Janice R. Andrews
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) training has emerged as a key component of efforts by several governmental and business entities to foster more inclusive work environments in recent years. But an increasing number of cases are raising concerns about whether these trainings—especially the anti-racism ones—go too far in terms of discriminating against White people. Courts are now in a position to decide where the lines are in the larger discussion on the efficacy and equity of DEI programs, thanks to these legal disputes.
Joshua Young’s Case: A Spark for Discussion
One among the first to question the effects of DEI training was Joshua Young, a 47-year-old Colorado prison officer. Young was required to attend an anti-bias training course in March 2021 as part of his employment with the Colorado prison system. The training contained terms that Young took to be an outright assault on his identity, such as “White fragility,” “White exceptionalism,” and “White supremacy.” The training, in his opinion, implied that White people are innately racist, which is detrimental to professional relationships and undermines the objectives of the criminal justice system.
According to Young, in an interview, “I thought the training was potentially harmful to our staff relationships, relationships between staff and offenders, and undermined us in so many ways.” “It basically told us that we couldn’t treat people fairly based only on their appearance.”
Young’s worries prompted him to sue, alleging that the anti-racism training requirement made the workplace unfriendly for White workers. Despite dismissing his lawsuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit recognized that the training’s “ideological messaging” and “race-based rhetoric” were concerning. Young was largely responsible for the case’s dismissal as she was unable to prove that the claimed harassment was “severe and pervasive.” Since then, though, Young has reopened his complaint, claiming that the training complicated his work and damaged his rapport with coworkers.
The Legal Environment: A Swell of Difficulties
Young’s complaint is only one of many that have surfaced in reaction to DEI training initiatives around the country. The opposition has grown along with DEI projects, especially after George Floyd’s death in 2020. Some DEI programs, especially those that focus on anti-racism, are criticized for demonizing White people as intrinsically racist, rather than just bringing attention to unconscious bias.
Legal objections to DEI instruction are becoming more widespread. Plaintiffs in at least seven ongoing court actions throughout the country contend that DEI programs amount to employment discrimination. Although some trainers have reacted by censoring their posts, the legal disputes have not yet been resolved.
“Unprecedented” is how Kenji Yoshino, director of New York University’s Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging, put the number of instances opposing DEI initiatives. Yoshino agrees that training on racism and unconscious prejudice may be helpful, but he also cautions that if the teaching reinforces harmful preconceptions, it may become unlawful harassment.
Yoshino clarified, “The enemy is not White men, so many unconscious bias trainings are totally appropriate and don’t need to be changed at all.” “Bias against racial minorities, or really bias against any group, is the enemy.”
DEI Training’s Development: From “Anti-Bias” to “Anti-Racism”
The idea of DEI training is not new. Organizations have been using unconscious bias training since the 1960s in order to fight prejudice and abide with federal anti-discrimination legislation. Over 60% of the biggest American corporations had their managers complete unconscious bias training by the middle of the 1970s.
But George Floyd’s murder in 2020 signaled a sea change in how DEI training developed. Following protracted demonstrations and demands for racial justice, several groups implemented “anti-racism” training, which focuses on structural racism and the background of racial inequity in America rather than merely treating personal prejudices.
The CEO of DiversityMBA, a company that monitors DEI initiatives, Pam McElvane, saw a notable change in the kinds of training that businesses provide after 2020. The majority of businesses prioritised sensitivity training, cultural competency, and unconscious prejudice before Floyd passed away. However, by 2021, anti-racism training—which targets topics like White supremacy, privilege, and systematic discrimination—had been incorporated in 85% of the businesses McElvane oversees.
Raising awareness of the persistent effects of systematic racism and encouraging participants to identify and confront their own prejudices are the two main objectives of anti-racism training. Legal professionals caution that this kind of instruction might alienate and dislike White people by singling them out and portraying them as fundamentally racist.
DEI Training’s Effectiveness: A Mixed Bag
There are still concerns over the efficacy of DEI training, despite its increasing popularity. Researching DEI programs, Harvard University sociologist Frank Dobbin has discovered that unconscious bias training has not been very successful in diversifying workforces. According to Dobbin, the training’s methodology—which frequently shames participants and places an undue emphasis on prior instances of discrimination—is the root of the issue.
Anti-racism training may follow a comparable trend. Dobbin thinks it’s a hopeless struggle to try to persuade people that they have racial prejudices and that they should change. Even if the message is entirely true, “we know that people just don’t respond very positively to that message,” he stated.
McElvane, though, is not in agreement with this evaluation. She contends that businesses who observe low outcomes from DEI training are probably doing their initiatives incorrectly. McElvane says that in order for DEI training to be effective, it must meet participants where they are and refrain from making them feel attacked.
Tighter Inspection: The Judges Provide Their Views
Courts are starting to play a critical role in determining the parameters of these programs as an increasing number of litigants contest the legitimacy of DEI training. Zack De Piero, an English professor at Penn State Abington, is one such example. After being made to see a presentation headlined “White teachers are the problem” and taking part in an activity where non-Black faculty members were encouraged to hold their breath longer than Black faculty members in order to “feel the pain,” De Piero claims that he was subjected to discrimination because he is White.
De Piero filed a lawsuit in January 2024, and a federal judge in Pennsylvania granted it, finding that the training “discussed racial issues in essentialist and deterministic terms” and that all White people had undesirable characteristics. The judge’s decision may set a precedent for similar instances in the future, drawing attention to the possible legal ramifications of training that reinforces harmful stereotypes.
The NYU professor Yoshino stressed that while teaching about the history of racism and slavery in the country is not intrinsically discriminatory, care must be made to avoid portraying White people as fundamentally bad or wicked. He stated that the difficulty facing companies is to develop training that promotes a safe, welcoming atmosphere without alienating any one group.
The Future of DEI Training: Challenging Laws and Changing Social Constraints
Some practitioners are changing the way they teach DEI as a result of legal and societal constraints. White Fragility author and well-known DEI trainer Robin DiAngelo said that some trainers are “tweaking their strategies” to place more emphasis on inclusivity than structural racism.
While DiAngelo hasn’t altered the fundamentals of her instruction, she has grown more aware of the need to anticipate and address participants’ worries. This is only an outline. This isn’t mind control. What you think belongs to you and how you view the world. Just give it a try, is all I’m asking of you,” she added.
Businesses can expect further scrutiny over how they conduct DEI training programs as the courts continue to weigh in on the matter. Legal agencies could advise against using language that denigrate White people, and businesses might need to incorporate inclusivity ideas more successfully to prevent offending any group.
Ultimately, striking a balance between bringing systemic concerns to light and creating an atmosphere where each participant feels valued and involved will determine how well DEI training goes. The future of DEI training is in jeopardy while the legal fights play out, and courts will be crucial in defining the boundaries of what constitutes discriminatory instruction.
