work trainers are pushing us to share race, religion, sexuality, and gender identity

by Alison Green on April 15, 2025

A reader writes:

I keep finding myself in this weird situation at work. I’m a medical resident in an academic hospital system in a big progressive city. I keep finding myself in mandatory educational events where the facilitator introduces the concept of privilege as if no one’s ever heard of it and invites/demands everyone to share their privilege/lack thereof.

Real examples: “Let’s all reflect on our positionality, and then go around the room. I’m Dr. LastName. As you know, I’m the head of this department. I’m the child of South Asian immigrants, and I’m able-bodied. I live with my wife and children. Your turn!” and, “I invite you to turn to your colleagues — preferably someone you don’t know — and introduce yourself in a way you never have before, considering some of the identities on this wheel of privilege.”

I was in the same room as everyone else in my small program, my program director, and six other attending physicians who regularly evaluate me. It feels screamingly obvious to me that this is inappropriate. Are we … supposed to out ourselves? Are we supposed to out each other? Is this a therapy session that no one consented to? It’s like there’s this shared nonsensical belief that just because we’re all “progressive” that makes this a “safe space” and suddenly it’s no longer harassment to demand information about your colleagues’ sexuality, religion, or gender identity.

Please, PLEASE tell me there are magic words to get this to stop. So far, I’ve tried saying things like, “Thank you, this is so important to reflect on, and this certainly isn’t the first time it’s come up. My name is Name, and I’m a fifth-year resident here at East University. I studied Basket Weaving at North University and did medical school at West University,” which results in awkward silence but at least then my peers feel empowered to do the same instead of introducing themselves as a collection of privileges and marginalizations. I’ve also tried, “You know, I’m reflecting on what’s appropriate to share with colleagues, and the importance of appropriate boundaries.” Both have resulted in disappointment from the facilitator and further boundary-pushing. HELP!

Yeah, this is inappropriately invasive.

I get that they’re trying to get you to reflect on areas of privilege or potential lack of privilege and to consider how different aspects of a person’s identity can intersect to create a more complex experience, but there are ways to do that that don’t push people to share information they may not be comfortable sharing in a work setting.

Your trainers might argue that you only need to share things you’re comfortable with — but given the way they respond when you attempt to do that, that doesn’t seem to be true.

You could try saying this: “I appreciate the point that’s being made about intersectionality, and I also think it’s important that people not be pushed to out themselves in ways they’d prefer not to, particularly in a professional context. So I’m going to stick with the things you can see about me and a few other basics, and hope that gives other people permission to do the same if they choose to.”

But I would also push back hard on this in course evaluations if they do them, and possibly to whoever coordinates these trainings to begin with. Point out that demanding this kind of sharing will put people, particularly people with marginalized identities, in a position of vulnerability and risks opening them up to discrimination — an outcome that’s presumably directly the opposite of these sessions’ goals — and that no one should feel pressured into unwanted exposure at a work training.

You may also like:
{ 376 comments }

{ 376 comments… read them below or add one }

    1. Hey, I'm Wohrking Heah!*

      Right, and after a point how is this making you a better doctor? Understanding the history of why some Black folks distrust medical studies, very important. But end of the day, ask your patients what their concerns, priorities and barriers are. People aren’t cardboard cutouts just because they share certain traits.

      Reply ↓
    2. Reluctant Mezzo*

      Yes, and a list of who is who is probably going to end up be shared to people who *really want to know*. Especially if the place gets any federal grants.

      Reply ↓
  2. Emily Byrd Starr*

    “So I’m going to stick with the things you can see about me and a few other basics, and hope that gives other people permission to do the same if they choose to.””

    Yes. This is exactly what to do.

    Reply ↓
    1. Anonym*

      A thought: “It’s not for any one of us to determine what’s a safe space for someone else.”

      Not sure how exactly to fit this in, but I think it’s an important factor. I can see organizers declaring the space safe as an argument against OP, but that’s not their call.

      Reply ↓
      1. Jennifer Strange*

        THIS. It’s fine to invite (invite!) folks to be open about aspects of themselves, and it’s fine to lead by example if one wishes, but it always needs to be a choice for each individual.

        Reply ↓
        1. datamuse*

          This was how it was done when I did a training like this at my former workplace (also academia). We had worksheets to fill out on our own, and then could share as part of the subsequent conversation if we wanted to. I actually found this fairly useful as it highlighted that the aspects of my identity that hold less privilege mostly aren’t obvious to an outside observer. But also, we got to choose what to share with our co-workers, instead of feeling pressured to share everything with the whole room.

          Reply ↓
      3. Panda (she/her)*

        YES x 1000!

        I have been in so many meetings where someone super senior says “this is a safe space” and all I want to do is scream back “YOU DON’T GET TO DECIDE IF IT’S SAFE!!”

        Reply ↓
        1. Quill*

          If anyone with the power to retaliate against me OR with best of intentions assume that they can “help” me based on demographics (especially in ways that undermine my agency to determine what I need help with) is present, it is not safe. Period.

          Reply ↓
        2. Irish Teacher.*

          YES! We had this really poorly done talk on diversity in our school – like even the teacher who’d invited the speaker was saying afterwards how poorly done it was – and she kept telling us “this is a safe space but it is a brave space.” She didn’t ask us about ways in which we were marginalised but she was kind of encouraging us to express our prejudices, like “and do you think the idea of ‘white privilege’ is just cranky?”

          And apart from the number of other issues here, I was also thinking, “well, no, this is not a ‘safe space’ to go on a rant about how you think the idea of ‘white privilege’ is ‘just cranky'”. I would certainly think less of any colleague who did that and I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be the only one.

          To be fair, she wasn’t trying to say “this is a safe space to be racist in.” I think she more meant it to be a safe space in which you can admit to areas you’re still learning in and where you can admit your prejudices and work on them. But…you can’t just declare somewhere a “safe space.”

          And just as I would think less of somebody who went on a racist or sexist or homophobic rant in a “safe space,” people’s prejudices don’t just disappear because it’s a “safe space” either and even people who are pretty aware can nonetheless have subconscious biases about things like disabilities

          Reply ↓
          1. Sarah With an H*

            “I think she more meant it to be a safe space in which you can admit to areas you’re still learning in and where you can admit your prejudices and work on them. But…you can’t just declare somewhere a “safe space.””
            Exactly! This brings up the fact that being a “safe space” to discuss areas you’re still learning about/biases you still have–which is definitely an important thing to do–is probably not going to be a safe space for people who are directly impacted by those issues/biases

            Reply ↓
            1. Irish Teacher.*

              Yup, that too. Somebody saying that things like “white privilege” are “just cranky” doesn’t exactly create a safe space for anybody experiencing discrimination.

              Reply ↓
            2. AnonWhitePerson*

              Exactly. My workplace did this pretty well, in that they offered an intensive antiracist training that 1) was only for those who really wanted to be there; 2) was confidential and actually took the time to build trust within the group; 3) was with others of the same race. I was in a group with other white people, so we were able to talk about our mistakes, biases and other things we needed to work on *without* exposing any people of color to more of that shit.

              Reply ↓
        3. Chirpy*

          This, my manager has an “open door policy” but I do not feel particularly safe telling him *anything*.

          Maybe he thinks “open door policy” just means that you leave the door open??

          Reply ↓
          1. Ana Gram*

            I had a boss who thought that. He told us to leave our office doors open because of the open door policy…

            Reply ↓
        4. OP/LW*

          Yes, thank you. A safe space is *experienced,* not unilaterally declared. It’s like yelling, “I’m a really kind person!” Well…that’s not really something you just decide is true. I mean, I think I’m a kind person. I try to be a kind person. But ultimately people finding me kind is not within my sole control.

          Reply ↓
          1. AnonWhitePerson*

            This is the defining characteristic of the Nice Guy(TM). He will tell you over and over how nice he is, while being very much *not that*.

            Reply ↓
      4. Observer*

        A thought: “It’s not for any one of us to determine what’s a safe space for someone else.”

        This. It is so basic that it strikes me as malpractice that the trainers don’t seem to realize this.

        I would say that if you have feedback forms, this is something that you should not. And if you decide to talk to someone who deals with training, I would say the same thing.

        For some people sharing this information can be a positive experience. But for a *lot* of people, it is not. No one has standing to judge that. So, making it an expectation is a real problem.

        Reply ↓
      5. Saraquill*

        Exactly. I’ve been in places declared “safe,” only for me to branded as impure for being the “wrong” ethnicity. I don’t go to those places anymore.

        Reply ↓
      7. OP/LW*

        Thanks, I agree. It’s so counter to the goal, because I don’t think the doctors should be taking away that if we decide that our offices are a safe space, then everyone will magically feel comfortable with us. That’s not true at all!

        Reply ↓
    2. Lauren H.*

      Most trainings at my health care org also follow up with surveys- a good place to put feedback like this.

      Reply ↓
    3. kalli*

      It’s what the facilitator did.

      Nobody has to go ‘I’m Schmitt and I’m very very gay’, but going ‘I’m Miranda and I’m Black’ is fine.

      The point isn’t to give an exhaustive list, but to acknowledge that intersectionality exists and we are at our own individual intersections/points on a Cartesian plane/whereverwhatever. To do that you have to give something, like ‘I’m a parent’; you do not have to give everything – but if you give nothing like in the letter, then it is going to cause a reaction.

      In this case, a reaction that can kill your chances at matching, but still, a reaction.

      Reply ↓
      1. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

        “Nobody has to” <–based on the reactions to OP and what you are literally saying here, yes, they do have to. You weren't there, so I'm not sure how you know what the point is.

        People with power stating their power is not giving anything. You can acknowledge intersectionality without making your subordinates vulnerable. Work is not where you should be expected to be vulnerable. Also, frankly, this should be about how your privilege could impact patient care, but I see nobody gives a rat about that.

        BTW, if you think this will kill their chances of matching, you are even more hypocritical. "Nobody has to out themselves, but if you don't, don't expect a good job" is exactly what the OP fears will happen. It's a catch 22.

        Reply ↓
        1. BlueberryGirl*

          I am going to use keep this one in my back pocket– “You can acknowledge intersectionality without making your subordinates vulnerable.” That’s really really important. Power imbalances are fundamental to workplaces. We need to acknowledge them.

          Reply ↓
    4. is this thing on?*

      It seems like even this could cause issue with the facilitators. Lots of people have identities that are associated with certain physical traits or cultural aesthetics, but their appearances don’t reflect that in ways viewed as the norm in larger society.

      This type of thing really, really should not be happening in a work setting for so many reasons. I worked at a medical non-profit that worked with diverse populations and had fairly diverse staff (outside of higher-ups…), and the DEI trainings they’d have every few months made some people of color really uncomfortable. One woman I worked semi-closely with was a Black woman and immigrant, and said openly in a virtual training that it was stressful enough to deal with racism and other discrimination out of work, and she didn’t want to think about it at work either. I get what folks are trying to do with these things but it doesn’t tend to have the desired affect.

      Reply ↓
  3. snowglobe*

    Irony of ironies that the facilitator doesn’t seem to understand that being able to discuss your identity without fear of repercussion is a privilege in and of itself…

    Reply ↓
    1. Not Tom, Just Petty*

      THIS! I was trying to put words together. I kept tripping over my fingers typing…how noble you are, successful person in chosen field holding a position of authority to bare yourself before people.
      That is not how this should work!

      Reply ↓
    2. Troutwaxer*

      Exactly, and you might speak to that. Something like, “As a mere resident, here in front of people who are evaluate my work performance regularly and have enormous power over my future, I lack to the necessary privilege to discuss issues of race, gender, class, or romantic and sexual inclinations.” You could add to that if you were inclined, something like, “I’m of the opinion that you’re making your own assumptions about privilege, plus who has it and who doesn’t and you need to think about that before you call on vulnerable people to out themselves, or speak honestly in front of people who have power over them.”

      I’m not generally known for my diplomatic skills, so someone if someone replies with a better phrasing I’d suggest you take note of it.

      Reply ↓
        1. Reluctant Mezzo*

          You really think this facilitator is woke? Or just pretending to smoke out the Bad DEI people? Paranoid, yes–and these days, I think reasonably so.

          Reply ↓
          1. goddessoftransitory*

            The latter, frankly. It comes off as how various anti woke groups phrase stuff in bad faith.

            Reply ↓
      2. Enai*

        While those are all good points, I doubt OP expressing them in front of her supervisors (!) and all the other participants (!!!) would go well for her…

        Reply ↓
        1. Observer*

          Yeah. That’s unfortunately true.

          Now, of there is an anonymous feedback form, I would definitely encourage the LW to state that in the anonymous form.

          And to note that they are using the *anonymous* form because of the power differential.

          Reply ↓
      3. OP/LW*

        Thanks, I appreciate the suggestion. I actually said something that tip-toed around that at the most recent event, and actually one of the attending physicians who was there actually picked up on what I was saying and said something pretty similar to what you said! And the facilitator…it was like water over a duck. That’s what prompted me to write in, just her blinders of, “But I’M not going to discriminate, what’s the problem??”

        Reply ↓
        1. goddessoftransitory*

          Well, thank gosh for that, facilitator! I feel super safe now that one person isn’t going to discriminate!

          Reply ↓
    3. asloan*

      Yeah. I’m LGTBQ in a complicated way, and being asked these questions point-blank is awful for me. I don’t want to come out to my coworkers publicly (or at all, in most cases, nor do I feel I should have to). I always just skip those parts and then usually someone chides me for not leading with my pronouns but at least I can sit down quietly in the back again.

      Reply ↓
      1. Moose*

        Yes! I know that pronoun introductions are useful and important for normalizing trans people who don’t use the “expected” pronouns, but the idea of actively choosing a pronoun for myself gives me hives. Please just assume!! So I either skip the pronoun part of the intro and feel like a grinch, or I say the expected pronoun and feel weird about it (it’s not bad but like. I don’t want to actively pick it for myself thank you). Forcing or coercing people into talking about things that aren’t any of their coworkers’ business in the name of progressivism is not good, even if your intentions are good!

        Reply ↓
        1. Not A Manager*

          W/r/t pronouns, how do you feel about something like, “I don’t have any preferred pronouns, they all work for me.”

          Reply ↓
          1. Moose*

            While true, it’s still more information than I’d usually like to give out. I might try that out in social settings, so thanks for the idea, but at work I want to be Generic Office Drone #4 unless and until I feel comfortable doing otherwise. It’s more an “I don’t want my coworkers having opinions on this” than anything else.

            Reply ↓
            1. Tea for Two*

              Depending on the social setting, I find that sometimes “ooooof, *pronouns*, argle bargle” gets it across. At least with other non-binary folks. ;)

              In more work-oriented settings, I’ve tried, “[default pronoun] works!” as pragmatic but noncommital.

              Reply ↓
            2. what up it's me*

              Just commenting to express that I feel the exact same about pronouns!

              I’m totally fine with people assuming that my pronouns fit my presentation but it Feels Wrong for me to tell people to use it for me. Like, my ideal at-work gender situation is for no one to think about my gender ever, and letting them make assumptions is ideal for that. Being obligated to share my pronouns, telling the truth (“my pronouns are Any Pronouns”) and then dealing with double-takes from coworkers who have been comfortably assuming that they know my gender-related deal is the opposite, and I hate it. You shouldn’t get to ask a question and then get weird when someone answers it in the way that it’s allegedly intended!

