Posted: 9/8/2006 9:15:19 AM EDT
 <------ My shocked facewww.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060907-082613-3057r Most U.S. diversity training programs fail CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Sept. 7 (UPI) -- A study shows U.S. diversity training programs have failed to eliminate bias and increase the number of minorities in management. The study concluded that, even though corporations have spent increasing amounts of money on such programs since the 1990s, the programs have not been effective. In contrast, the research -- conducted by Professor Frank Dobbin of Harvard University, Alexandra Kalev of the University of California-Berkeley, and Erin Kelly of the University of Minnesota -- indicated programs establishing responsibility for diversity, such as equal opportunity staff positions or diversity task forces, have proven most effective. "For the past 40 years companies have tried to increase diversity, spending millions of dollars a year on any number of programs without actually stopping to determine whether or not their efforts have been worth it," Dobbin said. "Certainly in the case of diversity training, the answer is no. "The only truly effective way to increase the presence of minorities and women in managerial positions is through programs that create organizational responsibility," he added. "If no one is specifically charged with the task of increasing diversity, then the buck inevitably gets passed ad infinitum." The study is to appear in the journal American Sociological Review. |
|
because it's bullshit. on one hand we "celebrate diversity". on the other hand, if someone points out an obvious racial difference, that person is a "racist" because they fail to recognize that we are all the same (just people). so which is it? are we all the same, or are we all different? |
|
I had a 'diversity' class that said even a group of people who looked the same could be a diverse group, since they all had different backgrounds (ie homemaker, student, mother, father, brother, sister, etc.). The example used was a group of Asian women would qualify as a diverse group. I was too boored with the class to ask if a group of men would be as diverse. Joking around with the smokers in the class on break I mentioned that the new pc term for red-necks was going to be Appalachian-Americans. Another guy from class said "You're a long way from Appalachia". Didn't say anything and let the joke die at my expense but he had introduced himself as an African-American in class. I was dying to come back with you're a long way from Africa, but didn't. |
|
This clearly supports the idea that the top social engineers need to redouble their efforts, expand the number, scope and depth of mandatory diversity training classes and greatly increase funding for more "diversity experts" at all levels of business and gov't. This is not the end of this - it's just the beginning. 
|
|
The CNO (Commander of Naval Operations) has been talking about that "diversity" stuff quite a bit. He even travelled around and held meetings on the matter. To paraphrase his message from a recent visit, "America is turning brown at a rapid rate. This is going to continue. If we (meaning the navy) are to remain effective, we must rethink our processes in everything we do. We cannot continue to do things "the white way"". I believe that I interpreted him correctly. No exaggeration. As far as my own opinion, "diversity" is not a strength. It is a weakness. They should start using the term that more rightly describes it; which is "balkanization". We all know how that turned out. |
|
Diversity is not what made America great. What made America great was that a diverse group of people came together and said, "There has to be a better way." In the process a lot of cultural baggage was dropped and people were given the chance to realize their dreams and ambitions. Not everybody wins, but more win here than anywhere else on the planet. |
Yes. This is how the diversity racket works. The failure of these programs is proof that we need more of the same. Only then can we solve the problem. 
|
+1. |
|
GySgtD has hit it right on the head. What this country is heading towards isn't diversity, but balkanization. And there isn't any reason to think, judging by history, that things are going to turn out well. Truth is, the US was NEVER a particularly "diverse" nation. Until the late 1960's the country's population was overwhelmingly one race, one religion (different branches of Christianity might disagree on details, but all pretty much agree on the basics) and most people could trace their roots to fairly small area in Europe. In fact, as recently as 1965, somewhere around 40% of the population could trace their origins back to one of just 4 European countries:England; Ireland: Germany; Italy. As far as our government, laws and social mores are concerned, they were just adaptations of Anglo-Saxon tradition and history, all of which came straight out of England. (It could even be argued that removing the word "adaptations" from the last sentence and replacing it with "refinements" would make the sentence more accurate.) The racial, ethnic and cultural transformation that the US has undergone in the last 40 years is a direct result of the immigration polices that our government has implemented since 1965. In any discussion on the state of our nation, or on immigration, one must keep three facts in mind: 1) The immigration policies we've followed since 1965 are RADICALLY different from the policies we followed before 1965. 2) These policies were enacted, and have been pursued, in direct opposition to the will of the American people. 3) There is NO historical evidence to indicate that these polices will be successful, or will make this country any "better". If one considers the level of success, as a nation, that the US achieved between 1776 and 1965 (a level unprecedented in recorded human history), it becomes very difficult to argue that this country was somehow "broken" and needed to be "fixed". Again, if one looks at the history of this country (and, if one wishes to be honest), our greatest social failings have been in the area of race. It is impossible to argue that, during the time that this country's population was primarily composed of two races (White and Black), that black people didn't receive a pretty raw deal. The gulf that exists between whites and blacks in America has been there since day one and still exists today. We may have come a long way in reducing the size and scope of that gulf, but it is still there. Now, I may well be a little slow (and I have no problem admitting it), but I just don't see, if we had trouble getting our act together when this was a bi-racial country, how we are supposed to have any better luck now that we are a multi-racial one. Somewhere along the line, someone decided (rather arbitrarily, I believe) that "diversity" is a good thing. I'm not so sure. And I believe that world history does tend to support MY side of the debate, not the other. However, it really doesn't appear that things are going to change any time soon. I think the next few decades are certainly going to be "interesting', to say the least. |
And the programs create a lot of resentment that with each year and each installment only increases. |
Damn, slap me in the face with the obvious! I never thought of it that way. 
|