Talk:Diversity training

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ASCXX.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

[Untitled]
--Sadsailor (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)I was expected to attend several days of "Diversity training" where I work. I felt that the mantra "All white, heterosexual, Christian, Males are the oppressors of everyone else." was a violation of my basic civil rights. Of course I was persecuted by other staff members and even assualted with the angry words "White man!" This resulted in my leaving this organization and taking huge talent with me. Looking back I wish I had sued my company for civil rights violations. White, heterosexual Christian males do an awful lot of good for this country. SUE COMPANIES THAT VIOLATE YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS!

Jim Kalb, can write more information on how diversity is a "big business" or provide evidence that this is a fair assertion. JesseHogan 19:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is there that much doubt it's a big business?
If most sizable companies do it, and a lot of them hire outside consultants and trainers (which seems to be the case), it's got to be a big business. Here's an article that says that 10 years ago it was running $5.5 billion a year, which seems like big money. Look at the Google results for "diversity training" for an idea of how many businesses and organizations are involved. Probably some current figures would help the entry. If I run into some I'll add them. Jim Kalb 19:38, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into that.

The addition of the links to brainwashing and political correctness seem very POV to me. As far as I can see there is a business case for the training which is undermined by these links - any comments? Ophelia105 18:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

JesseHogan is incorrect, Jim Kalb has got this spot on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.96.10 (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It's sad to see how much worse Wikipedia has gotten with this politically correct ideology over the last 12 years. 108.41.8.191 (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Elliott
SOmeone cut/pasted parts from the Jane Elliott-page to this one. I already cut out the parts that were not suitable for this article. However, since she is not mentioned here as "one of the diversity pioneers in the United States," I believe that the attention for her and her take on diversity training might be WP:UNDUE in this article. Any thoughts?Jeff5102 (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
The intro to the article clearly explains what diversity training is and why it is necessary and useful in the workplace. Controversial issues, benefits of diversity training, and the future of diversity training are some of the key points that stood out to me. The information given throughout the article allows you to fully understand the concept of diversity training. Every section with the exception of ‘future of diversity training’, and ‘conferences’ are supported with references. The ‘Future of Diversity Training and Social Justice’ section has no citations, it talks about the sources it is going to use but they are not cited. A typo is also found in the first sentence... I really enjoyed reading this article, the intro paragraph was my favorite. Bobcatj15 (talk) 07:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
The lead paragraph is a clear overview of the topic. There is sufficient material that covers the topic's material. The article has plenty of resources with a variety of perspective. Although some of the resources aren't scholarly. In general, it is a neutral article with few grammatical errors. The formatting of the article was nicely done. While I loved it overall for the great amount of information it covers I have a one problem. Under the section of "Future of Diversity," the intro needs to be rewritten. It sounds like a research paper. A recommendation is to take out the word "I". Another thing too is to cite sources in the section. Van rod94 (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Source to add
I don't have time to add at the moment, but this strikes me as important from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/15/magazine/white-fragility-robin-diangelo.html:
 * "Donald Green, a professor of political science at Columbia, and Betsy Levy Paluck, a professor of psychology and public affairs at Princeton, have analyzed almost 1,000 studies of programs to lessen prejudice, from racism to homophobia, in situations from workplaces to laboratory settings. “We currently do not know whether a wide range of programs and policies tend to work on average,” they concluded in a 2009 paper published in The Annual Review of Psychology, which incorporated measures of attitudes and behaviors. They’ve just refined their analysis, with the help of two Princeton researchers, Chelsey Clark and Roni Porat. “As the study quality goes up,” Paluck told me, “the effect size dwindles.”" - Pengortm (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hekman study
If you read this study (archive) you find that it doesn't study diversity training as such. The first of its two experiments studies "diversity-valuing behavior" (here defined as Likert scores for "(1) understands and respects cultural, religious, gender, and racial differences; (2) values working with a diverse group of people; and (3) is comfortable managing people from different racial or cultural backgrounds"); the second studies choices of who to hire, and seems to be meant to focus on pro-"diversity" discrimination ("hiring and promoting non-White or female leaders", as the study's Introduction describes part of the "diversity-valuing behavior" the authors are interested in). Therefore, I am deleting the paragraph on this study as irrelevant to this particular article. - LaetusStudiis (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)