The Munk Debates Podcast - Be it Resolved, DEI workplace programs do more harm than good

Episode Date: November 28, 2024

In the wake of George Floyd’s murder and the protests that followed in the summer of 2020, offices across North America began introducing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion training programs with the objective of reducing racial bias and discrimination in the workplace. Lately, however, this multi-billion dollar industry is facing scrutiny by critics who believe these are unproven and expensive programs which are not only ineffective, but counterproductive. DEI training, they argue, often reinforces biases or introduces new stereotypes where they didn’t previously exist. Furthermore, if people from marginalized groups perceive themselves to be surrounded by others who are biased against them, they are more likely to suffer from anxiety, depression and antisocial behaviour, which will impede their professional success and overall happiness. Supporters of DEI programs argue that these initiatives are required to correct inequities that have long existed within organizations. This training helps people of different races, sexual orientations and diverse backgrounds to feel more comfortable in the workplace, which fosters creativity and collaboration and increases employee retention. By correcting power and privilege imbalances, DEI programs help create more equitable and productive work environments for all employees. Arguing in favor of the resolution is Rebekah Wanic. She’s a social psychologist, leadership coach and author Arguing against the resolution is Diya Khanna. She’s a Diversity Equity Inclusion strategist, consultant, and facilitator.   The host of this podcast is Rudyard Griffiths Tweet your comments about this episode to @munkdebate or comment on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/munkdebates/ To sign up for a weekly email reminder for this podcast, send an email to [e-mail].  To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership Members receive access to our 10+ year library of great debates in HD video, a free Munk Debates book, newsletter and ticketing privileges at our live events. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue - https://munkdebates.com/ Senior Producer: Ricki Gurwitz Editor: Kieran LynchBecome a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When you're a journalist and people don't trust you, it's always your fault. These people need to be represented. They are Canadian. They deserve to have a voice and a seat at the table. It is time to go back to the office, and the time is now. Russia had reasons to be concerned. They had reasons to be fearful. We're at an absolute turning point in reproduction.

This is the problem with realism. They just treat all countries the same. They don't distinguish between dictatorships and democracies. Welcome to the Monk Debates. every episode we provide you with a civil and substantive debate on the big issue of the day to arm you, the listener, with enough information to make up your own mind. Today's debate, be it resolved. DEI workplace programs do more harm than good.

The world around us is growing more diverse by the day, and so is your workforce. You may employ people who immigrated from another country, practice various religions, enjoy different lifestyles and more. You can celebrate and support the employees that keep your organization going and growing by creating an inclusive workplace using D.E. and I principles. Hi, I'm your moderator, Richard Griffiths. Well, in the wake of George Floyd's murder

and the protests that followed in the summer of 2020, offices across North America began to introduce diversity, equity, and inclusion training programs with the objective of reducing racial bias, and discrimination in the workplace. Lately, however, this multi-billion dollar industry is facing scrutiny by critics who believe that these DEI programs are unproven, expensive, and ineffective.

In fact, they could be counterproductive. DEI training, they argue, often reinforces biases and introduces new stereotypes where previously they didn't exist. Supporters of DEI programs argue that these initiatives are required to address inequalities that have long existed within society and organizations. These training modules and approaches help people from different racial backgrounds, sexual orientations, and lived experiences feel more comfortable in their workplace. They foster creativity and collaboration and increase employee satisfaction and retention.

On this installment of the Monk Debates podcast, we challenge the essence of these arguments by debating the motion, be it resolved. DEI workplace programs do more harm than good. Arguing in favor of the resolution is Rebecca Wennick. She's a social psychologist, leadership coach, and bestselling author. Arguing against the resolution is Dia Kahanah, a diversity, equity inclusion strategist, consultant, and facilitator. Rebecca Dia, welcome. to the monk debates. Thank you.

It's a pleasure to be here. Likewise. Thank you so much for having us. I'm looking forward to a timely and thoughtful discussion. Let's get right to it today. Our resolution before our proverbial house, our thousands of monk debate podcast listeners is DEI, workplace programs do more harm than good.

