The Problems with Diversity Training

“This is an admirable aim, but there is just one big problem: Diversity training is not working.”

Editor’s note: This essay is adapted from a talk given by the author at the online Counterweight conference in September of 2022.

In recent years, the movement for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) has gained steam alongside a tidal wave of social justice activism that began to sweep through Western societies in the mid-2010s. This upsurge in efforts to promote a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive society is undoubtedly a positive development, but it has not been without its share of controversy. The vehement disagreements that have emerged, however, have less to do with the overall objectives of DEI and more to do with the strategic and tactical methods by which we strive to achieve it.

In short, DEI controversies are about means rather than ends. One example of this contentious debate comes to light with the seemingly ubiquitous effort to hire diversity training consultants or otherwise implement diversity training initiatives in the workplace, in the university, and in other institutional settings in society. The idea is to provide training and guidance to managers and workers on best practices to facilitate more diverse representations of institutional leadership and workforce. “Diversity training” is perceived as an essential tactical element in the overall strategic effort to reduce prejudice and ensure a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive society.

Presumably, few people other than white nationalists and other radical separatists oppose the effort to promote diversity in our institutions. A genuine debate does arise, however, about whether focusing exclusively on diversity of identity comes at the expense of diversity of thought. It is not that diversity of identity and diversity of thought are perceived to be mutually exclusive (in fact, they complement each other). It is identity politics, not the diversity of identity per se, to which people object. That is, the impetus for diversity of identity comes bundled with a politics of identity that raises concerns about the ideological apparatus of “Critical Social Justice” (CSJ) that underlies it.