Workplace management training programs tied to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives have occasionally veered into controversial territory, with some being labeled as "shocking" due to their extreme directives or perceived gaslighting tactics. Below are examples drawn from documented cases and broader trends, focusing on specific directives and their implications, while steering clear of subjective judgments about misinformation.
One notable example comes from a 2021 incident involving the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) in Canada. During a DEI training session, a facilitator reportedly singled out a principal, Richard Bilkszto, for challenging the narrative that Canada was inherently more racist than the United States. The directive from the facilitator was to accept the premise of systemic racism as an unassailable fact, and Bilkszto’s pushback—citing data like Canada’s lack of a slavery history comparable to the U.S.—was framed as "white supremacy" and resistance to anti-racism work. The session escalated when the facilitator allegedly instructed participants to recognize their complicity in systemic oppression, with Bilkszto’s dissent used as a public example of "problematic behavior." Critics argued this approach resembled gaslighting—pressuring individuals to doubt their own reasoning or reality to conform to a prescribed ideology. Bilkszto later sued the TDSB, claiming the incident ruined his reputation and triggered severe anxiety, a case that gained international attention after his death in 2023.
In the U.S., corporate DEI programs have also drawn scrutiny for extreme directives. Coca-Cola faced backlash in 2021 when leaked training materials from an internal session titled "Confronting Racism" surfaced. One slide reportedly directed employees to "be less white," with subpoints like "be less oppressive," "listen," "believe," and "break with white solidarity." The training, developed by an external consultant, aimed to dismantle "white privilege" but was criticized for implying that inherent traits tied to race needed alteration, a directive some employees found reductive and coercive. The framing risked gaslighting by suggesting that disagreement with the premise was itself evidence of internalized bias, leaving little room for dialogue.
Another example involves the U.S. federal government’s DEI training under the Biden administration, which was later rolled back. A 2020 session for federal employees reportedly included directives to "acknowledge your privilege daily" and participate in exercises identifying "microaggressions" in mundane interactions, such as complimenting a colleague’s English skills. Participants were instructed to assume guilt for unconscious biases, with resistance flagged as defensiveness—a classic gaslighting tactic, according to critics. The Trump administration later banned such trainings via Executive Order 13950, calling them "divisive" and alleging they pressured employees into self-censorship or forced confessions of systemic complicity.
In the private sector, tech giants like Google have faced criticism for DEI workshops that push boundaries. A reported 2018 session encouraged managers to "deconstruct their privilege" through role-playing exercises where they confessed personal biases to peers. One directive allegedly required participants to rank themselves on a "privilege scale" based on race, gender, and socioeconomic status, then justify their scores publicly. Employees who hesitated were prompted to "dig deeper" into their supposed blind spots, a tactic some described as manipulative, blurring the line between self-reflection and enforced conformity.
These cases highlight directives that stand out for their intensity—whether demanding public self-criticism, framing dissent as moral failure, or urging employees to adopt specific racial or social identities as workplace behavior guidelines. The gaslighting element often emerges when programs insist that questioning the training’s assumptions proves the need for it, creating a psychological bind for participants. While proponents argue these methods expose hidden biases and foster inclusion, detractors say they can alienate workers, enforce ideological uniformity, and undermine genuine dialogue. The debate remains heated, with outcomes varying from legal challenges to policy reversals, reflecting the polarizing nature of such initiatives. AxiomStaff.com
Comments