Responding to the President's Ban on Anti-Bias Training
Estimated read time: • October 9, 2020
Though mass attention is now on the President's COVID-19 diagnosis and a host of other election issues, there’s something important we need to keep talking about. During the first Presidential debate, the moderator asked the President a question about his recent ban on anti-bias training in federal agencies. In this debate and in his Executive Order, the President called anti-bias training “divisive,” “anti-American”, and “racist.” He said that it was “propaganda” for “a radical revolution.” This is not surprising considering his rhetoric and actions over the years.
You might be asking yourself if this is just empty bluster or whether it’s something that will have real repercussions in the world. I mean, isn’t this kind of training pretty well-established by now? Anti-bias training (aka "diversity training," "racial sensitivity training," or "diversity, equity, and inclusion training" as I would call it) has been around for a long time. Sometimes the training is done really well. Sometimes it is just ok, and maybe ineffective. But it’s always well intentioned.
I was certainly wondering what impact this "ban" would have when the President first started talking about it in early September. I was in the middle of a big engagement with a federal agency doing just the kind of training he was talking about. After the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and others, some leaders at this agency held listening sessions. They heard from some of their Black and African American colleagues about feelings of exclusion, of inequities, and of frustration. They brought us in to help – to do some community building, to facilitate some authentic listening and connection, and to build a common understanding around key concepts in order to take meaningful, transformative action.
We were in the middle of this work when, sure enough, administrators of the training were sent the memo from above, and they apologetically sent it to me to discuss in a call. They were diplomatic and thoughtful, but it was sad, infuriating, and awkward for all involved as we talked in coded language. Imagine being one of these managers, who was finally green-lighted for a training like this in July, only to have to then reach out to the experts you hired and tell them that certain well-established words, like white privilege and critical race theory, were not going to be allowed by the political appointees at the top. Imagine having to then ask these experts to write an email confirming that the intent of the trainings would be inclusive rather than divisive. That's what happened, and I wrote it, thought it was absurd. They said they’d undergo a review and send my slides and materials up the chain. I had two trainings scheduled for the next week. I didn’t hear anything, and we went ahead with those trainings. We didn’t say some of the “red flag” words even though we described everything about those concepts. But then the Executive Order came on September 22, and the rest of the trainings were promptly cancelled. Just this week, I had another training from an agency that receives some federal funding “postponed until after November 3.”
I’m pretty sure most of you know that these trainings are not anti-American or racist. Trump is maybe calling them a “radical revolution” to scare people. The first thought that came into my head was bitterly sarcastic, "So it's radical to treat people kindly? It's a revolution to listen to other people and what they experience?" But on second thought, Trump's not totally wrong about that part of it. If we all collectively were really able to cause a paradigm shift towards true equity and inclusion, it would be a radical revolution. I’ll explain.
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Training: what it is and what it isn't
[1] It is not divisive. In this one particular federal agency, leaders were looking for support to help people learn how to truly listen to others and their experiences, to build trust and connection, to bring everyone together to combat the lack of equity and inclusion that has existed within the agency and to make sense of the way that exclusion has existed outside of work in the broader society. That’s what my colleagues and I aimed to do. We go overboard to make sure that people understand that these trainings are about equity and inclusion for everyone and that people aren’t excluded in our attempts to be inclusive. There is nothing divisive about it.
[2] It is not anti-American. James Baldwin, long ago, said, “I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” That’s how I view the research that uncovers the painful history of this country and the reality of how policies, structures, and practices continue to cause racial disparities. If we love America and wish with all of our beings that the country achieves the lofty ideals of its founding, then we must not shy away from these tragic truths. We learn from them to work toward a better future.
[3] It is not propaganda. Propaganda, by definition, is false and misleading information to promote a political cause. As a social scientist, I seek the truth. Many of my colleagues from when I taught at Harvard University and studied at the University of Michigan – historians, psychologists, anthropologists, and sociologists – have dedicated their careers to uncovering past and current truths underlying inequity and exclusion. They often need to expose the myths, omissions, and misleading information that have existed for centuries in order to allow the truths to shine through. Those untruths, those myths, those stories that center whiteness at the expense of others – they are the real propaganda, and we’ve all been subjected to it. Just like ignoring what health scientists say about coronavirus in order to spread lies for political gain would be propaganda, so too would be ignoring what scientists say about race and racism in order to spread lies about America being free from structural racism. With this ban, the President is blocking the truth, not the other way around.
[4] It is not racist. These trainings would be racist if they promoted ideas about the supremacy of one race over another. They do not do that. Banning people from being exposed to the truth about inequality is racist. Telling a hate group to “stand by” is racist. Our laws, policies, and structures, when they produce racial disparities, are racist. The opposite of racism is not "not racist," but rather antiracist, as Dr. Ibram X. Kendi has so powerfully argued. Countering racist laws and policies to create more racial equity would be antiracist. Countering white supremacy, wherever it shows up, whether it's explicitly spewed by hate groups or inadvertently woven into school textbooks, is antiracist.
[5] It could be a radical revolution. In our organizations, in this country, and around the world, racism and white supremacy (explicit and implicit) have been the norm for a long time. That certainly doesn’t mean that every white person is an individual racist with ill intent. And it doesn’t mean that all white people have had an easy life or had everything handed to them. Not at all. It means that on average white people and whiteness have been given opportunities through policies and structures. It means that our culture has been full of subtle messages of white being valued as the "norm." Children's brains pick up on those messages, even when they are explicitly taught the opposite. Those children then grow up to hold unconscious biases that affect decisions and actions and interpersonal interactions in and out of the workplace. To really change all that would be a radical revolution, one that we are desperately needing right now.
During this time, we must be unwavering in our commitments to our fellow humans, our values, and the truth. We are going to need as many people invested in this work as possible, and that is why these trainings that bring awareness and understanding, that bring trust and authentic relationships, that bring skills for behavior change, that inspire and motivate for effective action are so needed right now. If you work in the federal government, your hands may be temporarily tied for formal trainings, but there may be informal ways you can get creative to build support and hunger for real change. Reach out if I can help you think creatively about any of this.
Photo by Christina @ wocintechchat.com