Rebecca, you're arguing in favor of the motion. Let's put two minutes on the show clock and turn the program over to you. Great. Thank you. So, yes, DEI programs do more harm than good. In practice, most evidence-based evaluations demonstrate that they are either neutral or negative with respect to the evaluated outcomes, reinforcing stereotypes and fomenting racial tension, and therefore a significant waste of both monetary resources and time. Many of the ideas that such programming is based on, such as microaggressions,

systemic racism, and implicit bias, excuse me, lack validity and empirical support, creating a toxic mix of applied pseudoscience emboldened with the blindness of false virtue. But more importantly, D.I. programs are harmful because both in practice and in ideology, they are hypocritical, a grift for power couched in the guise of moral superiority. They do not promote diversity, equity, or inclusion. Instead of diversity, it seeks to promote a manufactured workplace or educational, full of the right types of thinkers, all ideologically the same, who are diverse based solely on increasing the presence of certain prioritized identity categories. Instead of inclusivity, the DEI

agenda is actively exclusive of any perspective that does not agree with the favored narrative that white supremacy and sexism pervade every aspect of society. Also, only those with certain identities are included in shaping the discussion and those who are intellectually rigorous enough to recognize that all disparate outcomes are not the result of discrimination, typically do not have a voice and are often the targets of cancellation. They're not equitable because DEI advocates are perfectly happy to earmark positions only for certain types of individuals or to shut down job searches when the favored type of candidate cannot be found. All of this is harmful to individuals, organizational functioning, and to larger society because it impedes viewpoint diversity by

shutting down dissent, promoting an illiberal, anti-meritocratic workplace built on a tyrannical ideology that is conducive to neither economic nor social progress. Rebecca, thank you so much for that succinct to the point opening statement. Okay, similar opportunity now for DIA. You're arguing against our motion today. Diversity, equity, inclusion workplace programs do more harm than good. Let's have your opening statement. Great.

So I would argue against D.E. workplace programs doing more harm than good, because workplaces are simply a microcosm of our society. What we see out there is what often we see in here. And we can assume that everybody has the same experiences, or we can create a practice through which people can learn about each other's lived experience backed by the data about the value of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace. Those that believe that DEI programs are a waste of time may believe that DEI programs, that they create division, discrimination,

but the research tells a very different story. After all, there are more CEOs named John than a total number of women CEOs. According to the lenient study that was published in 2022, we've had them periodically every four years or so, women of color joined the workplace at an entry level of 19%, which is then decreased to 5% in the C-suite, while white men joined the workplace at an entry level

33% and that it gets increased to 61%. Aren't we curious as to why? When it comes to mentoring, 71% of executives mentor people that are of the same race and gender as them. In fact, Bloomberg has called it something by the term of mini-mee prodigies. DEI trainings and workplace programs give us a way to grow not only individually but through our awareness, our accountability, and move to action. We all experience the workplace differently. Put simply, people don't know what people don't know. And DEI programs are a tool into a long-term, sustainable area of behavior change,

as well as systemic equities. Thank you very much, DIA. Great opening statements from you both. Let's move to rebuttal. So an opportunity here for you to react to what you've just heard. Rebecca, you're up first. Another two minutes on the show clock for you. Sure, yeah, absolutely. First of all, just speaking of the evidence, when these programs are evaluated with rigorous research, which is typically hard to do because when something doesn't work, you don't want it to be researched. But the research evidence demonstrates that they actually do create negative outcomes or they're neutral with respect to whatever the intended aims were. So the research shows that they don't work or they're harmful. But over and above that, to point to some of the disparities in things like, you know,

DIA just mentioned the number of certain individuals in certain positions, I think that this is one of the hallmarks of the problems of the DEI narrative because it denies and undermines individual agency and personal responsibility and personal choice. There are disparities in people's abilities, and there are differences in people's desire to put in the hard work to get certain outcomes. evidence suggests that women are more likely to choose part-time work, to choose family over work. And those might be things that we can have a discussion about. But if somebody is more likely to rise to the top because of personal choice and personal preference, then the DEI narrative is actually actively against diversity because it's arguing that we should all have the same aims and goals,

which is to be the top performer in a high-paying position. And that's a very narrow, non-diverse view of success. Thank you, Rebecca. Okay, Dia, your chance now to react to either Rebecca's opening statement or what you've just heard. Yeah, I think it's important to take it back a step. When we talk about equity, there's two different areas. Actually, there's a spectrum. We can talk about equity of opportunity and we can talk about equity of outcome.