              Reply ↓
          2. kalli*

            I mean, that’s great if they do, but usually when all pronouns work for someone, that’s the kind of thing someone’s thought about and is prepared to state vs being comfortable with the pronouns people default to based on assumptions and not really feeling comfortable about having to state pronouns.

            Reply ↓
        2. Tea for Two*

          As someone with similarly ambivalent/uncomfortable feelings about pronouns who also regularly has to figure out what pronouns to use for people in spaces where visual cues are often misleading, I’ve been trying to square the circle by asking:

          “What pronouns would you like me to use today?”

          with the hope that the “today” conveys that I’m not asking folks to commit to anything permanent or soul-revealing, just grammar for the next two hours.

          I suppose I could try swapping to something like “anything pronoun-ish you feel like telling me?” if the situation is right for that tone.

          Personally, I vary my pronoun answer a lot by setting. In queer spaces, it’s useful for people to know I’m non-binary and happy with multiple choices. In spaces where people aren’t immersed in complicated gender stuff, I’d rather go by the default assumption and avoid getting into it.

          Reply ↓
        3. Covert Copier Whisperer*

          I’m pretty agender, and I don’t care what people use for me, but I also hate having to apply one to myself. I either ignore giving pronouns, or change the wording to “I’m Covert, [pronouns] will work, and I’m the chief llama wrangler.”

          It’s splitting hairs, but not having to claim pronouns as part of my identity really helps.

          If asked later, or if the subject comes up, I’ll use “GLAAD and other advocacy organizations advise encouraging pronouns but not requiring them so that we don’t force someone to out themselves.” Being able to point back to an organization helps.

          But it is exhausting!

          Reply ↓
        4. goddessoftransitory*

          And even having to say that makes me worried that another coworker who has really worked hard to be okay with their pronouns now feels weird or bad that it’s “too big a deal,” when to them it’s important. I want anyone who wants to use/announce their pronouns to be okay doing so, without having to do so unless I want to on my end.

          Reply ↓
      2. Wendy Darling*

        Yeah, like, I have a lot of privilege and also a work event is not the place I want to work out my issues regarding whether I “count” as bisexual since I am a cis woman in a long-term monogamous relationship with a cis man???

        I have used these events a couple of times to point out that as a fat woman in engineering I am subject to a lot of implicit bias in hiring that people tend not to think about because I’m white and straight-presenting. If nothing else it has consistently made the facilitator profoundly uncomfortable that I self-identify as fat, which counts as a win in my book — if you ask me prying questions and don’t regret it, I feel derelict in my duty.

        Reply ↓
    4. Ostrich Herder*

      This is such a good way of putting it, and I think LW would be really well served by borrowing this language!

      There are so many “identities on this wheel of privilege” that someone may not want to bring up at work: neurodiversity, chronic illness, immigration status, things that could genuinely result in LW being treated differently in their role day-to-day, regardless of how “progressive” their workplace is.

      LW, I hope you’re able to give feedback that’s taken seriously!

      Reply ↓
    5. DramaQ*

      RIGHT?! I was thinking the same thing it’s really easy to sit there and encourage other people to share when you are the head of the department and have control over all the attendees who are in no position to discriminate against you without backlash.

      You are the privilege dude!

      Him announcing he is straight and able bodied would make me uncomfortable as well. His announcement tells me NOTHING about whether or not he is an actual ally to the LBQTG community or the disabled.

      I can yell I am white all day long in a room full of POC but that doesn’t inform them on what I think about them as people or that I am actually an advocate. I’ve put them in a position where they have to now acknowledge that I am a “good person” because I openly admit I am a white person in front of POC. I am still turning all the attention on myself and using my privilege to get pats on the back.

      It’s all virtue signaling on this guy’s part and a complete lack of awareness that he is still leveraging his privilege in front of everyone.

      Reply ↓
      1. SubjectAvocado*

        I totally agree. I am a member of an unpopular religion, and many who hear that may make certain assumptions about how I feel about families, LGBTQ+, women, race, etc. that would not actually align with my true beliefs or actions. It’s a privilege to be able to count on not being misunderstood or subject to stereotypes when sharing your identities….and the identity itself will not actually tell you anything about the person’s beliefs.

        Reply ↓
    6. Beth*

      Yes! It sounds like these exercises are talking about every privilege except that very immediate power structure. I mean, she has a department head sharing their ethnic background and nearness to immigration–which pressures others to treat this as a ‘safe space’ and share their own marginalized identities–but no acknowledgement that a senior leader might be safe to do that in a way that a resident isn’t. And so much pressure to participate! It’s clear that whoever designed this didn’t think it through.

      Reply ↓
      1. goddessoftransitory*

        It is EXACTLY that–removing the discussion from the power structure, while using that structure to intimidate.

        Reply ↓
    7. Sparkles McFadden*

      “Let’s talk about privilege and how I can use it to force everyone into an uncomfortable situation.”

      Reply ↓
    8. Media Monkey*

      and that in the real example, the only thing he shared that (i would assume) everyone in the room couldn’t already see was that his parents were immigrants. nothing else was something that would give anyone pause about sharing.

      Reply ↓
    10. Rainy*

      In my experience, the people who facilitate these kinds of exercises are super clueless and think that “owning their privilege” absolves them of any guilt in leveraging that privilege for their own benefit.

      Reply ↓
    11. Nerf*

      I’ve been in similar trainings at my University. In my case, it was a required training for Supervisors, but it had originally been put together as an optional training for anyone. The facilitators didn’t seem to comprehend that it was now a required training for a group of us, and that our attendance wasn’t optional. I was really uncomfortable with exactly what LW brings up – introduce yourself and your various areas of privilege/lack of privilege. Looking at the wheel, it was clear that these are also *protected classes*. I went to my campus’s HR rep to share that while I totally understand the purpose behind this training, it was wholly inappropriate at a *required* training. While we weren’t going to “fail” the training if we didn’t share, it was clearly stated that we were expected to share and that this type of sharing was an essential aspect of the training. I don’t think HR had fully realized what was included in this training (which had some relatively innocuous title), and the ways optional vs required trainings really affect what’s appropriate to include. A conversation about privilege? Great. An opportunity to reflect on our own privilege? Wonderful. Forced outing of our status within protected classes? No.

      Reply ↓
    13. Reading Rainbow*

      I’ll tell you the explanation for this, and it’s that they assume none of these people are marginalized in a way that could be disadvantageous to them to share. This is an exercise to make people realize the privilege they are assuming obviously everyone has so that they appreciate better how Those Other people, who are obviously not here because why would they be, might feel.

      You see this sssssooooo much with these kinds of exercises when talking about disability and class in particular. In society writ large, everyone assumes that disabled people are rare and certainly no one they know is disabled. And as someone who comes from academic medicine, it’s especially a factor there because the overwhelming majority of people you encounter who work in medicine or healthcare administration come from some amount of wealth. There is also a pervasive attitude that no one with any health problems should actually work in health care (see also: the comments of that recent post where someone was being asked to preemptively disclose medical information, where tons of people were insisting that it was Good, Actually for all direct care staff anywhere ever to be required to be 100% able bodied and perfectly healthy).

      Reply ↓
      2. Irish Teacher.*

        Yup, I remember my 6th year Irish teacher talking about “girls in this school” who weren’t as (financially) privileged as we were (she didn’t use those words because it was the late ’90s, but I don’t remember her exact words). In that case, it seemed to be particularly problematic as we were one of the honours classes and it really felt like she was assuming we must be middle class because of course the girls from poorer families would be in the lower ability classes.

        Reply ↓
      3. OP/LW*

        Thank you, I agree that they’re making assumptions about the population in the room. Early in my residency I remember one of my colleagues in one of these trainings saying something like, “I don’t know why you keep talking to me like I don’t know about poverty and racialization and immigration–this is me, this is my family you’re talking about.” I respected him so much for it.

        Reply ↓
        1. Reading Rainbow*

          That’s really gutsy. It is, from my experience anyway, often dangerous to speak up and say “hey I am actually not from the kind of privilege as you” in medicine but someone needs to do it.

          Reply ↓
      4. MigraineMonth*

        Yes, this is so true. The assumption is that we’re having a talk about all of our privilege, because we all have large amounts of it or we wouldn’t be here. Which is often true in many ways (financial privilege sure helps with those medical school bills!) but can be even more othering when it isn’t true.

        I still remember in grad school when my professor decided to have an impromptu discussion about why there weren’t more women in computer science. Where by “discussion” I mean he told me to explain it to him and the rest of the class who were all men.

        Reply ↓
      5. Nightengale*

        medicine also assuming ability

        Literally I had professors tell our class of 258 medical students that “no one here” has (whatever condition/impairment we are discussing) that they had no way of knowing no one had. In some cases, conditions I have. One professor asked a group of 20 of us if anyone had ever taken a long term medication and I was the only one who answered yes. When I commented on this to a classmate he said, “well you can’t be that sick and be a doctor.” At the time, the medications were for allergies and thyroid. . .

        The anti-ableism strategies that tend to work best for med students and doctors turn out to be those run by people who are both disabled and doctors. Just bringing in people to talk about the patient/disability experience doesn’t do it.

        Reply ↓
    14. BlueberryGirl*

      Yes, this! I’ve tried to say this in these sorts of training before and people just stare at me dumb founded.

      Reply ↓
    15. Hot Flash Gordon*

      For sure – publicly identifying myself as a White, Christian, Cis Woman who grew up Middle Class isn’t exactly brave…

      Reply ↓
  5. Pastor Petty Labelle*

    Definitely point this out to whoever coordinates these training. State that by having people declare these things they could be opening up the program to claims of discrimination. Lean on the magic words – lawsuit, discrimination.

    Yes even in the current climate. Because all it takes is one person outing themselves somehow and a boss consciously or unconsciously using that information against the person in an evaluation. Making the program peers even discrimination against peers can be a problem down the line.

    Reply ↓
    1. Observer*

      State that by having people declare these things they could be opening up the program to claims of discrimination. Lean on the magic words – lawsuit, discrimination.

      This was my first thought.

      This mess is the worst of both worlds. On the one hand, it totally falls into all of the stereotypes that a lot of the anti-DEI people talk about. And for a change, they would be right.

      On the other hand, the chance of a lawsuit – and of *losing* that lawsuit- because of information revealed in these meetings is really, really high. The chance of just getting sued, with all the attendant costs, is astronomical.

      So I agree. Aside from the other very good reasons why this needs to stop, the legal peril to the organization is real. And there is *nothing* about this that makes it a worthwhile risk.

      Reply ↓
    2. Ex-Teacher*

      Exactly! LW says there are people who evaluate them in this training. If LW reveals any information associated with a protected class, then the moment LW receives a negative evaluation from one of those people, they have a non-frivolous claim of discrimination that violates federal and (likely) state law.

      Even if the claim is baseless, there’s valid issues to be investigated and litigated in court. What attorney is okay with that?

      Reply ↓
  6. LoV...*

    Considering the way everything is going in America right now, thinking that revealing information like that is a good idea seems to be divorced from reality. Even just generally, some of that stuff isn’t other people’s business.

    Reply ↓
    1. Not Tom, Just Petty*

      snowglobe’s comment that this exercise in itself is a show of privilege and power. He can expose his history, his relationship status and his social status because in itself, it gives him authority and power. The opposite of making oneself vulnerable.

      Reply ↓
    2. point of order*

      The people governing America right now are the ones who oppose diversity trainings like this and who are doing something about it. The opposition party is the one that adored them.

      Reply ↓
        1. Andromeda Carr*

          Trainings such as the piece of foolishness described are beyond useless and into actively harmful. That disclaimered, saying that plane crashes happened “because of DEI” and removing Stonewall, Harriet Tubman, and the Windtalkers (among others) from government information pages are not at all about getting rid of trainings like this but about getting rid of all but a very bleached version of US history. Efforts against bigotry will be “yesterday” when bigotry is in the past.

          Reply ↓
      2. katydid*

        the people governing America right now do not oppose these trainings for anything close to the same reasons that the OP and the majority of the folks commenting do!

        I think what LoV meant was that the climate is such right now that the protections that some marginalized identities had are under threat, such that even announcing in a “safe space” that you are, say, disabled does not necessarily feel safe to do.

        Reply ↓
      4. CrazyCatDude*

        The current government doesn’t oppose diversity training like this alone. It opposes any DEI efforts, even those that have a proven and quantifiable impact on developing a more equitable workplace.

        There are bad ways to conduct diversity training. But there are also good way, and this administration is punishing anyone regardless of whether their programs are good or bad.

        Reply ↓
      7. aebhel*

        There’s a difference between opposing diversity trainings because you don’t think anyone who’s not a straight, white, cis, able-bodied Christian man should have a job, and opposing poorly-executed and invasive diversity trainings like the one in question. The people governing America right now are solidly in the first category, stop being disingenuous.

        Reply ↓
  7. Robbie*

    oof, there are a thousand ways this won’t go well.

    in my job we are required to be willing to open like this, but that is a) the very nature of the position itself, you know that going in, And b) with a clear goal of why we socially locate ourselves and how it can serve us and our folks better.

    and it is STILL a big deal, even with all of the guardrails and preparation we can put in there. to do that with an organization where the folks don’t sign up for it, and where there are no safety features, is going to cause a lot of problems.

    Reply ↓
    1. Trotwood*

      Even when it’s well-intentioned it’s really dangerous to start down a path where identity characteristics are seen as a credential to do a job…there was a story on here some months ago where a woman was being heavily pressured by her manager about why it was inappropriate to identify as bisexual in her workplace providing outreach to LGBT+ youth. I think the manager was saying that “bisexual” is insufficiently inclusive and that she should either identify as pansexual, or she could say that she was a straight ally. Your workplace just should not be evaluating your fitness to do a job on the basis of protected characteristics, period.

      Reply ↓
        1. ChurchOfDietCoke*

          I also recall reading this story about someone being told that her bisexuality wasn’t quite…. spicy enough? And she was pushed to self-identify as pansexual even though that was NOT her identity. But I’m not sure it was on AAM?

          Reply ↓
          1. Trotwood*

            It’s possible that it was on reddit or in another advice column…I’m not really sure how to dig it back up. But I’m sure we’re remembering the same thing.

            Reply ↓
          2. Chirpy*

            It’s unfortunately a common thing for bisexuals in opposite sex relationships and other identities such as asexuals/demisexuals/etc to be told they aren’t “queer enough” to be included in LGBTQIA spaces. Yet clearly, they are! It’s in the acronym!

            Reply ↓
      2. Hlao-roo*

        Are you referring to the “I think my disastrous ex-employee is co-opting queer identity” letter from January 8, 2025? I’ll link in a follow-up comment.

        A few of the details are different (the letter-writer wasn’t pressuring Pam to ID as pansexual and it was an LGBT+ employee resource group, not a youth outreach group) but the point about good intentions around identity leading to some icky places still stands.

