The gap between Business background and Humanities backgrounds is about to grow to its largest point ever.
Since the 1980s, the business and academic world has spent millions on analysts, consultants, professors, and how equal workplaces can be better achieved across racial and cultural lines. We've concluded that more diversity inside a workplace tends to result in higher productivity and profitability, so it's good for everyone.
We also know that Harvard has done studies on recruitment procedures and how to better train HR departments to be more honest and earnest about workplace equality initiatives. Such us...
- PowerPoints are ineffective without incentive
- Bare minimum quota efforts result in more lawsuits statistically
- Actively participating in communities or HBC for recruitment has yielded dedicated diversity staff members without needed additional training.
Now, onto 2020, and BLM, CRT, and Tumblr/Twitter has urgently promoted sweeping changes to the science of how all of this works, to a point where psychologists are FORCED to adopt new terms and procedures due to an angry mob and panicking corporations.
Most of these CRT programs, in order to increase volume and span, will likely come in the form of PowerPoints and quizzes, and will contain a long list of terms such as "intersectionality" and "white privilege" which will feel more like a boring class test than a genuine effort to change the world.
The new-found urgency of corporate executives to increase workplace diversity at much higher rates means that HR departments may be required to set super high quotas. This means that diversity hires can revert to a "quantity over quality" approach, statistically resulting in more workplace problems and potential lawsuits.
And while corporations are noble for involving themselves for these communities, the politicization of corporate policies and statements over the past year means that they have now set up an impossible standard in how much they can or will help lower-income communities. Are communities seeing that $100 billion Walmart announced? That $30 billion that JP MorganChase announced? No, they won't.
TL;DR: These knee-jerk reactions to racial policy revisions and how they spread this information to workers likely violates everything we scientifically know about making a successfully diverse workplace.
**The gap between Business background and Humanities backgrounds is about to grow to its largest point ever.**
Since the 1980s, the business and academic world has spent millions on analysts, consultants, professors, and how equal workplaces can be better achieved across racial and cultural lines. We've concluded that more diversity inside a workplace tends to result in higher productivity and profitability, so it's good for everyone.
We also know that Harvard has done studies on recruitment procedures and how to better train HR departments to be more honest and earnest about workplace equality initiatives. Such us...
- PowerPoints are ineffective without incentive
- Bare minimum quota efforts result in more lawsuits statistically
- Actively participating in communities or HBC for recruitment has yielded dedicated diversity staff members without needed additional training.
**Now, onto 2020, and BLM, CRT, and Tumblr/Twitter has urgently promoted sweeping changes to the science of how all of this works, to a point where psychologists are FORCED to adopt new terms and procedures due to an angry mob and panicking corporations.**
Most of these CRT programs, in order to increase volume and span, will likely come in the form of PowerPoints and quizzes, and will contain a long list of terms such as "intersectionality" and "white privilege" which will feel more like a boring class test than a genuine effort to change the world.
The new-found urgency of corporate executives to increase workplace diversity at much higher rates means that HR departments may be required to set super high quotas. This means that diversity hires can revert to a "quantity over quality" approach, statistically resulting in more workplace problems and potential lawsuits.
And while corporations are noble for involving themselves for these communities, the politicization of corporate policies and statements over the past year means that they have now set up an impossible standard in how much they can or will help lower-income communities. Are communities seeing that $100 billion Walmart announced? That $30 billion that JP MorganChase announced? No, they won't.
**TL;DR: These knee-jerk reactions to racial policy revisions and how they spread this information to workers likely violates everything we scientifically know about making a successfully diverse workplace.**
The science was faulty in the first place. It was all designed to push an agenda that differs from reality. They are creating their own reality, regardless of the truth. I've seen first hand how D&I actually destroys productivity. Anyone who has been in a "toxic masculine" work environment that was forced to hire POCs/Women knows it completely destroys the motivation of the team. The POCs/Women tend to be less intelligent and less competent compared to the white men which means the white men have to pick up the slack. Eventually the white men break and decide fuck the system because the system is no longer working to their interest so they stop trying. This leads to an overall less productive/competent workforce that continuously wastes tons of resources on promoting itself. D&I meetings, D&I emails, D&I marketing etc... And it turns away the actual competent people from working within the group. I've seen it happen many times. It doesn't take a Harvard genius to see first hand how D&I makes things worse, not better, for the employee anyway. Big businesses continuously push "processes" that can be emulated by anyone. Big businesses don't need competence they need bodies to fill that can follow basic instruction. The more D&I the more profitable businesses become because they can pay people less and less and less. Having a competent workforce is actually a danger to big business because competent labour can just leave and start their own business like what many in the tech industry did or what many banking professionals did. Big business loves D&I because it increases profitability for businesses by reducing competition and reducing the salaries business can pay their labour but it doesn't lead to a better workforce. It leads to a worse workforce which big business likes.
It has been wildly successful. Look at is as a “psychological weapon”. We have biological, nuclear, chemical weapons.
This is well said. We have had 40 years of unemployable sociologists sitting around in activist universities meetings with their only goal to devise deceitful language for dubious academic papers. The rest got jobs as bloggers working for newspaper websites.
I've spent some time going over a lot of these words to do the same, because the language is specifically designed to be fashionable nonsense to make execs look informed and progressive, whilst slanderous to those who oppose. They have a LOT of time on their hands.
It's easy and fun.
Once you know Freud's idea of the "unconscious" is utter nonsense, "unconscious bias" is too.So it becomes "invisible bias training". The trick is to make it sound similar enough, but too different in meaning for the mind to ignore.
Communist HR person: "I'm sorry but all employees are required to complete the course on unconscious bias",
You: "Thanks for clarifying. Could you explain why my role involves forced invisible bias programming?"
Fuck these people. CRT is an intellectual attempt to formalise the Marxist-Leninism of 1970s southern Africa. It's race war disguised as academic study.