And Rebecca's right, we can't always control for the equity of outcome. But what we can do is we can create an environment that is fostering equity of opportunity where people, I like to think of it as a gear shift. So in one area, we increase the opportunities. And on the second part of the gear shift, we reduce the barriers so that there is a fair opportunity for people to show up and do their best work possible. There is a great book by the name of an author called Minda Hearts that talks about how to, what women of color need to know to secure a seat at the table.

And it was based in response to a lot of research that was out there that said women need to lean in. And Minda Hart's argument was, well, what happens when we do lean in? And that still doesn't work. And this was backed by First Lady Michelle Obama that simply said, we can follow the same advice. And it doesn't always work. So what we want to do is create environments where people can do their best work possible. And the ways to do this is through workplace programs so that we understand. and each other's lived experiences as well as the data that backs this.

Thank you, Dia. Let me join the conversation now. It's a fascinating one. Just think up some questions that are kind of top of mind for our monk audience members. And Rebecca, let me come to you first. You know, I think there's a view out there, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that more diverse workforces are often more successful workforces in terms of very specific metrics and outputs. So, you know, more diverse Fortune 500 companies seem to perform better than less diverse

ones in terms of the makeup of their workforces as a whole, but also their leadership teams. So I guess what I want to hear from you a bit about is diversity seems a reality of our society. It seems like something that companies kind of could or should want because it kind of looks like they're going to be more successful if they have more of it. So why aren't DEI programs just a natural extension of an acknowledgement by corporations and universities and government organizations that diversity is a good thing. We need tools and practical ways to manage it. Some will be better. Some won't be.

But we got to engage with this, don't we? Well, to begin, I would argue that we already are engaging with it. Like you said, almost every society is very diverse. So it's a part of the reality of people's experience. I think the problem, the thing that people take issue with is that the diversity programming itself is not advocating for diversity. It's advocating for a change in the power structure where we're privileging certain individuals over others.

And secondarily, there is some evidence that demonstrates that some aspects of diversity are valuable, primarily viewpoint diversity. That is typically not what DEI advocates promote. They promote diversity based off of identity. And if you operate based off of lived experience in every space, that's not valuable because lived experience we know is very narrow. It's unique. It doesn't take into account all of the realities of the world around you.

Evidence-based is how we should be operating. So if you want to promote viewpoint diversity, that's great. But on top of that, what diversity tends to be good for, is typically things like generating creativity. It's not necessarily good for things like efficiency. So there needs to be an understanding, more sophisticated understanding of when, where, and how diversity might be a value rather than just saying that diversity as a whole is good across the board in every situation.

Great points. Well, let's have you react to that, Dia. Diversity, you know, has a role. It has a function. But it shouldn't be the sine qua non, the single overriding. focus and more importantly, Rebecca charges that these workplace programs are in fact creating frictions. They're amplifying differences. They're not really focusing on the aspects where diversity is a win-win. Yeah, I would say that every diversity training is different and a trainer brings

their own self to that work. So I think it's a little challenging to say that all trainings show up a certain way. And I think that an effective training, actually doesn't look at, well, first it sets the stage to say that we are all diverse. In fact, even in this podcast right now, we all, diversity just means range of human differences. So we want to be careful that we're not using it as a coded way to refer to a particular group. That I would refer to as underrepresented or in some cases marginalized. But when we speak about privileging some aspects, I would argue that an effective DEI program is more about leveling the opportunity field to say, hey, we don't need you to be the best in your field, but we definitely don't want

to stand in your way of being able to achieve that excellence. And then when it comes to diversity identities, we have something called primary prisms of diversity, which are ones that you may not be able to change, such as race, gender, in some cases arguably. And then there's the secondary prisms of diversity, which include things such as our viewpoints on life and our lived experiences. So those are the ones that holistically, a good DEI training will look at both. And then when it comes to talking about privilege, the conversation should not be about you have privilege, you have privilege, you have privilege, but rather we all have privilege. I myself am somebody that has a great deal of privilege. So the conversation should be around

we all have privilege. We all have varying degrees of privilege. Privilege is. is a spectrum, not a switch. Now, what are we going to do with that privilege? Bell Hooks has a great quote that says, privilege in itself is not bad. It's what you do with it that matters. So, Rebecca, we're getting to the essence of this debate. You know, a key part of this is privilege.