        Reply ↓
        2. Elle*

          There are a lot of Pams running company employee resource groups (ERGs). They’re usually decent leadership and growth opportunities, so out of a handful of bisexuals usually most of us are regular people who are active in our community and there’s like one or two Pams who say really grating shit and generally only go to fun events but aren’t reaaaally hurting anyone, and have a husband at home who is “totally an ally” and then you meet him at an event and he immediately says something trans/homophobic.

          But I may be bitter because our Black ERG is currently headed by a white woman.

          Reply ↓
      3. Elle*

        I don’t recall this one, but I feel like I wouldn’t be surprised by it. People seem to really hate when bisexuals identify as bisexual and do bisexual things. I am floored by the insane biphobia of telling a bisexual to identify as a straight ally, but I love the mental image of being in bed with my girlfriend and turning to her and going, “Babe? Do you think I’m a good straight ally?”

        Reply ↓
      4. FD*

        Ugh, we have got to stop that. There aren’t enough of us to be getting choosy about who’s queer enough. Both bi people and ace people seem to get it a lot.

        Reply ↓
        1. Statler von Waldorf*

          As an ace person, I can confirm that. I’ve caught more bullets from the queer community than the straight one over it, and it’s not even close.

          Reply ↓
          1. different seudonym*

            Well, that’s grim to hear; sorry you’re dealing with it. I had really been hoping these things would die out…

            Reply ↓
  8. Ann Onymous*

    It’s interesting to me that people who promote these sorts of privilege-awareness type exercises are completely missing the fact that being confident they can safely share their identity in a work setting is a big sign of being privileged.

    Reply ↓
  9. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

    ‘I do not feel comfortable sharing overly personal information such as gender, health, family status and religion. I’m happy to say that I got my qualifications at university X’

    But yeah, complain via evaluations or to whoever is organising this because this kind of stuff is actually highly toxic. Forcing people to share what ‘groups’ they belong to may seem like it’s encouraging diversity and inclusion and all that good stuff but it’s actually highly alienating and often does the exact opposite.

    You become the group label, not the person. ‘Oh that’s Keymaster the pagan pansexual disabled cis woman’ instead of ‘oh that’s Keymaster who’s wickedly good at getting the database online and has a weird sense of humour’.

    Channel your inner Granny Weatherwax.

    Reply ↓
      1. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

        I don’t know who Bartleby is, but I’m having a good time visualising Granny Weatherwax being told to state what religion she is..

        Reply ↓
        1. Audrey Puffins*

          Bartleby the Scrivener, whose response to any and every request is “I would prefer not to.” (Not Pratchett, Melville iirc)

          Reply ↓
            1. aaaaaaaaaa*

              You should! If you like Terry Pratchett’s satirical, absurdist, and sometimes just wacky sense of humor about how weird culture is, Melville has a lot of that too. Bartleby is a great place to start (it was my first Melville). Plus it’s a short story, so minimal time commitment.

              Reply ↓
          2. Sir Nose d'Voidoffunk*

            Literally until the moment I read this, I had been internalizing Bartleby as a Dickens character. I learned something today!

            Reply ↓
            1. Reluctant Mezzo*

              There is also a columnist at The Economist who goes off on the absurdity of office life and top down initiatives who is called Bartleby. Not as savage as Terry Pratchett, but has the same flavor of British snark.

              Reply ↓
    2. Rex Libris*

      I would (and have) respond with “I’m an extreme introvert, so I’m sure you can respect that I’m uncomfortable sharing such personal information in a group setting.”

      Reply ↓
      2. Hey, I'm Wohrking Heah!*

        Yeah that’s good cover. My better half is an extreme introvert and would probably quit over something like this. Sad that we’ve reached a point where all info is considered fair game for work so you need a Reason to opt out.

        Reply ↓
  10. busy_woman*

    oh my god this is so common in nonprofit spaces.

    i once had a dei training where we all had to make a “cake walk” of our various identities: sexuality, race, whether you grew up in poverty, whether you had a computer, whether you had a college degree. TERRIBLE. AWFUL. and so common.

    i had ANOTHER dei traininng where you had to take a step forward for a named privledge, and a step backwards for a disadvantage. it was like a buzzfeed listicle of “did you go hungry as a child”, “did you loved by your caregivers”, “have you ever been discriminated against because of your race” and you had to step forward and back in a room full of your co-workers

    and yet ANOTHER training on “imposter syndrome” that was basically the faciliator sharing their personal traumas (suicide of a loved one, sexual assault) while everyone in the room wrote on a notecard the names of people who loved them

    NONPROFITS….MAY WE STOP THIS!!!! i hate it!!!! it’s not helpful! everyone should just go to private therapy and we can talk about how to dismantle structural barriers in a way that’s actually helpful and give people healthcare and time off instead of paying for these deeply not-good trainings!

    i hate the attacks on dei — they’re horrible and motivated by racism. but some of these trainings are not. it. and we need to rebuild some boundaries.

    Reply ↓
    1. Elle*

      We’ve also had some doozies. The one with the extremely hostile facilitators who yelled. It was like scared straight for workplace diversity awareness.

      Reply ↓
    2. Jennifer Strange*

      i once had a dei training where we all had to make a “cake walk” of our various identities:

      Was it specifically called a cake walk? Because that term has such a sordid history that it’s incredibly tone deaf to use it when talking about DEI!

      It feels like folks think discussions about privilege and DEI needs to be “fun” in order to keep our interest, in the way teachers make games to get kids to participate in learning. But DEI really doesn’t need a fun factor. It needs being willing and able to listen, being able to address one’s own biases (conscious or unconscious), and putting in the work to see things from someone else’s perspective. DEI Jeopardy isn’t going to solve that.

      Reply ↓
        1. bleh*

          Dear goddess, I never knew that’s where cakewalks originated. Those church carnival memories will never be the same. Gah

          Reply ↓
          1. Reluctant Mezzo*

            My husband and I did, so when we did a cakewalk, it was the full-on Supreme version with fancy choreography. Everyone looked at us funny.

            Reply ↓
      4. My Brain is Exploding*

        I just looked up that term. It has three meanings; I didn’t know the one you mentioned. I remember it as an event we had in elementary school where you literally walked around chairs and could win a cake!

        Reply ↓
      5. Great Frogs of Literature*

        I think that the thing that those exercises are very good at is demonstrating that the people who have a lot of privilege and have never really thought about it… have a lot of privilege. It can be eye-opening in a way that’s valuable.

        BUT they do it by making it uncomfortable and awkward for the people who don’t have a lot of privilege and have to admit it in front of their colleagues. I don’t think it’s worth it.

        I would love better ways to accomplish the first part without the second part.

        Reply ↓
      7. Rock Prof*

        Not to derail too much, but I was in a DEI session where one of the facilitators used the phrase, “open the kimono.” I know it’s more common in some tech worlds, but it still does not seem like a really appropriate phrase here. I think a couple of us were fairly aghast and called them out on it, but there was never anything else said about it.

        Reply ↓
    3. Snoozing not schmoozing*

      Ooh, I hated those! I thought of those exercises as The Great Dividers, especially your second example, also known as Let’s Humiliate Our Colleagues Who Did Not Live In Privileged Households. Ugh.

      Reply ↓
    4. AnonForThis*

      ….God, that second one would leave me unable to go to work for a week.

      I did go hungry as a child, often, while seemingly living in a nice middle class family. The stuff I went through as a kid gave me diagnosed PTSD and worse.

      But you know. Sure. I’d loooooove to retraumatize myself in front of all my colleagues and my boss.

      Reply ↓
      1. busy_woman*

        yeah i believe there was also a question on whether or not your parent was abusive, which was fun

        “went to therapy for three years for this, hope that’s ok if i refrain” makes things awkward. almost as awkward as asking that question in the first place. are we going to compare ACE scores next? is that fun?

        had another training that literally asked “what’s the worst thing that ever happened to you” i think we need to pause on letting anybody facilitate anything without a license honestly. none are trained mental health care providers and frankly have no business doing any of that.

        (fwiw it’s often the case that no one realizes how Bad it is until the facilitator — who usually comes recommended — begins. now we pre-vet, but it’s still a mixed bag.

        our current facilitator made a big deal of asking everyone’s pronouns — good, best practice — and then misgendered a non-binary staff person repeatedly)

        it’s… a shitshow

        Reply ↓
        1. ursula*

          I’m so with you on this. It always feels like they’re starting from the assumption that no one in the room will have experienced anything *that* bad. Which is a pretty high-stakes thing to be wrong about in this context!

          Reply ↓
          1. Sabina*

            Absolutely. I had a boss whose wife was murdered by their son years before he came to the organization. Some people knew became it was a small town, but it was not generally known. I can’t imagine such history being discussed in a workplace context.

            Reply ↓
          2. iglwif*

            Yes, the ironic thing is that the more diverse your actual workplace is, the worse this activity becomes.

            I personally feel that unpacking your privilege backpack should be a more private exercise.

            Reply ↓
        2. Quill*

          Jeez. It’s bad enough when it’s “what would you tell your 13 year old self” (get out get out get out) which at least start as thoughts about lighthearted or career oriented results, but “worst thing that ever happened to you?”

          Really sounds like someone is mining that training for drama for their personal satisfaction.

          Reply ↓
          1. Great plan you got there, Jan.*

            Mine’s not even “get out get out get out” and I’m still not sharing it in a room full of strangers.

            Actually, if I could tell my THIRTEEN year old self anything, it’s “your grandma is going to pop a pancreatic tumor any day now, make her get a checkup or it’ll kill her.” Which is… not really the vibe (TM).

            Reply ↓
          2. Hey, I'm Wohrking Heah!*

            Yup, they probably put it all on a blog. It can easily turn into one-upping or having to make up “I Had it Worse.” When really, celebrating our successes is emotionally healthier for most people and workplaces.

            Reply ↓
        3. Zarniwoop*

          “went to therapy for three years for this, hope that’s ok if i refrain” makes things awkward.

          Like they say “Return awkward to sender.”

          Reply ↓
          1. iglwif*

            One time years ago, I was casually chatting with a coworker and said something about being kind of irresponsible at 21, “you know how it is.” They told me no, they didn’t know, because when they were 21, they were temporarily homeless.

            I had never before had the awkward returned to me so quickly and so hard, and I’ve never forgotten the feeling. It’s made me more careful about my assumptions since! (Not that I’ve never messed up again, because I have.)

            I had thought this coworker and I knew each other pretty well, and we’d discussed a lot of other fairly personal stuff about both our lives; there were other things I would never have said to them because of facts I knew, but this was a new one. You truly never know what experiences people are just not telling you about because they’re not your business!

            Reply ↓
        4. goddessoftransitory*

          There have been a lot of AAM letters about using this kind of thing as an interview question or in “get to know you” bonding sessions, and it’s always a terrible idea!

          I go with the quote “Be kind. Everyone you know is fighting a hard battle.”

          Reply ↓
      2. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

        I truly despise anyone trying to get me to share my traumas who isn’t my medical professionals. Because trust me you do NOT want to hear about the stuff my brain reminds me of at 3am when I wake screaming.

        Reply ↓
    5. asloan*

      Yeah, the last time we did a priviledge walk there was like one POC woman who ended up really far behind everyone else, and it was very noticeable and she looked uncomfortable … I was like “what is the point of this?? this seems like it is actively other-ing this poor woman who already has to deal with BS 24/7??” I actually think it’s great to privately reflect on advantages you may be unaware of (grandparents owned their home, family members able to take advantage of the GI Bill, etc etc) but we aren’t doing it right at the moment.

      Reply ↓
      1. UKDancer*

        Yes we had a list of markers of privilege shared at an event at work as a thing tobtake away and consider. The event was organised by the BAME staff network.

        it was fascinating and eye opening to me that things I viewed as normal (e.g. having more than 15 books) were a marker.

        But there is a big difference between giving it to people as a document to take away and making people do it as an exercise which is humiliating.

        Reply ↓
        1. Magnolia Clyde*

          I’ve had to do one “privilege walk” at work. I would have felt far more comfortable and would have gotten more out of it (in terms of reflection) if we’d had a list like that!

          I don’t feel like my coworkers should have been put on the spot and asked to disclose whether they’ve experienced trauma. I feel like it would’ve been a better tool for long-term reflection if we’d had a list of things to keep in mind — rather than going through each others’ private histories.

          Reply ↓
          1. UKDancer*

            Nobody should be asked at work events if they’ve experienced trauma. It’s deeply humiliating and people shouldn’t have to admit it.

            I mean I had a colleague who survived the Biafra famine. Many of her family didn’t. It was a thing she didn’t want to talk about, discuss or remember. So we didn’t ask her about it and I only know because she told me once in a private conversation and did not discuss her past.

            It’s not like Top Trumps where you get more points for it the worse it is.

            Reply ↓
    6. TCO*

      I also work in nonprofits and see some really uncomfortable things in the DEI “training” realm. There are ways to teach and learn that don’t put a spotlight on colleagues who are already plenty well aware of their differences and lack of privilege.

      As others noted above, it’s often those with the most privilege and power who feel the most comfortable stating their identities in this kind of setting.

      Reply ↓
      1. Elsa*

        Omg as someone who lives outside the US, all these horror stories about DEI programming gone horribly wrong makes me kind of understand why the current administration in the US is so eager to get rid of it.

        Reply ↓
        1. Tea Monk*

          No. That’s not it. They are deleting black figures from websites, removing books by gay people from libraries.

          Reply ↓
          1. Le Sigh*

            And they’re not stopping there. They’re also passing EOs and laws that actively harm people of color, women, trans people and other members of the LGBTQIA+ community, etc. They’re working to erase the existence of anyone who isn’t white and Christian, and doesn’t fall in line with their agenda.

            The administration doesn’t give two figs about wayward DEI training, it’s just another avenue to enforce their agenda.

            Reply ↓
          3. Reluctant Mezzo*

            Also, removing books about the Holocaust from the Naval Academy library and telling enlisted people at a training school that they can’t write about women or minorities (straight from military.com).

            Reply ↓
        2. busy_woman*

          to be clear i don’t think the people seeking to get rid of it are doing so on these grounds. i don’t want to get rid of DEI programs even if i’ve seen a lot of bad ones, i think we just should raise the standard there so they don’t cross inappropiate lines. trump admin doesn’t care about any of that. they just want to blame a person of color for a plane crash.

          Reply ↓
        3. Le Sigh*

          The current administration isn’t eager to get rid of DEI trainings bc of issues like this. While these trainings are seriously misguided and problematic, let’s be very, very clear on something — the US is dealing with a far right authoritarian takeover and attacking DEI is a smokescreen to it’s larger agenda. We do ourselves a massive disservice to pretend otherwise.

          Reply ↓
        4. Elle*

          The political stuff is way more complicated than workplace trainings. But since that the only thing people are aware of it that’s what it gets compared to.

          Reply ↓
        5. Seashell*

          No, they’re eager to get rid of it because they’re bigots who don’t want their hatred to be discussed or pointed out.

          Reply ↓
        6. Rex Libris*

          They’re using these sorts of stories to generate outrage, and cover for their actual agenda, which is basically to marginalize PoC and LGBTQ+ people into nonexistence, and completely remove them from public view or discourse.

