Should we still be Leading DEI Education with the topic of race and racism?

"Believe what I tell you to believe." How does that statement resonate? It would seem that no reasonable person would receive education about racism and their role in it well if they do not even believe that systemic racism still exists. This is seemingly how individuals are hearing this type of education. If a person is leading a diversity and inclusion education or training by attempting to convince people who identify as "White" that they are complicit in "White Supremacy," unknowingly or knowingly, why should we believe that we can convince them of this due to the facts of history? Imagine attempting to convince another person of a reality that they feel in their soul is untrue? That would be quite a difficult task. So, why is this approach still being used???

It is reasonable to conclude that individuals empowered with education about the exclusive and inequitable laws applied to people of color throughout the history of the United States would shift their mindsets. These educated individuals would be proactive in examining policies and behaviors that produce exclusive hiring and advancement practices. Additionally, work cultures would improve as people grow more cognizant of their implicit biases that result in microaggressions, eventually manifesting into an interpersonal conflict that results in a turnover. Years ago, I thought the same thing. My approach was wrong.?

When I entered the field of diversity and inclusion years ago, it was within the fraternal structure of Freemasonry. My thought process was that if I educated the predominately White Freemasons about the historical suffrage of Black people, then empathy would increase, and more engagement between Black and White Freemasons would ensue.?The Craft, as a whole, would benefit from the increased diversity and inclusion of good people joining its ranks, learning the great philosophies contained within the practices, and inspiring other people to improve their thinking and behaviors. Additionally, as a byproduct, the number of irregular practicing Freemasons would cease their memberships and join regular Masonic Lodges. Everyone would win. My approach was wrong.

Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev published an article in the Harvard Business Review in 2016 entitled Why Diversity Programs Fail and What Works Better. The results of their studies showed that "In analyzing three decades' worth of data from more than 800 U.S. firms and interviewing hundreds of line managers and executives at length, we've seen that companies get better results when they ease up on the control tactics." What are control tactics? Well, essentially, businesses were leveraging consequences against behavior changes. For example, if discrimination occurs against a Black person, the business may lose money due to EEOC lawsuits. This is control. As diversity and inclusion professionals, we must ask ourselves if the education approach about White Supremacy and White Privilege is any different? I used to take this approach. My approach was wrong.?

Why are we imposing information on all employees of an organization that causes them to feel guilt or resentment, and is this direction producing sustaining positive results on the culture? Or does this approach and the ability to hold an audience captive so that education about historical suffrage can be delivered without interruption give us a feeling of validation? There are those affected by the training and adopt a more inclusive mindset, sure. However, is this because their minds were changed, or were they mentally and emotionally more accommodating to accept the information? Were the individuals who accepted the education motivated by intrinsic factors such as being progressive-minded, or were they motivated by money and a board of directors who value the bottom line and whatever it takes to increase it???There are a lot of variables and complexities here that are hard to conclude even with training surveys being at best, qualitative and subjective.??

I think the hard reality is that diversity, equity, and inclusion has moved on from being a transitioned form of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Affirmative Action initiative. Are there legal, financial, and education barriers to people of color? Absolutely. However, those fights have a forum. Moreover, that forum while not perfect, largely works. Our responsibility as diversity and inclusion professionals is to be proactive in removing potential barriers for everyone to succeed to the fullest extent possible and to create a culture where EVERYONE has the opportunity to feel as if they belong. While education about the historically marginalized community members benefits our understandings as human beings, imposing it on others is as divisive as our society has always been. So, why are we doing it??

I stopped leading with race in diversity and inclusion trainings. About five years ago I shifted my approach to education by leading with the tools to see and hear each other more than identifying the societal and implicit barriers to connection. The impact on company culture was incredible. The interpersonal conflicts that occurred, even in the suspicion of prejudice based on immutable characteristics, were met with compassion rather than defensiveness and fear. Furthermore, I definitely stopped using words such as "white supremacy" and "white privilege." No data proved it to be productive in improving organizational culture. This type of education should be available but in a non-confrontational manner. Diversity, equity, and inclusion education should not lead with the historical suffrage, and especially not racism. When we do, it sucks the oxygen out of the room that we need to use to be proactive in including Every person of Every ideological or biological difference. It turns people away. If we turn them away, how can we call ourselves inclusion experts??Inclusion begins and ends with communication and connection. And for it to improve, it has to begin in this space Between Me and You.