And would you not agree that, as Dia just said, we all have different lived experiences. We all bring with us different privileges. and isn't it better in a workplace to kind of surface this stuff, to have people become aware of it, aware of their own privilege, aware of specific lived experiences and privileges of their coworkers? I mean,

this is just the reality of the environment that we live in today. And it's better to acknowledge that. To bring it up, it may be painful at times. It may cause difficult conversations. But some might say that you're kind of sweeping this stuff under the rug. You're putting a lid on it. And that's not really what we need in our workplace cultures. I'm sorry, we're talking about work or are we talking about a therapy session?

So one of the things that I think is highly problematic about a lot of what you just asked is work is public life and it should be separate from your private life. Right. So I think that it is great to advocate for people to be kind and understanding to everybody that they intersect with, wherever they intersect with them. But I think that's a little bit kindergartened to believe that every part of me at all points in time should be celebrated in every space that I'm in. I get paid to go to work. So the parts of me that are important in the work environment are the parts of me that are going to serve to live out the obligations that I made when I took up that job. My privilege in certain aspects may or may not be relevant. A lot of what we're seeing is the

problem of the bleed over of private life into the public sphere. I would argue a lot of that has to do with social media just being a pervasive part of everything. But it's also narcissistic. If I go into a space, I expect that if it's a public space, I'm sharing it with others, and I don't lead with everything about me, and I don't expect everybody to know or understand everything about me. At times, we have to learn to adjust self to situation and not the other way around. And focusing constantly on things like privilege teaches people to look for ways that they're disadvantaged so they can use it to try to gain something. But also what it does is it undermines your ability to interact effectively with other people

by taking them as they are given what they want to share with you when they want to share it. I shouldn't be forced to acknowledge my privilege unless I desire for that. to be part of my interaction with somebody else. Good deal. Let's have you react to that because I think there is a feeling out there that, you know, we are struggling at times to find the things that we share in common. It's hard enough to reach a consensus. Why exacerbate differences? And as Rebecca's arguing here, you know, worth thankfully taping this show from Canada and the United States.

You know, we live in societies that have the rule of law that have all kinds of protections against discrimination and racism and other forms of bad behavior, why isn't that enough to allow us to each go about our individual lives doing what we do? And in this case, as Rebecca said, in private corporations, these are not government agencies, some of them I guess do receive workplace training. But right now we're talking about workplaces that are often private that are separate from the public square, so to speak. I'd like to hear you on those points.

Yeah, I wish that that was the reality of our workplaces that we could separate the personal life and then our professional life. But the reality for a lot of folks that are underrepresented is that it does bleed into us, our day-to-day, and how it impacts us, our day-to-day, just how we experience the workplace. I'll give you an example. There is data out there that says if you have what is considered to be difficult to pronounce name in quotations, that a lot of people, all been left off of emails. Another example is that because of the biases that are associated with Asian women who are least likely to advance to positions of leadership, they are often tasked with what we call non-promotable tasks, unglomerous tasks. There's a lot of research out there by an author by the name of Ruchika Tel Sian, author of Inclusion on Purpose that speaks about this. So we would love to come into the workplace and be treated with that fair and equal opportunity. But when we've

face barriers to advancement. These are pieces that we want to have conversations about. And interestingly enough, in workplace programs and in trainings, a lot of people who didn't know these details or didn't know about these, again, the lived experience combined with the data, come back and say, oh, I never even thought about it that way. Another example is bereavement policy. So I spoke with somebody, an indigenous person who said, it's interesting that my organization. organization offers three days for bereavement, whereas for us, it takes us three days to even begin the process of grieving and preparing the body. So a lot of people may not know, again, what they may not know. This is an opportunity for critical dialogue and to foster that curiosity

and then shift it into individual behavior and systemic policies. Rudyard Griffiths here, the executive director of the Monk Debates. Well, this November 3rd, we will be convening in downtown Toronto at Roy Thompson Hall for our 2023 Autumn Monk debate. The topic before the House, the crisis of liberalism for exceptional debaters coming from the United Kingdom and the U.S. to debate this all-important topic. Visit our website, www.w.munkdebates.com for information on how you can get tickets and information on live streaming the debate on November 3rd. We've got you covered all that information right now at triple W monk debates with an s.com.