          Reply ↓
        9. Andromeda Carr*

          Yeah, no. They don’t want to get rid of misguided programs like this. They want to slander, despise, and get rid of people.

          Here’s an example that might have escaped your newsfeed: when a cargo ship knocked down a major bridge in an important port city (Baltimore, MD), half the news coverage called the mayor, who is Black, “DEI mayor” while blaming him for no actual good reason. That was before the current administration came to power but it was stated and amplified by people working in the current administration now, and repeated by goodness knows how many who voted it in.

          Reply ↓
        10. iglwif*

          Yeah, no.

          Take a look at what else they’re doing! In no way is this about weeding out poorly conceived DEI training sessions — it’s about whitewashing US history, erasing the contributions and achievements of BIPOC and/or women and/or LGBTQ+ people, and opening the spigot of homophobia, transphobia, racism, Islamophobia, antisemitism, and other flavours of bigotry to maximum.

          Reply ↓
        11. LL*

          No, they don’t want to get rid of DEI trainings, they want to get rid of the concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace because they are extremely bigoted and think that white men can’t catch a break anymore. They have no idea what these trainings are like. They’re just being racist

          Reply ↓
    7. Media Monkey*

      *trigger warning for child loss*
      there’s a DEI training that you can find on You Tube where they are getting people to step forward if they like football, or whatever, to show that there’s more that unites than divides the group. the moderator carries on through to “step forward if you’ve lost a child”. it’s truly awful (and i know about it as someone on the DEI committee that i was on in that job wanted to do something like that with the company (clearly no one allowed her to).

      Reply ↓
    8. Tea Monk*

      Yea I can’t even do feelings check ins ( everyone else: my entire family was carried away by geese so a 7. me: I didn’t eat breakfast this morning: 3) and they want me to be telling people my identity? nope

      Reply ↓
    9. Nightengale*

      we did this during orientation for medical school. They asked about disability. I was the only one. (At the time I wasn’t using a cane and wasn’t read as disabled.) It definitely set the stage for my realizing how alone I was going to be as a disabled medical student and later doctor.

      On the other hand, it told me our diversity office considered disability as an aspect of diversity. I pretty much moved into their office for the next 4 years. It was the only place I got support and I also helping with efforts on intersectional diversity in health care which is still really central to my work.

      Reply ↓
    11. Irish Teacher.*

      i once had a dei training where we all had to make a “cake walk” of our various identities: sexuality, race, whether you grew up in poverty, whether you had a computer, whether you had a college degree. TERRIBLE. AWFUL. and so common.

      And what even counts as “grew up in poverty”? Like I grew up on benefits which I guess is almost as low-income as possible (in Ireland), but I was never homeless, I was never hungry, we never had trouble paying our bills, we were never in debt, my parents owned our home (my dad had inherited it). There are people with higher incomes than we had who grew up in more difficult circumstances because of debt or because their parents had addictions or whatever.

      I mean poverty isn’t an “all or nothing.” It’s not like “if your parents earned less than $400 a week, you experienced poverty, but if they had $401 or more, you didn’t.”

      And “were you loved by your caregivers?” is even less all-or-nothing. Parents can love their kids and still do things that harm them.

      I know that’s far from the biggest problem but I mean, those questions don’t even really even have yes or no answers.

      Reply ↓
    12. Silver Robin*

      reading all of these has been fascinating (horrible too) because the one time I was ever asked to do this (step forward/backwards), we were all given cards with assorted profiles on them. Nobody was responding as themselves, they were responding based on a fake character bio that had the necessary info. Then we looked around and talked about what it helped us realize, what it felt like to be wherever we were in relation to everyone else. Nobody had to mention anything personal *at all* though you could obviously do it for yourself in your head and reflect on that.

      Reply ↓
  11. Snarkus Aurelius*

    This approach completely misses the point of privilege: you don’t know how much you have nor how much it has helped you over the course of your life. That’s why unconscious bias training exists.

    You may also want to suggest hiring a *trained facilitator* to head up a one or two time discussion, e.g. Robin DiAngelo. Well-meaning but untrained people can easily shit the bed on these topics. I’ve seen it happen!

    Just because you’re woke with good intentions doesn’t mean you’ll never offend anyone. I have an invisible disability that I don’t disclose at work. I’d be furious if I had to!

    Finally, I can appreciate the idea, but real change can only happen in laws and other mandated public policies. For example, a salary study at your hospital would be far more effective in correcting pay inequities than telling people you’re the child of immigrants or where you went to med school. You can’t declare your workplace DEI-friendly and call it a day. Sitting around and talking about social justice issues where everyone mostly agrees with each other is ultimately meaningless unless your goal is to feel good about yourself.

    Reply ↓
    1. busy_woman*

      “For example, a salary study at your hospital would be far more effective in correcting pay inequities than telling people you’re the child of immigrants or where you went to med school”

      THIS. so many places — especially nonprofits — love to do this and then pay their people nothing and not cover healthcare. i’m lucky my workplace takes both seriously — but it’s a lot more helpful for workplaces to ensure they’re a good, healthy workplace and give people access to resources they need than it is to ask everyone to self-disclose personal information to coworkers. and there are a lot of people that use their experiences of struggle to justify forcing others through needless obstacles — “i had to deal with it, so you do too” is so common.

      Reply ↓
    2. Morgi Corgi*

      This so much. I do DEI work at my hospital and keep having this argument with leadership. Like, it’s great they’re finally raising the pride flag and all but it would help a lot more if we made policy changes (like using a person’s chosen name on their wrist band, offering insurance help to transgender patients, including sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression in the anti-discrimination policy, etc.) But that stuff requires actual work and doesn’t “feel good” so I get push back.

      Reply ↓
      1. Snarkus Aurelius*

        I compare DEI efforts to environmentalism: the people in charge delude us into thinking *individual* change will make a huge difference so that we’re not distracted by the fact that real, substantive change isn’t going to come from powerless individuals who don’t oversee the large-scale systems, courts, and legislatures that uphold crappy outcomes.

        For example, Duke Energy does more environmental destruction in a day than I will in my whole life. But environmental PR campaigns make us think that recycling a water bottle will make a difference when in reality big companies, like Duke Energy, and systems can reduce far more environmental destruction by majorly overhauling federal and state laws along with company policies and procedures. But they don’t want to do that because of reason$, and they don’t want us to know that.

        Similarly, the LW’s hospital can address pay inequities, actively pursue diverse candidates for key roles than passive recruitment or enacting policies that reduce discriminatory practices. I guarantee you no one in the room where these conversations are taking place can do any of those things. Only people in power can do that.

        I read a Harvard Business Review article that said the more diverse a workplace claims to be, the less they actually are because they’re focused on rhetoric rather than employment practices.

        If I were feeling snarky, I’d ask, “what’s the connection between these discussions and reducing discriminatory practices, like the pay gap, and creating a more equitable work environment with measurable outcomes?” But that’s just me.

        Reply ↓
        1. Slow Gin Lizz*

          Yeah, it’s like greenwashing, which makes me crazy. I basically don’t trust any company that says its products are green unless I can do the work to find out if it’s really true or not (and who has the time to do that kind of research? not me).

          I’m feeling extremely grateful for my current workplace’s DEI trainings, at which they said multiple times that you do not have to share anything you don’t feel comfortable with, or anything at all if you don’t want to. But I work for a very progressive institution in a very progressive city, so if we’re not doing DEI training well it would be really, really bad.

          Reply ↓
        2. Elle*

          This is so well put. People get upset when I say I’m anti DEI. I’m anti DEI because my company loves to brag about being the best place to work for LGBTQ people and insists we all put our pronouns into our email signatures and various programs, but when I signed up for my health insurance and asked about coverage for my trans spouse, I got a disgusted reaction (and no useful information about our benefits).

          Reply ↓
          1. PMJX*

            Well, it’s confusing that you say you are opposed to diversity, equity, and inclusion. You didn’t say that you’re “anti DEI programming at my office” or “anti the actions of the DEI office at my workplace”, but anti those concepts themselves.

            Reply ↓
          2. Isabeautiful*

            That’s performative “DEI”. Which I’m not saying to be a no-true-Scotsman about this, but I’m wondering — similar to what PMJX said — if part of the reaction you get is because of the difference between “I’m against the idea of diversity” rather than “I’m against trivial changes that don’t actually make any difference”.

            If someone told me they were “anti DEI” I’d think they wanted more white cishet-presenting men.

            Reply ↓
    4. ad astra*

      While I fully agree that this exercise is BAD and Should Not Be Done, hiring an outside trained facilitator is probably going to be WAY out of budget at the level of most small residency programs. Most (if not all) of our lecturers are volunteering their time and/or are staff of the associated university or hospital.

      Reply ↓
      1. ad astra*

        Also the fact that it’s a residency setting in particular is part of both what makes this so bad (hierarchies galore!!) AND means that discrimination is going to be so much more personal. Resident salaries are set at an institutional level and are extremely fixed (year 1 you make X, year 2 you make X plus 1k, etc). So any discrimination that’s going to occur is going to be at the personal level, likely via either evaluations or interpersonal communication. I

        Reply ↓
  13. WorkerJawn*

    This sort of training is extra infuriating in the context of medical training. There are so so many issues with the biases/bigotry our medical system perpetuates and straight up causes. None of them will be solved by trainees out themselves to attendings.

    Reply ↓
  14. Khatul Madame*

    I think the way the LW introduces themselves is a good compromise and I like that they lead by example. Who cares if it causes a minute of awkward silence?
    Speaking out in the moment may put the LW at a greater risk and I am not sure if they have enough capital to bear the consequences. Raising this in course eval is a good compromise.

    Reply ↓
  15. GreenApplePie*

    The whole “are we supposed to out ourselves” dilemma is why I’ve never been in support of asking for pronouns/requiring pronouns in email signatures, nametags etc.

    Before I came out as trans and started presenting as openly trans at work, my options were to lie (and make it extremely difficult to come out later without people getting their feelings hurt) or out myself immediately while still presenting as cis and open myself up to harassment and intrusive questions about my sexual history.

    People at work are not entitled to know about anyone’s gender/sexuality situation and quite frankly it’s an invasion of privacy. Obviously this doesn’t apply if someone voluntarily shares their pronouns or comes out

    Reply ↓
    1. asloan*

      The mandatory pronoun thing is not my fave part of being in a liberal nonprofit. Because now if you don’t do it, that would be taken to mean you don’t support trans people or something, which is not at all my issue with the practice.

      Reply ↓
      1. asloan*

        Also, to be honest, I’m not sure how an endless row of nice white ladies saying they use she/her actually makes the ONE conspicuous person asking for they/them or whatever feel any more comfortable. I hope it genuinely does though. I’ve just seen it land kind of awkwardly more than once, like it almost called MORE attention to that person who was presumably just trying to live their best life and get through this dumb meeting.

        Reply ↓
        1. Lily Rowan*

          This is actually why I often *don’t* share my pronouns when “everyone else” is doing it – to leave space for people to skip it! (I am a nice white lady.)

          Reply ↓
          1. ChurchOfDietCoke*

            Yep! Another straight white middle aged lady here in an organisation that is awash with straight white middle aged ladies, and I definitely DO NOT share my pronouns. You can assume my pronouns from my sex, if you want to, but I have the freedom to choose not to shout ‘SHE HER’ from the rooftops and I want to ensure others have the same right.

            (Frankly, I used to work in an organisation full of straight white middle aged men and advertising my sheherness would just have been yet more ammunition to expect me to make the tea…)

            Reply ↓
            1. UKDancer*

              Same. I work in a very male dominated industry and sector. The last thing I want to do is remind them I’m female by giving pronouns. My job is hard enough.

              Reply ↓
          2. municipal*

            I also skip it. But I liken it to allowing people to decide for themselves whether they want to be Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms. or Dr. or whether we should call someone Sam, Samantha, Samuel or Cooper. It’s just a nice ritual to assure people that you will defer to their preferences. If your preference isn’t strong and/or if you think people’s first guess is most likely accurate, it is OK to skip.

            Reply ↓
          3. Sarah With an H*

            I skip it for the same reason; it’s been interesting reading this thread.
            I do know some trans and nonbinary folks who do appreciate including pronouns, which I definitely respect. But I also don’t want people to feel pressured into giving pronouns because they may not want to out themselves and now they have to either do that or lie, or they may not totally have it figured out yet. Plus, depending on the situation (eg, a meeting of people I probably mostly won’t see again vs people I regularly will talk to and about), does it really matter? If its already hard to remember a bunch of new people’s names it’ll be even harder to remember new names + pronouns, and most people will probably revert back to guessing. Which defeats the point.
            But also gender is messy, and we’re in a period where perceptions of gender and sex are changing/expanding, so the ways people try to figure it out are going to be imperfect and sometimes weird or silly or annoying.

            Reply ↓
        2. stormyweather*

          I can answer that: it most certainly DOES NOT.
          Pronouns are well intentioned and I get it, but they are not supportive to me. I don’t want to make my gender identity, or lack thereof, a thing. I just do not.

          Reply ↓
        3. Potato Potato*

          It’s been a mixed bag for me as a binary trans person. Most of the time, I’d share my pronouns (he/him) and nobody would use them, and it just felt like “what’s the point of outing myself, then?”. Occasionally, it meant that me and the one other trans person would find each other. And very rarely, somebody would actually use those pronouns.

          Now I have the opposite problem, tbh. My pronouns are still he/him and most people default to that without me speaking up, but if I out myself as trans, people suddenly use they/them for me.

          Reply ↓
        4. Generic Name*

          I, a (hopefully) nice middle-aged white lady don’t put pronouns on anything in the hopes that it makes at least 1 person feel more comfortable to not share their pronouns if they don’t want to.

          Reply ↓
        5. She / her*

          I (cis female, white) have a somewhat uncommon first name that – for reasons unknown to me, seems to be mistaken for a male name – and my last name is a common man’s name. My middle name is one that could go either way – except it’s spelled in the feminine form. I use gender pronouns in the hope that I’ll stop being addressed as [Last Name]/assumed to be a man; or Mr. [First Name]. Because evidently the middle name – which I use in my e-sig – isn’t enough of a clue.

          Reply ↓
          1. Grimalkin*

            Handshake of solidarity. I’m nonbinary, assigned female at birth, white. My chosen first name was supposed to be unisex, but leans male a lot more than I anticipated. Even having my pronouns (she/they–really leaning more towards they, but I don’t need to get into that in the workplace) in my work signature hasn’t prevented a few instances of he/him or “Mr. ChosenName” on the job. Luckily when it happens I’m sometimes amused, slightly irritated at worst; I know not everyone can take misgendering in stride that way.

            Reply ↓
        6. Never mind...*

          Definitely optional to indicate pronouns where I work; I added mine to my e-mail signature when the current administration started its war on DEI.

          Reply ↓
      2. Enai*

        Hm, interesting! Much as I would like to never think about people’s genitals I live in a world where politeness demands I take a guess. That’s why I like it if people tell me how to address their work persona. I would very much prefer if we didn’t have to strictly gender how we talk about and to others, but here we are :-/
        And that doesn’t even go into the whole kerfuffle some disagreeable types make out of trans people literally just existing.

