote Map: Senate Roll Call No. 202

Votes For : 84

Votes Against : 16