Rebecca, the key contention of this debate is that DEI programs do more harm than good. If that's the case, then why are so many corporations embracing this? You know, surveys of Fortune 500 companies indicate that, you know, these are values that they really think are important. of them are putting, you know, DEI type values. They're stating, we'll see if it's reality, but they're stating that they're more important to their corporate culture than profits or regulation. I mean, isn't there a sea change going on here? And DEI programs are simply following the demand that corporations themselves are

indicating for these types of programs. And therefore, these corporations must think they're good or why would they be doing them? I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I think there are a lot of things that drive what corporations say that have nothing to do with how they actually feel. I think right now we've seen many, many cancellations of individuals that speak out against the DEI agenda. In Canada, for example, look at what's happening to Jordan Peterson, where he's being forced

to be reeducated because he posts things that aren't in line with what the right voices say he should be doing. So why are these corporations towing the line and saying that they endorse DEI? because if they don't, they fear the woke backlash. That's disingenuous. And if you look at actual corporate profits and think, why does a company exist to make people feel good about themselves? It exists to make money. So at the end of the day, the bottom line is the bottom line, and that should be what you care about. Of course, creating a welcoming work environment is desirable because workers that feel welcomed and empowered are going to be more productive. But any corporation that operates

where that's not their primary motive, I would really question who you have in a position of leadership. So, Dia, would you acknowledge that there are cases in some instances? I don't know whether it's the majority, the minority, how to understand this. Maybe you can help me where the experience of people going through DEI programs turns out to be a negative one. I mean, maybe, again, this is the media and the press,

surfacing these things, but it certainly has become more of a debate, I think, over the last 12 months about the effects of DEI on mental health. And, you know, a tragic case here in Toronto, Canada, where an employee of our city school board went through a DEI program was in the disputes subsequently that he had with a school board felt that he was bullied. He ultimately committed suicide. I mean, that is an extreme example, but it's one, not. Nonetheless, is there a concern here about losing, by looking through the DEI lens, some of these larger problems and challenges in the workplace, like mental health, like a safe and inclusive work environment? Of course. There is a range of outcomes that come from DEI workplace trainings because, again, it's never just one way of doing things.

And it is tragic when we see the ripple effect, when the conversation. or dialogue is shut down. I believe that people such as Jordan Peterson have absolutely a place in this conversation. The goal of an effective DEI program or training is to foster dialogue. And one of the hallmarks of dialogue is sitting in a place of discomfort for both and multiple parties, not just a one-way directional conversation. That is where we begin to see the effects of change. There is, another practitioner by the name of Lily Zhang, and they say that it's important to appeal to a sense of fairness because everybody hopefully can get behind that idea rather than bringing in this binary of us versus them, you versus me, good versus bad. That is where we begin to truly see the division.

And when a training or a program is not accompanied by follow up or even an opportunity for people, to share their thoughts, their feelings, their experiences, then we're going to have some likely tragic outcomes. We want it to be the start of a conversation rather than the end of a conversation. So, Rebecca, would you concede that the people involved in D.I. probably, you know, have good intentions. They are professionals, many of them, highly educated and trained. And are we mischaracterizing or misperceiving the harms here? Because like any field, like any activity, it's often, you know, the bad news, the proverbial horror stories that kind of get the public attention. Why isn't the case that there's all kinds of productive, useful DEI work going on

in the background that's never particularly controversial or particularly anything other than what it is? Roger, if there was evidence for that, the mainstream media would be all over it because they want nothing more than to promote evidence that supports their agenda, which is firmly in line with DEI. So if that existed, if they were very effective, if people were happy with them, we would be hearing about it. The reason that we don't is because that evidence doesn't exist. So you asked me a question about the people that are, you know, the leaders of these programs, the developers, the facilitators, I think a lot of them are well-intentioned. But one of the problems that we see is, you know, like the famous quote, the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

We exist in a world now that tends to place immediate feelings over long-term benefit. And I've written about this extensively in the educational environment. Being unkind in the moment is oftentimes the most kind thing that you can do. So sometimes what we need to do is teach people to confront the fact, if I feel uncomfortable, perhaps it's a me problem, not a them problem. Perhaps I need to do some work to make myself feel a little bit more comfortable. Everything now is oriented through the lens of I go into a space and everybody else needs to adjust to me. Recognize how your privilege affects me. Recognize how I want to be addressed. Recognize my pronouns. Recognize my gender identity. Recognize all of these

things about me. It's not functional for society. The best thing that you can do is teach people resilient strategies that say when you encounter a challenge, the first thing you do is own it as your own. You don't look to make it everybody else's problem to fix. And so I think that there are people who are part of these programs who also, you said they're highly educated. What are they educated in? Are they educated in psychology? Are they educated in experimental psychology? Because a lot of people don't understand that when you take something that comes up in the psychological experimental literature and try to then apply it in the real world, it doesn't work. And that's what we're seeing with a lot of these concepts that are being talked about all