        Reply ↓
    2. Morgi Corgi*

      As someone who is also trans and openly shares their pronouns on their work badge and email signature, I agree. For a long time I did not share that information at work, and even now that I’m out I don’t necessarily volunteer it to patients. It should never be mandatory to share your pronouns. It’s also why I don’t ask patients “what are your pronouns” and instead ask “would you like me to add pronouns to your medical chart?” I love when people feel comfortable enough to share them, that’s awesome, but the world isn’t very safe for trans people right now and not all of us want to out themselves.

      Reply ↓
    3. Elle*

      Very agreed. I’ve had several well-meaning straights (quelle surprise: nice white ladies) express disapproval that I don’t have my pronouns in my email signature.

      To me it really illustrates that a practice can start with good intentions but turn into a conformism exercise.

      Reply ↓
    4. Someone Online*

      It is optional at my workplace and as a nice, middle-aged white woman I went ahead and added mine because maybe it would make people feel more comfortable or maybe not. But then the current federal administration prohibited it for the federal workforce and as somewhat adjacent to that, I am now sharing my pronouns just to be ornery.

      Reply ↓
    5. DramaQ*

      This is a question I got wrong on our diversity training because it said you should ask your co-worker about their preferred pronouns. I disagreed because I grew up in the 90s with “don’t ask don’t tell” and we really haven’t moved the needle as far as we think about acceptance.

      My coworker has no idea if I am an ally or not. They may not be comfortable outing themselves at work.

      IMO their pronouns are theirs to share, not my business to ask for.

      I can see where whoever it is that made that question is coming from but they are not keeping in mind that they’ve likely never had any question them or worse about their pronouns. I am a cis female and present as one so saying my pronouns are “she/her” or someone asking me isn’t a risk.

      It could be a real risk to a coworker who is transitioning or non-binary. I am not being an ally when I assume everyone wants me to be thoughtful and ask about their pronouns.

      I am an ally when someone tells me of their own free will and I respect that and use them. I have no right to that knowledge otherwise.

      Reply ↓
    6. Mad Scientist*

      Yeah, I’ve even seen this happen in social settings. A friend of mine once hosted a party and invited some of her coworkers. Their workplace had normalized sharing pronouns as essentially a mandatory practice (I don’t think it was an official policy but it might as well have been). So while the host was going around introducing her friends to her coworkers, the coworkers demanded pronouns every single time. I say demanded because when a couple people tried to skip the question and just say their names instead, these coworkers just kept repeating the pronoun question more loudly (and angrily, or at least that’s how it sounded to me, as if they were horrified that anyone wouldn’t want to readily answer that question upon meeting a stranger). And yes, these were all straight, cisgender, white women. I’m sure they had good intentions, but the few queer folks at the party were clearly uncomfortable. I understand that people don’t want to have to assume pronouns and accidentally offend someone, but when in doubt, you can always just use the person’s name!

      Reply ↓
      1. UKDancer*

        Yikes on bikes. That sounds very awkward.

        I mean I don’t think it’s a good idea to try and make people share pronouns at work, and it’s certainly not a good idea to do it in a social setting. How to spoil a party in one easy move.

        Reply ↓
  16. Richard Hershberger*

    Now this is a letter I can really get my hate on! I have, in my advancing years, grown increasingly conscious of my privilege, and of my sinful habit of swimming in that water unselfconsciously. This is a matter for pastoral counseling. It is not a topic for a mandatory workplace confessional.

    Reply ↓
  17. Angstrom*

    Asking people to reflect on it — silently — is fine. “Take a moment, think about this.”
    Pressuring people to expose themselves in an uncomfortable environment is not ok.

    Reply ↓
  18. Apples and Oranges*

    This type of thing can go very wrong. A company I worked for had a facilitator who encouraged us to share our sensitive characteristics as well as reflect (with each other) on our biases. Well someone reflected on a bias against a characteristic that someone else had shared and there was a lawsuit.

    Reply ↓
    2. Andromeda Carr*

      One would think this would be a cautionary tale to workshop designers and facilitators. I mean, this whole discussion demonstrates how counterproductive badly done workshops can be.

      Reply ↓
  19. Chairman of the Bored*

    I would absolutely feed them a low-stakes line of easily-observable bullshit and respond with blank stares and shrugs if they push for more. “Uh, I have ‘tall privilege’ but I’m also nearsighted so I wear glasses.”

    Ask a silly question, get a silly answer.

    Reply ↓
      1. Chairman of the Bored*

        Yeah, it’s totally real and something I’d be happy to acknowledge vs getting in to race, religion, gender identity, etc in a work context.

        My goal wasn’t to give them something funny, just to give them something bland.

        Reply ↓
      2. Bluebonnet*

        Am curious whether tall privilege pertains mainly to men or if it benefits other genders too.

        As a 5′ 8″ woman, being tall did not seem to have much of an impact to my knowledge (besides being taller or the same height as my date).

        Reply ↓
        1. Keymaster of Gozer (She/Her)*

          It’s been my experience as a 6’1” woman that it is not a benefit. I’ve been asked to prove that I’m not a man more than once.

          Reply ↓
      3. UKDancer*

        People also make fun of short people sometimes. I mean look at the way some of the media was picking on Zelenskyy when he came to the US because he’s much shorter than the US President. It was treated as some sort of a joke. He’s 5’7 which is not unusual in Ukraine.

        Reply ↓
      4. RagingADHD*

        It’s also not revealing anything the group didn’t already know. I think that’s the important part here.

        Reply ↓
  20. I should really pick a name*

    “Do you realize that you’re using your position of privilege as a facilitator to push for information that we may not want to share?”

    Reply ↓
  21. Morgi Corgi*

    Oooooh noooooooo. I do DEI work at my hospital (including trainings) and yeah, you don’t pressure people to out themselves like that. If we’re asking people to introduce themselves we’ll ask for their name, how long they’ve worked there and where they work (maybe pronouns if they’re comfortable sharing that). Maybe we’ll ask what they’re hoping to get out of the training. But I would NEVER pressure someone to share aspects of their identity like that and potentially out themselves. I’m non-binary and was closeted at work for years until I felt comfortable enough to come out. Sometimes people will volunteer that information to offer context, but I would never asked for it.

    Frankly, these trainers sound like they don’t know what they’re doing.

    Reply ↓
  22. Heirloom Tomato*

    Aside from everyone else’s comments, I also don’t WANT to share a bunch of personal information. I’m a private person, I’m here to work. You can be inclusive without turning everything into a drive to share about yourself. I’ll talk about these things, maybe, in a personal one-to-one conversation, otherwise please just let me be.

    Reply ↓
    1. NotAnotherManager!*

      I feel the same way. I am an intensely private person, and I go to work to work. I don’t want to share all of my family/personal life at work – I have a small number of longtime coworkers with whom I might share a bit more, but we’re not wading into any my personal traumas/privileges/disadvantages in a work setting. I have good relationships with my coworkers, and people seem to like working with me just fine.

      I had a terrible boss once who decided the best way for us to bond (rather than, you know, leading us as a cohesive team and giving us the tools/training we needed) was to share a difficult situation that had impacted us and made us who we are today. He then proceeded to tell us about his father leaving him and his mom and starting a new family and how this made him feel abandoned and inadequate. It was insane – there was no trust or emotional safety with him in the room, and this was not at all related to our jobs/industry. This dude was constantly telling us anything short of perfection was failure. You were never recognized for doing well, but he sure did light to highlight when anyone made a mistake (so everyone else would know what not to do – I think he thought that was training). I had a very urgent work project that I had to do and, gosh darn it, had to leave that session early. I did stop by HR on my way to deal with my project emergency, too.

      Reply ↓
    2. Insulindian Phasmid*

      Yep…or you can be fine sharing some things but not others. I’m happy to talk about my visible disability and what I need for it, even some of the emotions around getting used to it. But my asexuality is no one’s business but the handful of people in my life I’ll get into a relationship with. I’m not ashamed of it but it’s not something I like to talk about with strangers and acquaintances!

      Reply ↓
      1. I Have RBF*

        This. If it’s visible, I might acknowledge it, but if it’s not visible or germane to the workplace? Naah, leave it off the table. Visibly I have hemiparesis, since I was 33. Invisibly I have ADHD (childhood Dx, no paperwork.) I only bring up the visible one.

        Reply ↓
  23. Absolutely Anonymous*

    Yeah…just because your workplace says it has DEI and prohibits discrimination doesn’t make it true. Does my company have mandatory training on respect, microaggressions, and privilege? Yes. Do I also see the looks my coworkers gave when I mentioned I was attending a friend’s same-sex wedding? Hear the comments they make about watching Fox News? See the religious iconography on their desks? Also yes. I’m not stupid enough to out myself at work, it’s just not safe despite the company messaging claiming otherwise.

    Reply ↓
  24. Scarlet Begonias*

    I suggest this: Very well, where do I begin? My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a fifteen year old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Some times he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy, the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. My childhood was typical, summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we’d make meat helmets. When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds, pretty standard really. At the age of 12 I received my first scribe. At the age of fourteen, a Zoroastrian named Vilma ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum, it’s breathtaking,

    Reply ↓
    1. Troutwaxer*

      Great answer. (Also, I think the line was “…age of fourteen, a renegade Zorastorian priestess named…”)

      Reply ↓
    3. The answer is always kombucha*

      This is why at those awful ice breaker activities where they ask what’s your spirit animal (& never mention cultural appropriation), or your favorite animal or sandwich or whatever, the answer is always kombucha. Sometimes the facilitator will get it and move on. Often they (or someone else in the group) will helpfully explain that kombucha isn’t an animal or a sandwich. I smile and say “oh”

      Reply ↓
      1. Enai*

        Explain the reference, please? I’m pretty sure the post you’re replying to references Dr. Evil of the Austin Powers movies, but I don’t know about Kombucha as a spirit animal.

        Reply ↓
        1. Jaid*

          Kombucha is produced by symbiotic fermentation of sugared tea using a symbiotic culture of bacteria and yeast (SCOBY) commonly called a “mother” or “mushroom”.

          I believe there’s been some discussion on the nature of mushrooms, since they are neither plants, nor animals.

          Reply ↓
    5. Statler von Waldorf*

      Given your username, I was expecting a story about the shenanigans your boyfriend got up to because just to gain your trust, he bought a microbus, because he sold off all his personal property.

      Still, thanks for the laugh, I needed it today.

      Reply ↓
  25. Quinine..I need quinine*

    I started a new job recently where as part of the new hire HR training there was a bias section. The organizer asked us to go around and talk about a time where we’ve experienced bias. As a white straight male I haven’t really had any, so I said “I know this is a lame example but sometimes when you’re playing pick up basketball as a short white guy, the other players don’t involve you at first”. I then said I’m not sure that really counts as bias, but she praised me for my bravery :)

    Reply ↓
    1. Potato Potato*

      Yeah, you’re the type of person who these exercises are designed for. (I mean this as a neutral statement, btw. I’m glad not everyone has to sort through painful experiences to find one that sounds vulnerable without risking their job.)

      Reply ↓
    2. sdfghj*

      I often end up stuck doing something like this because I would rather pull out my own teeth than say something actually vulnerable in front of all these people.

      Reply ↓
  26. Essentially Working*

    Oh my gosh, I would be giving all of the grouchiest Oscar the Grouch and Grouchy Cat NO faces all at once.

    Reply ↓
  27. Beth*

    This sucks! People should have the right to decide, to the greatest extent possible, when and how they out themselves as members of a marginalized group.

    Even setting aside the potential for discrimination (which is real but I assume is obvious enough to not need discussing), we should get to decide what’s relevant to our professional selves. I’m gay and have been out in all areas of my life for several years; it’s not a secret or something I’m trying to hide. But when I’m introducing myself in a work setting, I focus on my work self–my title, my background/experience, my area of focus, etc–because that’s what I want a new colleague to remember when they first meet me.

    This kind of exercise tends to work out well for privileged people. They get to own their privilege and get an “I’m a good person” boost for acknowledging it, and they’re not risking much. But it comes at the cost of people who experience marginalization. Anyone who doesn’t realize that is honestly too privileged to be running an activity like this.

    Reply ↓
    1. UKDancer*

      Yes my identity, religion, pronouns, disability are not relevant to 99% of my work meetings. I introduce myself with my name and qualifications (if appropriate).

      The rest is not relevant and not what i want to be known for.

      Reply ↓
  29. AnneM*

    This exercise really just further highlights the disparate realities of people who are privileged and less privileged. It’s really out of touch to presume that marginalized people aren’t viscerally and constantly reminded of their own marginalization, so the idea that they would need to be trained on “what privilege” is, is ludicrous. And since this appears to be used as a trainer for those who are more privileged, it’s worth pointing out that it’s not disadvantaged people’s responsibility to educate those more fortunate than them!

    Reply ↓
  30. X*

    This is a completely inappropriate activity.

    That being said, this made me picture a wheel where everyone spins and get + / – privilege points like D & D character hit points.

    Reply ↓
    1. That Library Lady*

      I agree it’s totally inappropriate, but the idea of a trainer declaring “Roll for privilege!” did make me laugh.

      Reply ↓
      1. Potato Potato*

        Tbh, I think people rolling a character might be a better way to go. I’d rather talk about a hypothetical disabled trans person than my very personal experience

        Reply ↓
        1. Beth*

          Ehhhh, I could see a bunch of privileged people talking about fake marginalized identities they rolled up going VERY wrong VERY quickly. Especially if there’s an actual person in the room who actually has that identity (which they may not know when they start talking).

          Reply ↓
          1. Potato Potato*

            Good point. Yeah, I should know better. I’ve sat through enough frustrating user experience discussions about hypothetical disabled people (who have my disabilities).

            Reply ↓
      2. Quill*

        Roll 3 6s 6 times. Chose your stats: you get
        – Member of religious majority
        – Race
        – Parents’ income
        – Sexuality
        – Gender
        – Disability (If your score is under 12 you are unemployable and ejected from the party)

        Everything else is one of your (protected) class and race bonuses.

        Reply ↓
      3. Statler von Waldorf*

        Do I get advantage on the roll if I’m white but then claim that I have a black best friend?

        Reply ↓
    2. Strive to Excel*

      I feel like I’ve heard of an extra terrible gaming system where that is actually a relevant part of character creation. Surprise surprise, it’s known for being misogynistic and all the other “-ists” and is rarely actually played.

      Reply ↓
        1. Statler von Waldorf*

          No. Don’t look it up. Seriously. Just don’t.

          I did once just to see what the big deal was, and now I seriously regret it. It’s not so bad it’s good, it’s just bad. There isn’t enough hot water on the planet to wash this crap from your brain. Learn from my mistakes, and just say no.

          Or you can ignore my advice, and find out the hard way why the joke with this game is “roll for anal circumference.” Yes, that is a real chart you can roll on in this game, and it’s not even the worst one.

          Consider yourself warned.

          Reply ↓
  31. dulcinea47*

    I wonder if this is a new thing in academia. I’ve seen it in several papers, where the authors feel it necessary to disclose their own positionality, as if you need to know the race of the person writing about race issues (for example). It makes me wildly uncomfortable, b/c my race/sexuality/etc doesn’t determine whether what I have to say about it on paper is any good or not.

