A while back, when the University of Delaware mind-control experiment – called “treatment” for students’ "incorrect attitudes and beliefs" by the University was – revealed, part of the noxiousness exposed was the blatantly racist teaching materials used. Turning over the rock at Delaware caused the University to back off from their totalitarian brainwashing. Now OpenMarket.org exposes still more racism – and incredibly stupid legal advice by "Diversity Experts" that are costing companies and governments millions of dollars in lawsuit losses. The problem is with the self-appointed experts in diversity and their advice.
Diversity training often imparts bad legal advice to managers and employers that can come back to haunt them in court.
Gail Heriot, a law professor and member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, reports on the sexual harassment training she received at the University of San Diego, in a state (California) where such training is mandatory under state law. She points out that the training by the New Media Learning firm sent the message that criticisms of affirmative action by white male employees are something that the employer should “nip in the bud” through investigations.
This is exceedingly dumb legal advice, since criticism of affirmative action is protected against retaliation by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1981, and other laws, even when the affirmative action program criticized turns out to have been perfectly legal. Even the very court rulings that have upheld private-sector affirmative action programs, such as Sisco v. J.S. Alberici Const. Co. (8th Cir. 1981), have allowed employees to sue employers who retaliate against them for criticizing affirmative action.
In the public sector, the employer also faces a First Amendment lawsuit. The California Department of Corrections attempted to fire John Wallace after he angrily denounced its affirmative action plan to the Hispanic female employee he perceived as benefiting from it. The California Court of Appeal, however, found that his criticisms of the plan were protected by the First Amendment, and barred Wallace’s firing, in California Department of Corrections v. State Personnel Board, 59 Cal.App.4th 131 (1997).
Employers are often quite gullible about the claims made by “diversity” trainers. For example, they permit minority trainers to promote racial stereotypes that would provoke outrage if they were subsequently repeated by white managers or employees. For example, Glenn Singleton, a wealthy “diversity” trainer, teaches that “white talk” is “impersonal, intellectual, verbal” and “task-oriented,” while “color commentary” is “emotional.”
If a white person said this, it would rightly be regarded as a ridiculous, racist stereotype that relegates black people to inferior status. But because Singleton himself is African-American, and he sugarcoats his racist stereotypes about black people by coupling them with ideologically trendy attacks on white people (whom he depicts as “impersonal” and “racist”), liberal school superintendents eat it up.
If whites repeat what this "expert" teaches them, they are open for a lawsuit – and it has been happening more and more frequently. The lawsuits are a direct result of the material being presented by self-appointed experts. Now, since "Diversity Training" has been mandated as a result of lawsuits filed over the years and since new lawsuits are being generated by virtue of the mandated "Diversity Training," there are some obvious questions here: who is driving for more training? And who is getting rich off it?
Or is the answer really the same?