Thinking about the 'Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping'
There is little question that Donald Trump (perhaps following the advice of others) has declared war on individuals who do a certain type of diversity training. The heart of the 'Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping' is this passage (where I have replaced small letters with bullets):
1. The contractor shall not use any workplace training that inculcates in its employees any form of race or sex stereotyping or any form of race or sex scapegoating, including the concepts that
one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex;
members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex;
an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex;
an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or
meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.
The term “race or sex stereotyping” means ascribing character traits, values, moral and ethical codes, privileges, status, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of his or her race or sex, and the term “race or sex scapegoating” means assigning fault, blame, or bias to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex because of their race or sex.
My reaction is that, although this prohibits federal contractors and recipients of federal money (including colleges and universities) from one type of antiracism training, there are many other forms of antiracist training that are still fully allowed.
First, I think there are many documentaries and movies that people could be assigned to watch that would clue them in to the sad history of racism in the United States and in other countries. And current maltreatment of African Americans and other minorities by the police can be addressed.
Second, it is my view that a lot of the racist incidents that should concern us the most are not caused by racism alone, but by racism combined with someone being a jerk. Training that has the effect of making people not act like jerks can reduce serious racist incidents as well as having many other benefits, even if it didn’t reduce racism itself. I wouldn’t suggest this if I didn’t believe there is a program that can, in fact, help people to act less like jerks than they otherwise would—and hopefully have less tolerance for bad behavior by that fraction of people whose propensity to act like a jerk is unfortunately unaffected. I talk about Positive Intelligence in “On Human Potential” and am myself being trained as a Positive Intelligence coach as well already being a Certified Professional Co-Active Coach. (I confess that I am personally using these skills to help out people who, by selection into the program, are already nicer than average. See “How Economists Can Enhance Their Scientific Creativity, Engagement and Impact.” But the principles have been shown to work in corporate contexts where those who—at least initially—are jerks abound.)
In short, even though the intent of the 'Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping' is what one of my tweeps, Andrew Burton called “a naked salvo in the culture war,” I am not alarmed about its practical effects in the way that, for example, the President and Provost of the University of Michigan are. (See also the September 24, 2020 Chronicle of Higher Education article “Trump Bars Federal Grants for ‘Divisive and Harmful’ Racial-Sensitivity Training” by Katherine Mangan.) I think there a workarounds for antiracism training.
The September 28, 2020 Wall Street Journal article “Why Are There Still So Few Black CEOs?” by Te-Ping Chen, provides some useful perspective on diversity training in the corporate context (which should be relevant to diversity training at colleges and universities).
Here are some key quotations from that article (with bullets added to distinguish passages):
Many companies tend to emphasize diversity in recruitment but overlook retention and advancement, researchers and executives say. And while companies have long talked about the importance of diversity—spending billions a year on such efforts—money has often been devoted to flawed programs such as diversity training, which show only mixed evidence of effectiveness.
“It’s as though we pay for effort, but we’re not paying for results. We’re spending money without really investing in the activities that increase diversity,” says Mr. Williams.
Instead, companies have seen better results from longer-term diversity programs that are focused on retaining and advancing staff. Executives also cite benefits from having mentors, and working for companies where leaders are personally invested in the issue, especially the CEO.
Companies have tended to rely on short-term diversity training, which data show often is ineffective or backfires, says Alexandra Kalev, a sociology professor at Tel Aviv University who has studied the effectiveness of diversity programs. Her research on 830 U.S. companies’ diversity efforts, conducted with Harvard professor Frank Dobbin, found such mandatory training can spark manager backlash, and actually coincided with declines in the number of Black women in management.
She says her research shows initiatives such as mentorship programs and hiring diversity officers or creating diversity task forces are more effective.
The study found that when Black employees are elevated to the C-suite, they are frequently given roles with less advancement potential, such as chief human resources officer, chief sales officer or chief administration executive: Black people hold 13%, 20% and 43% of such roles in the Fortune 100, respectively.
The experience of being second-guessed or being subject to racial comments adds up. Black professionals are more likely to leave their jobs; 35% say they intend to leave their company within the next two years, with many mentioning isolation and workplace hostility, compared with 27% of their white peers, according to Coqual, a think tank formerly known as the Center for Talent Innovation focused on workplace diversity.