    Reply ↓
    1. Moose*

      The only time I think this could matter is in an anthropology paper, where “are you a member of this community or are you a visitor” is actually academically relevant, but the greater positionality stuff is not at all useful imo.

      Reply ↓
  32. PeaceWeaver*

    I’m privileged to be able to speak up for those who might not feel comfortable doing so, and say that it’s not appropriate to ask us to share private, legally protected information with our coworkers. I love your good intentions but unfortunately we can’t be assured this won’t be used against us.

    Reply ↓
  33. Whoopsie*

    “I do not feel comfortable sharing the particulars of my identity at this time.”

    And if/when the facilitator pushes: “The more you push me on this, the less safe I feel. I don’t think that’s what you’re trying to achieve here.”

    And if they push again: “Isn’t the purpose of this training to help people recognize that not everyone has the privilege and safety to be so open with their identities, especially in a room with bosses and higher ups?”

    Yes, I’ve had to take this stance twice. Yes, it made things awkward for a bit, but far more importantly, I knew it was keeping a few of my coworkers from feeling like they had to out themselves. I know who I am and I know when I need to be loud about it, so I didn’t mind taking on that target.

    What’s funny is the second time, I had already been upfront about using she/they and my work in queer spaces, but the facilitator forgot/ignored that after I pushed back. The rest of the day, any time they had to refer to me indirectly they used “she,” and several of my coworkers would pipe up with “they.” So we all came together in solidarity, just maybe not the way they wanted.

    Reply ↓
  34. Anonymouse*

    Oh my godddd what a spectacularly tonedeaf way of examining privilege, especially in this hostile era where sharing any of these things can get you fired. I’m mostly joking but maybe not: is the facilitator a government spy?

    Reply ↓
  35. Just Here for the Llama Grooming*

    This gives me the all-overs just reading it! Had I been in the room, I think I would have jumped out of my skin and right out the window. Completely aside from the general inappropriateness (talk about teeing up a lawsuit!), asking people to share ANYTHING personal in a work setting is just cringe-worthy. (OK, maybe “Do you have an animal companion? If yes, what kind, and what name?” More than that, though, and the answer begins to be “NONE OF YOUR DUCKING BUSINESS!”)

    Reply ↓
  36. Amy*

    I was at a training session run by an outside facilitator recently where we started the session by being asked to make a “visual representation of our cultural heritage.” We were given crayons like kids. We were also told we could have other art supplies if we wanted more a mixed media or papier-mâché approach.

    I was completely flummoxed. I do not work in a creative field and it was a very busy season with client emails.

    I excused myself for a long bathroom break.
    When I got back, everyone was presenting in a way that seemed painful for at least half the attendees. The whole process took at least 90 minutes before we actually got to the important issues of the training – legal compliance issues in our field.

    But interestingly, at lunch, the trainer came back in and said “There’s been a complaint that this is inappropriate in our current political culture of fear. But I want everyone to know this is a safe space.”

    But was it? It was 50 people in a room, from a variety of companies. Most of us didn’t know each other. How on earth was it safe? And what did safe mean?

    I’m so grateful these days for a bare-bones, short and focused on the issue at hand training.

    Reply ↓
    1. Potato Potato*

      Ah, the weaponized “this is a safe space” to shut down the concerns of those who don’t feel comfortable sharing. A tried and true method.

      Reply ↓
    2. mcm*

      absolutely bizarre that there are DEI trainers that think saying “this is a safe space” makes it so, lol. You don’t get that by just declaring it, you have to actually *create a safe space* with long-term evidence that bias is proactively countered

      Reply ↓
      1. Strive to Excel*

        YES thank you. I hope that I’ve made my home a safe space for people but ultimately that’s not my call to make. It’s their call.

        Reply ↓
      2. I Have RBF*

        You don’t get that by just declaring it, you have to actually *create a safe space* with long-term evidence that bias is proactively countered.

        This.

        A space isn’t “safe” until everyone in it is “safe”, and willing to protect the safety of all of the others. That never comes from a declaration.

        Reply ↓
      1. Amy*

        An additional ridiculous factor was that some of the companies in the room actually compete directly with each other. We were there as part of a state training that involves multiple vendors and participants. I was there representing a company and if it were Coca-Cola, well Pepsi’s rep was sitting at the next table.

        Now everyone I know is a professional and we certainly aren’t all back-stabbing each other on a personal level but it made the “safe space” statement even more bizarre.

        Reply ↓
    4. Elaine Benes*

      Good lord, this is insane.

      Also as a white American of several generations (mix of English, Irish, French Canadian, German, and on and on) I have no idea what I’d even consider my cultural heritage except a vague sense of Catholicism, which is not even something I’m keeping as an adult.

      Reply ↓
      1. Potato Potato*

        I had this problem in high school. I don’t actually know what my cultural heritage is. My ancestors decided to abandon it in favor of generic American whiteness, but my teacher wouldn’t accept “American, for as many generations as I’m aware of” as an answer. So for some reason, she decided that my cultural heritage was British and made me do my project on that.

        Reply ↓
        1. Richard Hershberger*

          There’s your explanation. She was assigning a project on a culture, didn’t want the culture to be “American,” and had decided the student’s cultural heritage would be determinative. That last was the problem. So she picked one for you, with the pretense that it was your heritage. It also is a bit clueless. What does “British” heritage mean? Would the Scots and the Welsh agree with the English?

          Reply ↓
          1. Enai*

            You might say that considering “American” to not be a culture is the most culturally American thing a teacher could do. Pity, examining “What does American culture mean” would easily be one of the more enlightening school projects anyone in the US could do.

            Reply ↓
  37. Nightengale*

    This is terrible and I am saying that as a doctor who does a lot of DEI work

    The goal should be to create a space where people feel safe disclosing whatever they want to disclose. The goal should never be to tell people they have to disclose or to pressure people into disclosing.

    I will say the idea of examining privilege can be new to a lot of people in medicine, so presenting some 101 material there doesn’t strike me as terrible. My own focus is on ableism in health care and knowledge there is pretty minimal.

    Reply ↓
    1. Observer*

      I will say the idea of examining privilege can be new to a lot of people in medicine, so presenting some 101 material there doesn’t strike me as terrible.

      Not terrible at all. In fact, very necessary.

      knowledge there is pretty minimal.

      Not just in terms of ableism. But, yes, it’s a real issue. And, as shocking as it is, the concept of privilege or simply the reality of different experience of the world is something that an astounding number of medical professionals, and people adjacent to the profession, have no clue about.

      I mean, you still see medical facilities that are not wheelchair accessible! Or regulations that require children under a certain age to get immunizations at a doctor’s office. (The idea is that forcing the parents to take the kid to a pediatrician will improve medical care. What happens instead is that the kids often just don’t get their shots.) This is improving, but the whole thing simply ignores the reality of access and how families operate. And of course, the ones hardest hit are the most vulnerable.

      I could make a really long list of this kind of thing, and while some are regulatory, plenty of them are issues that are directly related to how specific facilities and practitioners operate. So, yes. Keep in introducing this basic concept. Because it may be “101” but too many folks seem to have missed “101”.

      Reply ↓
      1. Nightengale*

        all the isms are terrible in medicine

        I’m calling out ableism in particular because it intersects so much with medical care, research and even diagnostic criteria. The whole DSM is baked in ableism. Research on preemies combines disability and death in a “combined outcome measure.” Doctors assume low quality of life (even when research does not support it) and then use that to make recommendations. I could go on but that would be the 1 hour powerpoint.

        Ironically I give talks on this stuff but also my own check-in window is not wheelchair accessible because I am not in charge of the budget or any decisions at the hospital level.

        Reply ↓
        1. I went to school with only 1 Jennifer*

          So, you can’t control the building structure, but CAN you do anything to make it easier for people in wheelchairs to check in? (I get that it’s a throw-away comment but please don’t leave us hanging like that!)

          Reply ↓
          1. Nightengale*

            Oh yeah we do

            It’s a small office where we know our patients really well and we can just come around and meet people in the waiting room or the exam room with all the registration stuff. The ADA/504 would call that “program accessibility” meaning we offer the equivalent service. We are also accessible in ways that come up more often – I take care of neurodivergent kids – such as being able to quickly address sensory needs, communicate readily over the portal, flexibility offering telehealth.

            It’s still galling to be a supposed expert in health care accessibility and to have no leverage here, more so because I heard an announcement at a meeting a few years ago that all our check-in desks across the whole giant health system were now accessible. Um, no?

            Reply ↓
  38. Corrupted User Name*

    I’ve been in similar situations, although not seen people pushed quite so far. I also think focusing on obvious areas of privilege, if they exist, is a way to not reveal too much.

    Especially since this is in the context of a medical residency, how about talking about one’s educational privilege? That’s my go-to. I usually say something like “I was lucky enough to grow up in an environment that prized higher education, so I had a support system that made that available to me even though we were not economically privileged”. The most that says about me is that I wasn’t rich growing up, but that my family helped me go to college and grad school.

    Reply ↓
    1. Elle*

      This one is interesting because I have actually brought up educational privilege in these discussions when they’ve happened at my company and have been quickly corrected and told that actually it doesn’t count as privilege because education is earned and “even poor people can get scholarships.” (Cue eye roll here)

      Reply ↓
      1. Irish Teacher.*

        That’s awful. I grew up in a country where there was “free” university education. (I have “free” in inverted commas because you still have to be able to put off being available for full-time earning for four years and there are other expenses like college books.)

        But even without tuition fees, getting a college education was still a privilege. For a start, the “points” for a lot of college courses here are quite high, so having an above average IQ gives you a substantial advantage, as does having no learning difficulties and of course, even mental or physical health problems can lead to missing a lot of school which makes it more difficult to get high grades, as does stuff like experiencing homelessness or abuse or trauma. And the well-off can afford extra-tuition outside school for their kids which also gives them an advantage when it comes to exams.

        And that’s before you get to the fact that a lot of college students live at home in Ireland and even if they don’t, it’s a lot easier if you have a home to return to for weekends and holidays. If you are being abused or otherwise need to get away quickly, well, you probably need a full-time job that makes it more difficult to get to college. Not impossible, but far harder.

        And of course, there’s also encouragement. If you grow up in a middle class area where all your classmates are going on to college, it’s far more likely to present itself to you as an option than if you grow up in an area where most people do not have a college education.

        So even when you take tuition fees out of it, there is still a heck of a lot of privilege involved. I have students who work just as hard at school as I did but who will never get to college because they have learning difficulties that mean they have to work hard just to attain basic literacy.

        Not to ignore how stupid the “but poor people can get scholarships” is, but just to add to why their argument was ridiculous.

        Reply ↓
      2. Corrupted User Name*

        Yikes on Bikes, that’s incredibly tone deaf and weird!

        Almost no one gets full scholarships anymore (especially outside of sports) and having the time, resources, and knowledge to pursue scholarships is hardly universal. But aside from all that, if you don’t grow up in an environment where higher ed is a common experience, deciding to pursue it is not a given! My spouse is a first generation college graduate, and his path was very different from mine.

        Reply ↓
    2. Enai*

      I like this. I think having people in your family who sent to college and whom you can ask about the process (what to put in the application, where to apply, what’s an advisor and what are they good for, where do I apply for scholarships, you name it) is such an underrated aspect of what allows a person to succeed vs. fail at university.

      Reply ↓
    3. Reading Rainbow*

      This may work or it may have the effect of putting your attendings on the defensive as they think “well I don’t think I’m privileged for getting an MD, I worked hard!” It really depends on who is sitting across from the table with you.

      Reply ↓
  39. mcm*

    If you didn’t say you worked in a hospital, I would say, “do we work together?” Exact same thing happened at my workplace last week. It is SO baffling to me that educators in this area don’t get that they are putting people in really ludicrous situations by saying, “for this next exercise, just really quickly out yourself at work!”
    I had a previous organization where it was part of ONBOARDING! ie, welcome to this organization, tell us right now if you’re queer (or POC, or a couple other things). I did successfully push back on it there, but I was just amazed that they were like, oh we’ve never considered that that might be uncomfortable!

    Reply ↓
    1. mcm*

      I will say I had some success last week with just repeating what they asked us to do in a tone of voice that implied “surely you don’t want us to…”
      ie, “sorry, to clarify, the exercise is for us to share any sensitive identities with our colleagues? at work??”

      Reply ↓
    2. UKDancer*

      Wow, my company just gives all new starters a list of all the affinity groups and leave it up to people to decide what they want to join if anything (and then doesn’t ask people which ones they’ve joined). I think that’s much the best way.

      Reply ↓
  40. Quill*

    And it’s worse now than it would be a year ago, because those of us who already weren’t necessarily sharing things with work are looking at politics and pulling our turtle heads FAR back into our shells.

    Protections for disabled and queer workers look shakier every day, and someone coming in from outside running a training isn’t even part of your company! They may not be included in those protections to begin with.

    Reply ↓
      1. bananners*

        Look, I am a really big people person, very focused on community and caring for one another and loving everyone. Do you know how I could do that more easily? KNOWING LESS ABOUT MY NEIGHBORS.

        Reply ↓
  42. Elle*

    And this is why I’m anti DEI. It’s about a performance of inclusivity, not actually making things better for marginalized people. No one is going to managers and saying “hm, it looks like this female employee has been told shes not yet experienced enough for leadership but a male employee with less experience is being considered” or “wow, last time your team hired you interviewed a group that was maybe 50% white and male and somehow the people you hired were 100% white and straight” or like “hey it’s interesting how all of the neurodivergent people on this team are on PIPs.” Instead, it’s some performative group activity where there’s a lot of saying the right thing but not a lot of actual action or change.

    Reply ↓
    1. Seashell*

      This one story hardly covers the whole category of diversity, equity, and inclusion. The terms don’t just apply to badly done training. They apply to laws against discriminatory behavior, the type of books in libraries, what teachers can discuss in class, etc.

      If you’re in favor of people being about to complain about discrimination in the workplace, you’re not anti-DEI.

      Reply ↓
    2. Quill*

      DEI initiatives that work are ones that address things like “our automatic hiring robot ranks historically black colleges on resumes as lower quality schools, impacting candidates” and “our dress code is unequally onerous for female employees to follow” or “our requirements for hot desking make it hard for disabled employees to work in office”

      You know, things that affect work and the company actually has to fix.

      Being against DEI means that you’ll get less of those and more of someone standing on stage with a folded piece of yellow construction paper saying that their heritage is tacos.

      Reply ↓
    3. Emotional support capybara (he/him)*

      Tell us you don’t know what DEI actually is without telling us you don’t know what DEI actually is.

      Reply ↓
  43. Maxwell Perkins*

    Absolutely on revealing hidden identities. One area of privilege a lot of these trainings miss is employment status, English speaking, and educational level, all of which are shared by everyone in this particular scenario. Aside from being safe, it might actually be more helpful to understanding than the actual trainers.

    Reply ↓
  44. some dude*

    Preface to say that I am horrified by the current administration’s anti-DEI stance and basically everything about it.

