Unsolicited advice for DEI trainers: own your contradictions

[Update, May 24, 2021: I changed the title from "Unsolicited advice for DEI leaders..." to "Unsolicited advice for DEI trainers..."]

DEI trainings (i.e., trainings to promote "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion")advance a number of contradictory assumptions and admonitions. As a result, they present a dishonest and one-way "conversation" that is more effective at closing the minds of their target audience than effecting real change.

The problem is very complicated. But one thing DEI trainers can do is to own those very contradictions, to be open abut those times when what they say conflicts with other things they say.

Example: the prohibition against "white knights" (a.k.a., "white saviors")

I'll choose one example that highlights the contradictions. It's the prohibition against what is known as acting like a "white knight" (also known as a "white savior").

 

The idea is that white people often "help" persons of color, but often in such a way that harms the person or other people or in a way that is more about the white person's needs than the needs of the person they are ostensibly "helping." The white person might want to show how good a person they are. Or they might not ask the person they're helping if they want help. Or the white person might not appreciate the many nuances of whatever situation in which they're serving as a "rescuer." Or, maybe the white person is indeed helping--maybe they're doing the minimum of what someone should do--and yet expects (or demands) gratitude. All of that--and at the end of the day, white people tend to stay on top, as the grantors of favors. Very little is actually changed.

I hope I've recounted the strong case against "white knighting." And framed the way I've framed it, there's a lot to the critique. DEI trainers, at their best, offer that critique.

But the trainers also, in my experience, advance claims that seem to contradict the injunction against "white knighting." In a couple of my workplace's DEI sessions, I've heard trainers say the following:

• If a coworker of color is being mistreated, speak up or intervene for them.
• Ask the coworker of color how or whether they want you to help them.
• If you ask a coworker of color a question about how you can help, keep in mind that they might not be comfortable telling you the truth.
• Keep in mind it's not your prerogative to demand that a person of color answer you when you ask a question about how that person prefers to be treated.
  

I'd like to comment on those points. If I recall correctly, those points weren't offered in the context of a critique against "white knighting." They came up in different discussions. If one keeps tracks, as I have, it's possible to discern how they contradict the "white knighting" prohibition, as they seem to contradict each other.

As a DEI skeptic, I'm tempted to adopt a very critical stance toward those contradictions. I'm inclined to assume bad faith or lazy reasoning by slogans. There seems to be a randomness there. In my most uncharitable moments, I'm inclined to think the main purpose of this "advice" is to drive home the claim that "if you're white, you're by definition wrong, so don't try. But if you don't try, then shame on you!"

Contradiction is not invalidation

I say that the last is a "most uncharitable" interpretation. It's uncharitable because on another level, I'm confident that each of those contradictory pieces of advice are in their own way good advice. I believe it's possible for those admonitions to each work well most of the time. Depending on the situation, it may be good for me to speak up when someone is being treated unfairly. It may be good for me to ask someone how they would like to be treated. It may be good to forgo asking someone that very question.

Almost every idea worth having is going to be contradicted by another idea worth having. If all those admonitions I point out above are circles of a Venn diagram, they would crossover and contradict each other only at certain points. At other points, one can conceivably use those admonitions as guides for better practice, or at least for fostering more dialogue.

What should a DEI trainer do?

My suggestion is, own your contradictions! Admit that it's not easy. Admit that context matters. Admit that what you say now contradicts something you said yesterday. If you cannot completely reconcile them, then admit that you cannot do so. Life is complicated.

Those admissions won't do everything. Skeptics will be skeptics. I will continue to be a skeptic. But at least there's an admission of honesty. You're more likely to get open engagement and receptive engagement if you treat your audience like intelligent people. 

I am, of course, assuming that engagement and receptiveness is the goal of DEI training. I believe there is reason to doubt that and reason to believe it's more about teaching what actions are appropriate at the workplace, covering employers from lawsuits, or providing a forum for airing grievances. And maybe each of those goals are in their own way defensible. There may be yet other goals, too, that I haven't thought of.

But if you aim to change minds, then it's best to be open about the contradictions.