the time in the DEI programming. They don't have scientific validity. They're not empirically based. There are things that sound good that someone in one journal published, but implicit by it, for example, there are two or three meta-analyses that demonstrate that it lacks any kind of empirical validity, yet we're still talking about it all the time. So education in one arena does not take. necessarily mean that you're able to fully understand all of the evidence that comes from another

discipline. Rebecca, would you acknowledge that there is systemic bias in our society towards certain marginalized groups, many of whom are visible minorities, and that all of us, whether we're individuals, corporations, governments, you know, we have a responsibility to address that. That's not fair. It's unfairness. And when we see unfairness, we have. have a responsibility to act. And DEI programs are just one of a series of ways to address, you know, systemic injustices that, you know, different communities historically and contemporary, in the contemporary environment today face. That's just the, it's unfortunate. It's not a desirable characteristic in society. It's one, I'm sure, all of us on this podcast

wish would go away. But it is our reality, isn't it? I mean, I have to push back with you just a bit on that. First of all, when you say something like systemic bias, systemic racism, that's a nebulous phantom that can't be addressed. So you have to make it concrete and show actual evidence that this or that thing is happening. Secondly, to try to address historical wrongs, we've had preference programs for underrepresented groups for over 30 years now. The Supreme Court just struck down affirmative action in education because it is bias. You don't correct a historical wrong by implementing a new version of that to privilege a new group over another group. If it's incorrect to treat someone differently because of the color of their skin, then it's

not okay for another group to treat someone differently because of the color of their skin. It doesn't work that way. It's hypocritical. Yeah, let's hear you on this. I mean, you know, there's the Supreme Court ruling as an example. Again, I think a little bit of a pendulum swinging in society away from programs like for of action that try to explicitly address the perceived, you know, structural biases in systems and in society. And why isn't DEI programs also swinging with that same pendulum, a pendulum, frankly, moving away from a lot of their assertions, objectives, and contentions? Well, the goal is not for any group to come back and project the same discrimination back.

It is rather to create an environment where everyone has a fair, not the same, right? A fair. That's what equity is versus equality, but a fair opportunity to be the best version of themselves. And for just looking back at my family, there are women on both ends of the spectrum, ones that are very career driven and ones that have decided to be home with family. And in both cases, what we want is the opportunity to be there for either group to be able to embark on that opportunity. That is, I encourage people to just read up on the difference between equality and equity. If we look at people with disabilities, similarly, if we apply a one size fits all, it's not going to be in anybody's favor because it does tend to benefit those that have always historically been, have benefited from those.

systems. Final question for you, Rebecca, before we go to closing statements, if there weren't going to be DEI programs, your contentions, they do more than harm than good. So I assume you want to get rid of them. Would you have anything in their place? Would you identify a problem or challenge that does exist in workplaces that, you know, we do need to focus on? I'm trying to understand whether you think this is more a problem of tactics or that the strategy at is what's wrong? To begin, I would scrap all DEI programming. I think each organization should take care to evaluate all of their policies and procedures

to determine whether they actually are discriminatory. So, for example, if you evaluate salaries and you notice that there are disparities in the salaries, then the onus is on the organization to do an investigation to see where that might be coming from. with the recognition that it's not necessarily the result of discrimination. Perhaps certain types of individuals self-select into certain types of jobs that just have lower salary attached to them. But the onus is on the organization to do regular evaluations. I just don't think that DEI needs to be part of that programming moving forward.

I think there are much more effective ways of creating a welcoming work environment. I think each organization does have an obligation to make sure that they're not perpetuating any type of bias. So I do agree with that. I just don't see DEI and any modification of DEI as ever getting us to a useful point. Okay, well, this has been a terrific debate covered a lot of important issues. I feel like I've learned a ton. Dia, we're going to ask you to kick off first with your closing statement. This is your opportunity to kind of sum up the conversation. One of the key insights that you want to leave our listeners with. I'll put a couple of minutes on the show clock and turn the proverbial microphone over to you.