    However, I work in social justice nonprofit space in a very progressive area, and I have seen DEI done wrong far more often than I’ve seen it done right. Some highlights:

    Explicitly talking about people’s race/identity when making hiring decisions, including excluding candidates because they were white, debating whether we should hire the filipino vs. Latino candidate, saying “well, he’s white but he’s gay so he brings that!” in discussing a candidate, and in any situation where the finalist is white, being very apologetic about it, even when it is for a niche role where the candidate pool will likely be very small and skew white, and where their identity is not immediately relevant for their role (think back office staff).

    So many trainings that asked staff holding marginalized identities to share really personal details about their lives and experiences of discrimination. This often leads to championship oppression olympic events where we all get to compete to who has it worse.

    So many trainings that were basically blaming white staff for all the evil in the world. Even conversations around privilege often end up feeling like they are blaming people with fewer hardships for not being discriminated against. And I say that knowing that DEI done well will name the many, many negative impacts European culture has had on the world and in the U.S. including slavery, the deplorable treatment of native Americans, anti-chinese laws, and the legacies of colonialism throughout the world.

    Often this is done at orgs that also undermine staff of color in the ways that matter – second guessing their work outputs or professional opinions, passing staff up for promotions in favor of outside experts, crappy pay and leave policies that don’t give people flexibility..

    Reply ↓
    1. busy_woman*

      at some point i got accused of getting one of my colleagues fired — who is a person of color — because i’m a white woman so i must have been the one to do it. it was…a time. it was very much a culture of “we’re a family who shares everything and our 1:1s are therapy appointments” and the fallout hurt.

      of course i did not get that person fired, i did not have the power to get that person fired! i did not even say anything relating to that person! they just weren’t doing their job and i didn’t even interact with them much! but i think sometimes it’s a matter of toxic personalities. it’s rough.

      obviously i am not the Great Victim of anything, these DEI crackdowns are so horrible and not based in the good faith effort of improving these conversations. they’re based in racism, pure and simple. but i think “doing DEI” without actually having qualified facilitators and really horrible trainings does so much more harm than it does good.

      what matters is having equitable hiring practices, fair employment policies, taking care of your staff in the ways that you should as a workplace (fair pay, good benefits, workplace protections, etc.)

      otherwise we get into the tumblr-era “it’s ableist to ask me to wash dishes” polycule whatever that’s it’s own form of hell

      Reply ↓
    2. Anon for This*

      I have a lot of hesitations about this at my current organization. They have a technically optional, but they will have your manager nag you about it until you go, DEI training about race. A big part of it was to share your experiences about race, which tended to result in a lot of the BIPOC employees having to share some really personal stuff. To me, that really felt like putting an unreasonable amount of emotional labor on them–I would have been pissed off if it had been the same thing but about gender. But since the HR people and facilitators are black and I’m white, I didn’t feel like there was any way to share that without it being perceived as being opposed to anti-racism efforts.

      (Also, I’m pretty cautious about human resources at my current company because they’ve handled a accommodation I needed very badly. I had gotten approval when I got the job offer to get a sit-to-stand desk, which I need for a chronic pain issue. Then I got two months of run around with human resources siding with the person who pretty clearly didn’t want to order it because she didn’t think I really needed it.)

      Reply ↓
  45. Stuart Foote*

    A lot of DEI training seems designed to make people feel guilty for being privileged, without much in the way of outputs beyond making people talk in a strange, stilted way about themselves. (I recently saw a college friend whose “Positionality Statement” describes herself as “temporarily able-bodied”). Yet very often these organizations aren’t particularly more welcoming to minorities than other organizations are. Also, if media reports are to be believed, they often descend into endless arguing about privilege and microaggressions and backbiting so the organization ends up unable to take any position or do anything.

    I don’t have personal experience of the most extreme DEI training (I mostly half watch the videos with the little skits HR sends us), but I’m am skeptical I am missing out on anything of value. I do think I’m a good co-worker and “walk the walk” as much as I can though.

    Reply ↓
    1. Forrest Rhodes*

      Years ago I was involved with a wheelchair tennis program. Many of the players—who, I have to admit, were much better players on wheels than I was on legs, and I wasn’t bad—called me Tabbie. When I asked about it, they said, “Yeah, TAB: Temporarily Able-Bodied, because you just never know!”

      I appreciated the accuracy of that, and have used Tabbie to describe myself many times since then.

      Reply ↓
  46. Boof*

    Ah, the dark side of “DEI” – I’m in academic medicine, and throughout my journey from undergrad, grad, attempts at self education, residency, academic faculty – I’ve seen good education events and ones I feel confident saying were awful.
    The hard thing about these is any negative reaction may get labeled as “well you are being fragile / defensive /unable to process and address your privilege / unwilling to participate in DEI” etc – it’s really hard to criticize things that by their nature are sensitive topics if you have someone pushy leading them. And like all things / just because there are good intentions doesn’t mean it is actually a good thing /. So any training / education even that is unwilling to reflect on what it’s actual goals are and whether they are accomplishing it are suspect.
    Examples of thing I would say are actively bad/terrible:
    — having to stare at a classmate and repeat “I’m white” over and over again for a minute in undergrad (I have forgotten what the point of that exercise was except maybe to demonstrate how it’s uncomfortable to have to categorize yourself by skin color?)
    — the diversity groups (again, I’m looking at you undergrad) targeting people they “thought” should participate – the one I heard about was from a classmate who didn’t want to participate in the asian-american student group but was specifically solicited by them and felt like that was invasive

    Ones that were actively helpful:
    — a 1 hr lecture on socioeconomic habits, and how that can impact what social supports are and how challenges are addressed. I specifically remember a wonderful and engaging lecture giving the example about food; how those in poverty tend to value food by quantity “did it fill you up”, those in the middle class tend to value quality because quantity is pretty much guaranteed, and those who are wealthy enough where quantity and quality are pretty much guaranteed, it’s about the presentation. There was a lot more there but I was so impressed by that one example and I think it is fairly accurate (I’m looking at my journey from relatively low income grad student to upper middle class attending and seeing all the adds for donors/wealthy being about “the experience” haha)
    — another great lecture about enrolling underrepresented groups on clinical trials – yes touched on historical wrongs but mostly focused on how to earn trust and /not to assume someone won’t can’t do it ahead of time – helped me make sure I offered trials to people I sort of thought might not want to and indeed some surprised me and went on study and have done well. (I like to think i would have anyway but that lecture always comes up in my mind when I’m thinking “hmm, should I mention x or y trials or will that be overwhelming”

    So yes LW if you aren’t new to all this please contact your administrator or whoever’s organizing these events and give them feedback that these aren’t appropriate. If possible, maybe you can identify things that would be better.

    Reply ↓
    1. Potato Potato*

      Oh man, the “you should join the women in STEM group” people made me so uncomfortable. There was a couple of people in undergrad, and one very persistent coworker in my first job. I am a man. I’m not a woman. I’m not “basically” a woman. And if one more person told me “it’s okay, we include trans people too”, I think I would’ve screamed.

      Reply ↓
    2. My Brain is Exploding*

      I love your first example, and watched a video a long time ago that did that same thing with everyday items, like toothbrushes (do you have your own? does the whole family share one? do you use a stick or your finger?) and how much is in your utensil drawer. I wish I could find it again.

      Reply ↓
    3. Morgi Corgi*

      Reminds me of the job I had right after college when I used to enroll people in medical research. The doctors running it were ~shocked~ that I could get BIPOCs to enroll in the study (I’m half Black myself, but pass for white, so it’s not like they knew they were talking to a biracial person). Turns out the former research assistants weren’t even asking a bunch of people because they “didn’t seem interested” or if they did ask, didn’t address any concerns they might have (who’s collecting the info, who has access to it, how we’ll ensure your safety and privacy, etc.) So I can definitely see where that type of training would be helpful.

      I think the best DEI training I had was done by two PhDs who researched the best way to have conversations with people about sensitive topics like implicit bias and microaggressions. They presented their findings in a way that was easy to understand and didn’t put blame on anyone.

      Reply ↓
    4. OP/LW*

      Yes! This! I have also called it “the dark side of DEI.” We had a very helpful lecture by a doctor who does a lot of work with certain marginalized populations. They talked about how to logistically structure a clinic to accommodate people who need more support (more time, translation, transportation support, need help with forms, etc.) while a) still getting paid and b) not burning out. It was SO much more helpful than anything I’ve had in years.

      Reply ↓
  47. Teacher*

    As someone who considers myself pretty progressive but has lived as worked in conservative areas for the past several years, it’s absolutely wild to me that somewhere in the real world professional adults are saying and hearing this in the workplace.

    Reply ↓
    1. OP/LW*

      Welcome to my life lol. Medical training is an unholy nightmare in need of an overhaul; this is the merest tip of the iceberg.

      Reply ↓
    1. Potato Potato*

      If you google “wheel of privilege”, it’ll show you circle-looking infographics around identity and privilege. That’s what this is referring to

      Reply ↓
    2. Amy*

      It’s kind of like intersectionality. If you image search the term, you’ll see actual depictions of wheels with terminology. The further into the circle you are, the more privileged.

      It’s something that probably works in very academic discussions but less well when packaged into simplistic wide scale trainings.

      Reply ↓
  49. Thanks*

    Two thoughts:

    First, I generally admire any organizations willingness to talk about privilege. I hope that the OP and organization can find better ways to address the issues of privilege.

    Second, this is an interesting with the conversation I had with an ER doc friend of mine just recently. While she was an attending MD and a large New York hospital, she became pregnant. She had conversations with her OB/GYN about her need for a C-section, which at this hospital was very common to have the med students and residence attend as observers. She was given the option to have a more private birth, as these were students and residents that she would likely be supervising in the coming year or two.

    Reply ↓
  50. One Duck In A Row*

    OMFG, yeah, it’s literally not safe for many of us to talk about some of these identities that we and/or our family members hold. Especially as of now, April 2025, in the U.S. Whether because of immediate direct threat to those demographics, or the very real likelihood of direct threat in the coming days, weeks, and months. And if not from our government, then from community members (which can include co-workers) who may be inclined to participate enthusiastically in the types of dehumanizing our government is normalizing.

    I guess I owe some gratitude to the generational trauma that will help me keep my family slightly safer than they would be if I were to just blab about all the reasons the most dangerous people all around us should target them. As someone who hates the banality of small talk, I’ve started embracing it, because at least the 6th “snow in April?!” convo of the day isn’t going to put me or my family in literal danger if the wrong person overhears it. And while I have a pretty good idea of who the safe folks are around here, there are a ton of folks I don’t know well, and at least a couple of cars in the lot that make me certain there are people here who are not safe to know any of my business.

    Reply ↓
    1. Abogado Avocado*

      One Duck, you are so right. Anyone watching the national news these days should be able to understand exactly where you and family members are coming from and see the danger in DEI training that requires people to out their lack of privilege and to risk being othered by those with power over them.

      Reply ↓
      1. Hey, I'm Wohrking Heah!*

        Yes, anything too personal you (may be forced to) share at work can always be held against you when the tide shifts, as we are now seeing in the extreme.

        Reply ↓
  51. Birdy*

    Holy penguins I would probably end up in tears if we had to do that. I’d also probably end up oversharing out of anxiety.

    Reply ↓
  53. Religious Nutter*

    The irony here is that the very question comes from a _position of privilege_. “Hi everyone, I’m an authority figure with a stable position and nothing controversial to disclose! See folks who are closeted, or have other things they don’t want to discuss at work, it’s fine!”

    They can absolutely use examples, and even tailor those examples to the working environment. But asking people _in the meeting_ to function as examples? That’s a terrible idea.

    Reply ↓
    1. Andromeda Carr*

      This is absolutely true and I wish we could retroactively add it to the guidelines for workshop design.

      Reply ↓
  54. NotARealManager*

    In addition to the other issues mentioned, these kinds of sharing often turn into the Suffering Olympics and that is helpful for no one.

    Reply ↓
  55. CharlotteChic*

    Once, when I was working for a city government, we had to do a similar diversity, equity, and inclusion training. What the facilitators decided to do was have everyone (I can’t remember if it was everyone or everyone that identified with specific groups) stand up and then they started listing out “Okay, if you’re Hispanic, group together, say something you would like others to know about Hispanics and then sit back down,” etc, etc, moving through all the different groups until I (a white woman) was the last person standing and they finally got to “If you’re disabled, group together, tell us something you’d like people to know about disabled people.” Man, I felt extremely awkward being the only one standing, especially since my disability is essentially invisible (I’m deaf). I just remember just saying something like “Uhhh….I guess just be aware that not all disabilities are visible…”

    This was almost a decade ago so I don’t remember the exact details of what happened, but I do remember feeling very “othered” – and I’m sure that wasn’t the facilitators’ intent. I know they were tackling unconscious bias, but just didn’t go about it in the right way. Making people share information about themselves with colleagues they may not want to share is never a good idea, especially if they don’t actually know the other people. I didn’t know anyone else at that training because it was a training for all departments, but also one of multiple time slots people could choose to attend if I remember correctly.

    Reply ↓
    1. CharlotteChic*

      Wait, no, now I remember! They didn’t sit back down, as they grouped together – they all stayed standing. Eventually I was the last one standing who hadn’t yet been grouped off.

      Reply ↓
      1. Hey, I'm Wohrking Heah!*

        I do remember feeling very “othered” – and I’m sure that wasn’t the facilitators’ intent.
        That’s generous of you, and I hope you’re right. The past 10 years or so seemed to draw out the “vengance is mine” trainers and facilitators, ime. I’ve seen a couple of them (white and Black) pop a cork when Black colleagues said they weren’t marginalized and bring up class and $$ in addition to race. Yowza.

        Reply ↓
  56. Seen Too Much*

    As someone in HR, I don’t understand how someone in HR approved this. I am cringing just thinking about it.

    Let’s say someone shares info, their boss is there and knows info, they are overlooked for a promotion or denied a raise. So now they can say “boss knows I’m *marginalized info* and is discriminating against me by this decision”. OR

    They don’t share and are overlooked for that promotion or raise. So now they can say “boss is retaliating against me because I refused to disclose *marginalized info*”.

    While the first would be harder to defend in a lawsuit – both would be problematic. They would lead to dissatisfied employees, low morale, higher turnover, just more HR headaches.

    I would bring this up to your L&D head, and/or your specific HR Rep and assume/hope they are unaware that this question is being asked.

    Reply ↓
    1. Abogado Avocado*

      Agree with you, Seen Too Much. I also would recommend alerting the employment division of the hospital’s legal department, which also should be horrified to learn that employees are being pressured to share this “marginalized info” with other employees.

      Reply ↓
      1. Hey, I'm Wohrking Heah!*

        One would hope, but there have been some insanely illegal and NSFW things happening in these trainings with the explicit or tacit permission of the higher ups bc nobody wanted to be seen as anti-diversity. The sad part is, it’s a wasted opportunity to have an important conversation, and it doesn’t have to be done this way to be effective.

        Reply ↓
    2. OP/LW*

      Brave of you to assume we have HR ;)

      I’m in Canada so I don’t know how it is with doctors in the US, but in my province at least, there’s no HR. Attending physicians are contractors to the hospital. Residents are technically employed by the university, but since we are also enrolled in the university as post-graduate students, we don’t have HR either. Mistreatment is rampant and our training has very little oversight.

