you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Velocity 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What then is the intended context for mentioning a varied and disparate range of ideologies in regards to equal opportunities training?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The process in Human Resources at universities and elsewhere has been updated and expanded - due more recently to BLM - to something now called, 'diversity training', or similar, addressing approaches to under-represented and marginalized groups and how to deal with them. Thus equality and equity are now under the diversity umbrella for HR training of staff, who have to attend a 3 hour training exercise and answer exam questions thereafter. The potential problems they list are in that 'equailty' document linked above, as well as the approaches of racists, sexists, micro-aggression, and especially the importance of the "outcome" of one's actions, by contrast with the relatively unimportant "intention".

[–]Velocity 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Would partly agree with you. This article has been around for awhile. It's understood that the 1% frequently agitate both sides of the contrived political spectrum via editorialized/sensationalized mis/disinfo in order to increase conflict and division.

While still taking the document at face value. If being read correctly, it still stands as an endorsed gov document that categorizes anyone that "ideologically colors outside the lines" as being dangerous. However the headline leans towards being at least alarmist considering the context.