Closing the racial wealth gap, for example, could add one trillion dollars to the 2028 U.S. economy, according to a McKinsey report. That is an enormous number that everybody can benefit from. And when we interrogate hiring rates, promotion rates, and advancements rates, as well as access to opportunities, there is an abundance of evidence out there. Research and data that highlights that how not. non-white groups continue to be disadvantaged. As long as we focus on the dollar value, though, we're missing the value of long-term,

healthy and sustainable organizational change, as well as what people entering the workforce in the newer generations are looking for. You see, an investment in DEI doesn't just make people feel safe. It also allows people to do their best work possible. It takes time to unlearn and relearn. and when we call DEI into question and DEI programs and trainings into question, we are looking at it as a one-time piece instead of a marathon. It is a marathon and not a sprint. A workshop is rarely just a workshop.

It is part of the triangulation of learning and creating both individual behaviors and systemic policies. But they do matter. They create dialogue where there may not have been dialogue. They create curiosity where there may have been judgment. and they are backed by lived experiences and quantitative data. In the words of Richieka Tulsihan, who's, again, the author of Inclusion on Purpose, she says, the problem isn't men, it's patriarchy. The problem isn't white people.

It's white supremacy and racism. And the problem isn't straight people. It's homophobia. So ultimately, our oppressions are intertwined. What affects me, affects you. And it is for that reason that I argue against DEI trainings being harmful in the workplace. Thank you for that. Great closing statement, DIA.

Now, Rebecca, as per debate tradition, the person that's brave enough to come out first and speak in favor of the motion gets the last word. Our debate today that you've been arguing for is that DEI programs do more harm than good. So wrap up this debate for us. Okay. So the current DEI ideology and the programs it informs is harmful because it is based on lies. It misappropriates the morally laden terms of diversity, equity, and inclusion. in a grift for power. Proponents exclude and vilify all voices of dissent and are intolerant of diverse perspectives. It is harmful because it promotes an anti-meritocratic, anti-intellectual, illiberal,

narcissistic, and victimhood-driven way of interacting with the world. This toxicity spreads, harming individuals who are judged not on action but identity and organizations who are impeded in the enterprise of success by wasting resources and service of the DEI industrial complex. But beyond that, it is harmful to society by undermining the foundations of social progress, the ability to engage in reasoned, logic-based debate with others with whom we disagree, evaluating individuals on their actions and rewarding them for their meritorious behavior, not their identity, promoting the value of critical feedback, not the validation of mediocrity under the guise of niceness, and rewarding actual achievement. We all become victims of this tyranny, faced with growing entitlement,

increased workplace tension, and the lack of ability to engage in open dialogue, all of which prevent us from experiencing the benefits of great achievements stifled under the weight of this cancerous bloat. A true proponent of change should seek to implement policies that are effective, which evaluations of DEI programming demonstrate they are not. A true proponent of change should seek to reinforce individual agency and advocate for programming to support those behaviors that result in the development of resilience and the cultivation of skills that underlies successful functioning into adulthood. If you want a better society, you should seek to reinforce the valuation of merit and hard work, as those and only those are what can lead us to develop technological advancement, cultivate innovation, and lead the way to better outcomes for all of us. The DEI agenda in theory and practice is antithetical to such aims.

By shuddering freedom of expression, by placing identity above individual agency, and by seeking power rather than progress, DEI unequivocally does individuals, academia, organizations, and society far more harm than good. Thank you, Rebecca. And thank you, Dia. This was a really civil and substantive debate. It was just what I hoped. You know, there's been so much at times, I think, incoherent and angry conversation on this topic. So the civility and substance that you've brought to the conversation today, to the debate today is greatly appreciated by the Monk membership. Thank you so much both for coming on the program.

Thanks for having me. I really appreciate. Thanks for having us. Well, that wraps up today's debate. I want to thank our participants, Rebecca and Dia, for a terrific one-on-one debate. Please send us your feedback and reflections to podcast at monkdebates.com. That's MUNK Debates with an S.com. Also a friendly reminder, you can check out a sample of our regular weekly current affairs podcast Friday Focus in this same podcast feed.

If you like what you hear, consider becoming. a subscriber to the full-length editions. You can do that right now in our website, triple-w monkdebates.com, click on Friday Focus in the top right navigation. Thank you for lending your time and attention to our efforts to bring back the art of public debate, one conversation at a time. I'm your host and moderator, Rudyard Griffiths. The Monk Debates are a project of the Aurea and Peter and Melanie Monk charitable foundations. Rudyard Griffiths and Ricky Gerwitz are the producers. Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like us, feel free to give us a five-star rating.

Thank you again for listening.