      Reply ↓
      1. Last tiger of Tasmania*

        Somehow I knew this story took place in Canada! Sorry you’re going through this, from one Canuck to another (my username notwithstanding).

        Reply ↓
      2. ad astra*

        Yeah as a US resident the HR structure is… fuzzy. There *is* a system for reporting mistreatment, but it’s extremely convoluted when there are 2-3 different orgs involved at minimum and there are around 100 residents employed by a university with more than 30,000 students.

        Reply ↓
    3. Statler von Waldorf*

      That makes two of us. I’ve been reading the comments in a bit of shock while I try to wrap my head around it over lunch, because this seems so legally problematic that I’m having a hard time believing that this is a regular thing that happens.

      This seems like so much legal liability for such a poor business reason that it makes my head spin.

      Reply ↓
  57. Maple*

    I have a lot of privilege, but I also have a hidden disability and childhood trauma/mental health stuff. I prefer to out myself to individuals (if at all), not in group settings, thanks! And they probably aren’t even considering these forms of diversity anyway.

    Reply ↓
  58. RVA Cat*

    This kind of bass ackwards “training” always makes me think of the (massively NSFW!) Key & Peele skit “Office Homophobe” – maybe because it’s also inappropriate and TMI?

    Reply ↓
  59. Pyjamas*

    *and introduce yourself in a way you never have before, considering some of the identities on this wheel of privilege*

    Never? So they think everyone in the workshop had been in a coma for the last decade?

    Reply ↓
    1. Hey, I'm Wohrking Heah!*

      Ha right? Most people are going to have to dig deep. “Well, my gramma made pumpkin pie for Thanksgiving but I understand not everyone can buy canned pumpkin, and that in South Africa during Apartheid, what we call pumpkin was called squash…?”

      Reply ↓
  60. Hey, I'm Wohrking Heah!*

    Hold firm LW. The irony is, people who bill themselves as “tolerant” are having no tolerance for boundaries. You might also point out on your eval that this sort of overreach helped the Orange-atang get elected, which is having real consequences for everyone.
    IMO, the assumption at work that everyone shares the same beliefs, and I’ve experienced it from the left and right, is one of the worst developments of the past decade.

    Reply ↓
  61. Teacher of the High School Kind*

    Before COVID, I took a continuing ed class in “Diversity in the Classroom.” One of the assignments involved writing a personal history, including information about parents/grandparents.

    My father was an abusive nutcase. I did the assignment without mentioning him, thinking the professor would just assume I was raised in a single parent household for whatever reason.

    When I received my grade of a 69 (failing by one point on the project), she noted that I had not addressed my paternal side of the family and what privilege or non-privilege they gave me, and therefore, that was the highest grade I could receive. She considered everything else high marks on the rubric.

    I wrote her an email explaining the situation and she replied that, “this course requires critical thinking. Clearly you are not cut out for it.”

    I went to her Dept Head. He stood by me and made her re-evaluate the paper with the understanding that my paternal side of the family was non-existent. She wrote me a nasty note after giving me the grade I had earned – 97 – telling me that I had “tons of privilege I was ignoring because I was able to pretend my father didn’t exist.”

    Epilogue:
    She lost her job at the university two years later. She applied to be an teacher in our very high needs, Title I school. I sat across from her during the interview, but it was clear that she didn’t recognize/remember me (or was pretending not to).
    We gave her the job. She lasted exactly four weeks before quitting. She cited the “stress” and “poorly behaved teens.”

    Reply ↓
    1. Hey, I'm Wohrking Heah!*

      Can’t make this stuff up. She’s probably ginning up a lawsuit against the high school as we speak.

      Reply ↓
    2. Irish Teacher.*

      What the flip?! That…doesn’t even make sense. I mean, her logic that you had privilege because you didn’t write about your father doesn’t make sense. Either being raised in a single-parent family or being estranged from a parent indicates a lack of privilege.

      And so…if somebody was raised by a single parent and didn’t know anything about the other side of their family or was adopted by a single adoptive parent, she would…think that person had “tons of privilege they were ignoring”? What?

      Reply ↓
      1. Arrietty*

        My child literally doesn’t have a father. Not estranged, not no contact, non-existent. I don’t know how to evaluate the contributions to privilege provided by the single anonymous gamete that contributed to my kid’s existence.

        Reply ↓
  62. Anon Librarian*

    This reminds me a bit of how most resources about marginalized groups in libraries are about how to interact with patrons/people accessing services, not fellow librarians/staff. It’s apparently hard for some people to imagine they might have coworkers who are people of color, queer, or disabled, even if they have coworkers who are visibly/publicly in these groups. A coworker of mine did a presentation about accessibility in libraries that addressed both patrons and staff, and it was the first time I’d seen something like it outside an affinity group for disabled librarians.

    Reply ↓
  63. Light Spinner*

    Not only is this extremely invasive but also invites anyone who openly shares certain dimensions of their lives to become the target of colleagues whose ignorance or bigotry isn’t obvious or openly stated but which is very real nonetheless. Ask anyone who reveals at the workplace that their religion is paganism – they’ll almost certainly have encountered someone who confuses that with Satanism (not realizing that Satan is a figure found in the Abrahamic faiths such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but NOT in any pagan religion!) Depending on the beliefs and objectivity of the company’s management and HR staff, they may or may not be supportive of an employee who reveals something like this – and the employee can risk becoming a pariah as a result.

    More to the point, perhaps, is that some aspects of employees’ private lives are simply none. of. management’s. business. and should remain private. At the very least, companies should recognize that employees don’t always want to bring their WHOLE selves to work and should not be pressured to do so.

    Reply ↓
  64. Fool's Gold*

    Yeah maybe ask them to reflect on their “privilege”/position of power in running the training, and the power imbalance inherent to asking trainees to expose themselves to potential discrimination! Might make for an interesting discussion.

    Reply ↓
    2. OP/LW*

      Do you know what’s wild? I did! And so did one of the (younger, more sympathetic) attending physicians. And the trainer just kind of ignored it and just kept going.

      Reply ↓
  65. OP/LW*

    Thanks, all, and Alison for answering. I really appreciate the sympathy and validation. Medical culture is deeply strange and the gaslighting gets to me. I wish there were magical words I could say to make these kinds of intrusions stop, but I’ll keep on speaking up in the moment and giving feedback to the program.

    Reply ↓
    1. ad astra*

      Hopefully we can continue to make small changes that improve it for the students & residents who come after us.

      Reply ↓
  66. Annony*

    I am Dr. Annony and I am feeling incredibly privileged to live in a country where my health, ethnicity and religion are legally protected and not used to define me to my coworkers and employer.

    This is insane. I also work at an academic hospital and this is not ok. Every accredited residency and fellowship program I know of has yearly surveys about the program. I highly suggest you include this nugget for the accrediting body to review.

    Reply ↓
    1. OP/LW*

      Thanks, that’s a really good idea. I’ll do that. It’s so weird because IT KEEPS HAPPENING but it’s from different people each time. It’s more of a culture thing, you know? Like the particular “progressive” culture at this institution is to do this kind of thing.

      Reply ↓
      1. deesse877*

        This is third-hand, but I’ve been told several times that Canadian universities tend to go all-in on this sort of thing as well. I mention that merely because you say “It keeps happening”–there are probably insititional reasons, perhaps tied to government funding, that mean it keeps happening. Cold comfort, I’m sure.

        Reply ↓
  67. Always deciding how much to come out*

    Yeah, I think that if you’re talking about things your coworkers can guess from looking at you (e.g., I’m white), saying that out loud arguably isn’t doing anything to help you reflect on how that experience impacts your approach to patient care. If you’re talking about things your coworkers can’t see (e.g., I’m invisibly disabled), then people shouldn’t be insisting that everyone is or should be comfortable disclosing that information.

    And honestly, if someone insists that I SHOULD be comfortable coming out as queer or disabled at work, because this is a safe space and they’re all well intentioned, then I will actually be less comfortable coming out to them because they don’t seem to understand the risk calculation I am making.

    Reply ↓
  68. lazuli*

    While no one should feel pressured to out themselves in any way, especially at work, I think Alison is missing the context of healthcare. It’s considered ethical best practice to be providing culturally-responsive care, which is also a part of trauma-informed care. Culturally responsive care requires that providers are aware of our own cultural lenses so that we can see outside of them.

    This guide to Core Cultural Competencies for Counselors and Other Clinical Staff is directed at mental health providers but most of it would apply pretty directly to any healthcare setting. https://library.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/sma16-4931.pdf

    Self-Knowledge
    Counselors should begin by exploring their own cultural heritage and identifying how it shapes
    their perceptions of normality, abnormality, and the counseling process.

    Cultural Awareness
    Counselors who are aware of their own cultural backgrounds:
    • Are more likely to acknowledge and explore how culture affects their client–counselor relationships.
    • Examine how their own beliefs, experiences, and biases affect their definitions of normal and
    abnormal behavior.
    • Are more likely to take the time to understand a client’s cultural groups and their role in the
    therapeutic process, a client’s relationships, and his or her substance-related and other presenting clinical problems.

    Counselors who are not aware of their own cultural
    backgrounds:
    • May provide counseling that does not address obvious issues that specifically relate to race, ethnic heritage, and culture.
    • May discount the importance of how their cultural backgrounds—including beliefs, values, and attitudes—influence their initial and diagnostic impressions of clients.
    • Can unwittingly use their own cultural experiences as a template to prejudge and assess client
    experiences and clinical presentations.
    • May struggle to see the cultural uniqueness of each client, assuming that they understand a client’s life experiences and background better than they really do.

    Reply ↓
    1. OP/LW*

      I strongly believe that you can learn those things without making my trans colleague out themselves every time we talk about the subject.

      Reply ↓
    2. Angstrom*

      One can improve one’s cultural awareness without the coercive, intrusive, heavy-handed approach that the OP is being subjected to.

      Reply ↓
    3. Lenora Rose*

      This addresses why the session exists, but doesn’t address the active and disrespectful pushing of boundaries during one.

      Reply ↓
    4. BlueberryGirl*

      People can understand and reflect on their own “cultural lenses” without being asked to share personal information in a work environment — especially when doing so could expose them to harassment or discrimination. I would argue that recognizing the inherent power imbalances built into workplace structures is also ethical best practice and far to many of these trainings fundamentally fail to realize that which is, in and of itself, a failure of understanding different cultural lenses.

      Reply ↓
    5. Cthulhu’s Librarian*

      And counselors who are too focused on cultural elements miss pretty big dynamics that are actually important to the client they are seeing right now.

      Like the one who wanted to focus on the fact that I am male-presenting and so felt it was vitally important we talk about how society treats men who have been sexually assaulted, rather than realizing that hey, you’re talking to someone who was just sexually assaulted, and maybe it’s more important to help them process that trauma first, rather than to talk about how they’ll be treated if society finds out about it?

      Reply ↓
    6. Beth*

      There’s a world of difference between “People should develop awareness about their own cultural lenses, in order to provide more effective care that isn’t blocked by their internal biases and blind spots” and “People should go around in a circle and share the ways they personally experience marginalization with people who have significant power over them and may or may not actually be safe for them to share with”.

      If a trainer can’t see any way to teach cultural awareness and bias reduction that doesn’t involve forcing every LGBTQ+, disabled, non-white, non-Christian, or otherwise ‘other’ person in the room to out themselves? Maybe they shouldn’t be training this subject.

      Reply ↓
  69. Lenora Rose*

    We did a workshop with the wheel of identity, and we were invited to do a small reflection in a small group on ONE aspect of the wheel, our choice, where we had recently had an experience that made us aware of either our relative privilege, or a place where we are not privileged. But WE chose the aspect of our identity, and nobody was outed. And it was a final activity, after a variety of others, and after the bounds of the space were established, and part of a purely voluntary anti-racism workshop. And nobody made their reflection to the whole group afterwards who didn’t volunteer.

    If I’d gotten what you got instead, LW, or any pressure to stretch further, I think I’d have understood if we never saw the group again.

    Reply ↓
  70. Zarniwoop*

    A question of possible practical importance to some people here: When hiring a DEI consultant how do you determine whether they are competent?

    Reply ↓
    1. LingNerd*

      I don’t have expertise in this, but as someone who has identities that are often glossed over or not considered, I’d say a big one is being aware of what their blind spots are! It’s disappointing when “diversity training” is used to just mean “racial diversity training with the acknowledgement that gay men and maybe lesbians exist and if you’re really lucky we’ll mention wheelchairs or trans people, but probably not both.” When that’s ALL the training there is, it doesn’t really make me feel like it’s safe to talk about my identities at work.

      I also wouldn’t say that it makes someone good at DEI, but rather a bare minimum qualification is that they don’t assume anyone’s identity

      Reply ↓
  71. Orange peel*

    I have been in academic medicine for several years (previously research, now a medical student). This kind of ~positionality~ training is a barrage, and I believe that is intentional. The goal is to keep us occupied with guilt and train us to see systemic factors through an individual lens rather than asking the bigger, policy-level questions about why our most vulnerable patients are suffering: why is our ED underfunded? Why aren’t you paying nurses enough to retain them at a safe staffing level? How do “”productivity”” requirements affect the time I can spend with patients who need more of it?

    Not only is it inappropriate for an employer to pressure you into sharing this kind of information, but they only back it up with institutional change if it won’t affect their bottom line. During the BLM protests in 2020, the med school I worked at spammed us with emails about how they were “listening,” held antiracism lectures, and put up banners about how diverse they were. Did they make any changes staff requested: accepting more insurance plans held by low-income patients, promising not to fire or expel those of us who were arrested for protesting, or acting on staff reports of racism? They did not.

    Reply ↓
  72. LingNerd*

    Yeah I would be reluctant to share some parts of my identity in a work setting. There can be very real consequences to talking about certain disabilities, for instance. I don’t want to be treated differently, given less grace for my mistakes, or seen as less competent for telling people I have ADHD. There’s not a guarantee that would happen, but people have a lot of preconceived notions about ADHD, and I don’t want the burden of their assumptions or the responsibility of correcting the ones that are wrong. And aside from that, there are tons of disabilities that people are probably going to feel more private about, like something that requires using an ostomy bag, having a disorder that causes excessive sweating, or having/being in remission from an addiction or eating disorder.

    And sometimes the way someone identifies is complicated or uncertain. Someone questioning their gender or sexuality probably isn’t going to talk about it with coworkers! Someone without a diagnosis but who knows something isn’t right isn’t likely to share either. Or someone who was raised outside of the race/ethnicity they were born as and doesn’t have much connection with that culture and doesn’t feel comfortable either claiming or rejecting the identity

    Reply ↓
  73. ad astra*

    As a resident physician myself, conversations around privilege / social determinants of health / etc etc are always the worst. Most people who care about those things already know more than the 101 that is often presented, and they are presented so badly that anyone else tunes it out. Not to mention situations like OPs, which are even worse.

    No advice, just solidarity

    Reply ↓

Leave a Comment

Before you comment: Please be kind, stay on-topic, and follow the site's commenting rules.
You can report an ad, tech, or typo issue here.

Subscribe to all comments on this post by RSS