An Explosive Field Must Police Itself More Carefully

Over the last decade, the cause of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) has become increasingly integrated into our institutions, with events such as the murder of George Floyd substantially intensifying this shift. This progression has elicited a broad range of responses within our communities, ranging from enthusiastic support and acknowledgment of the necessity for such initiatives on the one hand, to skepticism and apprehensions regarding their implementation and potential ramifications on the other. As conversations surrounding DEI have found their way into our everyday conversations, even at events like Thanksgiving dinners or weekend barbecues with neighbors, it’s evident that these programs, while aiming for unity and understanding, can also stir up deep-rooted differences and viewpoints among individuals and groups.

A friend of mine who runs his own company told me that other CEOs like him shy away from DEI training because, he said, “it’s like setting off an explosive in the middle of the office and waiting to see what happens.” Many DEI trainers, myself included, indeed feel we are navigating treacherous and murky waters, but this course must be charted. The very ideals that we seek to propagate—understanding, tolerance, and unity—often inadvertently create waves of dissent and confusion that leave us adrift in a sea of contention. The debates and disagreements that can arise from these sessions underscore a crucial point: while the aim of DEI is universally recognized as vital, the proper path to achieving it is less clear.

In a world beset with division, the goal of fostering unity and understanding among diverse groups is laudable. Intended to champion the cause of marginalized communities, these initiatives have been embraced by corporations, institutions, and government bodies globally. At the heart of DEI lies the aspiration to bridge gaps, to level playing fields, and to make spaces inclusive for all.

Yet, given the importance of these objectives, the means and methodologies deployed in this noble quest have avoided the same scrutiny we often employ in other professional fields. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion – these words have been raised to have become sacrosanct and untouchable in contemporary discourse. And, like many other well-intentioned initiatives, the path to their realization is strewn with unintended consequences.

For example, the tragedy of Richard Bilkszto, a committed educator in Toronto who faced public humiliation during and after a DEI training session at his place of employment, underscores a growing concern: are these initiatives becoming a tool for ideological warfare rather than a platform for open and constructive dialogue? Are participants punished for merely voicing a difference of opinion, for their diversity of thought or beliefs?

In Bilkszto’s situation, an orthodox blend of rigid and dogmatic groupthink was being actively encouraged. The DEI trainer, along with the complicit endorsement of their organizational enabler, played a pivotal role in fostering this environment. His earnest interactions with her in those trainings, now publicly available, show an individual stifled, his nuanced arguments overshadowed by aggressive rhetoric. With fervent zeal, he was effectively branded with a figurative scarlet letter for simply questioning one of the trainer’s unsubstantiated assertions. This incident not only unjustly tarnished his once positive workplace reputation but also had severe ramifications that extended beyond the confines of the DEI session. A cascading sequence of events was activated and propagated by the entire workplace community around Mr. Bilkszto, culminating in the wholesale loss of his career and, most tragically, his life.

As I reflect on this man’s harrowing descent into social isolation and eventual suicide, I am compelled to consider the ethical obligations that should be embedded within DEI training methodologies. I have myself witnessed first hand how the very spaces created to foster empathy and engagement can instead encourage a brand of absolutism that borders on extremism. A good friend of mine, who happens to be a conservative white male, told me, “I have – more than once– been the target of this sort of DEI bullying because of my gender and race and being someone who refuses to sit quietly and swallow whatever is being projected. I’ve tried to have respectful exchanges on DEI topics and find myself constantly shut down by ideologues who feel that ‘reeducation’ is their privilege and duty.”

In fact, I witnessed one such episode where this colleague was excoriated by another participant in a DEI training in which we were both present. She told him he was the problem, that he is, by default, a “member of the patriarchy” and, basically, that he is a terrible person. It was pretty awful to witness and certainly ineffective if her goal was to persuade anyone of the value of her arguments. Regrettably, at the time of that training, I myself was still in the early stages of my DEI journey and felt ill-equipped to intervene and advocate for his right to express himself. Not surprisingly, he walked out of the training, soured on both the cause of DEI, and his colleagues. Later, these feelings spread to how he viewed our mutual employer and, in part, contributed to him resigning to accept a position elsewhere.

This incident stood as a stark testament to multifaceted setbacks. Beyond undermining the true spirit of DEI advocacy, it represented a collective lapse in support from his colleagues and a significant blow to our organization. My employer lost a talented and valuable member, someone whose skills and contributions were integral to our team. His departure, in part resulting from this incident, highlighted the very real, tangible ripple effects of a single mismanaged training session and underscored the critical importance of fostering a truly genuine, inclusive, and constructive DEI environment.

Ethical dilemmas lie at the very heart of DEI training. While sessions aim to foster empathy and unity, some inadvertently encourage absolutism bordering on extremism. The stories of Bilkszto and my colleague serve as urgent reminders that DEI efforts should prioritize dialogue over dogma, understanding over unilateral instruction. It is essential that these training programs not only provide tools to appreciate differences, but also cultivate environments that foster constructive conversations, ensuring that no one feels alienated or marginalized in the very spaces meant for inclusion. We need a much more balanced approach that respects diverse viewpoints, encourages open conversations, and navigates the intricate terrain of DEI with high ethical responsibility.

We know full well that the landscape of DEI is fraught with complexities, and that the outcomes of these endeavors carry highly significant and profound consequences. For these reasons, and to truly honor the core principles of the DEI mission, the journey towards its objectives demands from us a much more careful, thoughtful, and expertly-guided approach. We must continuously evaluate and adapt our strategies, ensuring that they are both sensitive to individual experiences and conducive to communal growth.

This article is the first in a series that delves into how our collective pursuit of a more inclusive world can be improved. My subsequent piece in this series will probe the barriers that have impeded our progress, aiming to shed light on how we can better ensure a full spectrum of diversity in both thought and practice.