Defending the Judeo-Christian Heritage, limited government, and the American Constitution
Wednesday July 29th 2015

lincoln family bible study
Read along with us; share your insights, ask questions, post a link that adds to the discussion
S.E.M., Vol. 1, No. 7
Federalist 69 - by Alexander Hamilton. 1. What are the chief characters in regards to the President as outlined in the proposed Constitution? 2. Why does Hamilton believe the term of office for a President should be longer than three years? 3. What was the term of office for the king of England and what, in your opinion, is the potential for abuse in such a term? Would the term of office of the king of England present any advantages - in the Founders experience and in your opinion - over over the new American system? Read all of the questions and post your response at our new resource Self-Educated Man

Diversity Training Follies

CARL L. BANKSTON III

Several bloggers have recently drawn attention to an article on the ineffectiveness of “diversity training” in Psychology Today, among them Walter Olson at “Overlawyered” and Hans Bader at OpenMarket.org.  The article, by  Peter Bregman, recounts the author’s own fruitless experiences in running diversity training and cites “… a study of 829 companies over 31 years [that] showed that diversity training  had ‘no positive effects in the workplace.’” In fact, mandatory diversity training often appears to have negative effects, and to increase expressions of prejudice.

Bregman attributes the negative effects to more than resentment against the mandate. He argues that emphasizing thinking of people in categories actually divides them.  I think he may underestimate the role of sheer anger at being forced to undergo these types of sessions. From experience, I’m also pretty sure that one of the reasons diversity training sessions lead to more accusations of prejudice and more lawsuits is that these encourage people to interpret statements as prejudicial and intensify feelings of victimization and perceptions of discrimination. But I also think there is a more fundamental reason to oppose re-education programs than mere ineffectiveness or even unintended consequences.

While employers do have the right to set workplace rules, including rules regarding the interactions of their employees, we cannot have a free society when corporate organizations, whether governmental or private, attempt to dictate how and what individuals are permitted to think.  If efforts at thought control were successful, that would hardly be a justification of them.


The Moral Liberal Sociology Editor, Carl L. Bankston III is Professor of Sociology at Tulane University in New Orleans, LA. He is the author and co-author of a number of books and numerous articles published in academic journals. An incomplete list of his books includes: Growing Up American: How Vietnamese Children Adapt to Life in the United States (with Min Zhou, 1998), Blue Collar Bayou: Louisiana Cajuns in the New Economy of Ethnicity (with Jacques Henry, 2002), and A Troubled Dream: The Promise and Failure of School Desegregation in Louisiana (2002), Forced to Fail: The Paradox of School Desegregation (hardback, 2005; paperback, 2007), and Public Education – America’s Civil Religion: A Social History (2009) (all with Stephen J. Caldas). View Professor Bankston’s full bio, here. He blogs at Can These Bones Live?


Copyright © 2012 Carl L. Bankston III.