Most schools and businesses mandate that their employees take a "Diversity: Inclusion in the Modern Workplace" (EDU) online training course.  Under the umbrella of compassion for all, it is a well-crafted collection of leftwing radical propaganda.   Thus, one learns that "[a]n identity transition describes the process of shifting from a central identity and its associated beliefs and behaviors to the integration of another identity, e.g., a formerly childless person finds out they [sic] are going to become a parent."

Sounds innocent enough.  And then the program turns to intersectionality which "builds on the idea of multiple identities by viewing them within their social and historical contexts of power, privilege, and discrimination, [emphasis mine] i.e., a young white woman may experience sexism because of her gender. And though she may share a 'female identity' with an Hispanic woman who is 62 years old and disabled, she would not share the added experiences of racism, ageism, and ableism by virtue of the race, age and disability."

The unsuspecting reader has been subtly led to believe that being white is problematic because she is guilty of having privilege.

Under "Workplace Identity Negotiations," Racial Identity-based Impression Management (RIM) is a process whereby individuals negotiate the way they look, act, and speak 'in order to influence perceptions of racial identity group membership and characteristics.'"  Thus, "in a 2014 study about the work experiences of Asian American journalists, researchers identified four central strategies of RIM: Avoidance, Enhancement, Affiliation, and Racial Humor."

In such vagueness does the Left prosper and become ubiquitous. Turgid titles and ambiguous meaning rule the day.

Now the Diversity Introduction program anticipates a counterargument while imperceptibly pushing its agenda as it asks:

So, 'as long as we treat everyone equally and don't hold prejudiced beliefs, everything should be fine, right?  Not necessarily.' And that's because power is at the center of all relationships.  Thus, '[p]ower imbalances put certain individuals [emphasis mine] in relative positions of vulnerability.'  In general, groups that have been historically disempowered have limited access to employment opportunities for reasons that are: Structural, i.e., 21% of black 30-year olds have college degrees, while 38% of white 30-year olds have college degrees.  This gap has increased by 7% since 1970.

In the leftist mindset, it is impossible to acknowledge that this may be a personal choice.  The implication always is that racism is to blame -- this despite affirmative action programs (in themselves racist) that have existed for over half a century.

Then there is the Power and Inequality situation where "among men in couples, gay men are three times as likely as straight men to report delays in obtaining prescribed medication."  Does it mean that the pharmacist has figured out who is gay and is deliberately being slow in counting out the customer's medication pills? 

So, while the Diversity "experts" assert that "each person is a unique individual who cannot be reduced to their [sic] identity categories," identity grouping is precisely what they are doing. 

The latest group to be lauded by the Left -- "transgender people are approximately 4 times as likely as cisgender people (people whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth) to have an annual income of less than 10,000."  What exactly is the point here?  A group is created, i.e., transgender and the Left sees discrimination everywhere because without victims, they have no raison d'etre.

In fact, since 2005, Howard Ross who has created a private diversity-consulting firm for several federal agencies, i.e., Treasury Department, Federal Reserve has "billed the feds more than $5 million for trainings."  The Left has permeated schools, businesses and federal bureaucracies.

And then comes the pseudo-profound statement that "equal treatment is not the same thing as equity."  Thus, words can really mean anything that the left wants them to mean as long as the progressive program is driven forward. 

It gets really complicated as the training program posits the following scenario:

In terms of equality, what can be said when women and minorities who may hire individuals from their own gendered or racialized groups are met with criticism?  Perhaps it is important enough to note that acting on in-group biases is itself a privilege.  For all the talk about how important diversity is within organizations, white and male executives aren't rewarded, career-wise, for engaging in diversity-valuing behavior and nonwhite and female executives actually get punished for it [because] they may actually opt out of hiring women and minorities for fear of having their decisions questioned or their competency challenged.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't, but the concentration must always be on race and gender, with the ultimate balkanization of groups.  The solution is "for allies to persuade other privilege group members to work to dismantle unearned privileges."

Hence, the term political correctness has morphed over the years. But, "it hasn't just changed meaning, it has changed targets."  

And here is the perverse genius of the leftists who manipulate language to fit their impeccably vague meanings to indoctrinate as many as possible. Since they have surmised that "politically correct" may have a negative connotation they now claim that "political correctness can be a useful compass when it comes to setting a standard of respectful contact and collaboration." Sounds almost like the Golden Rule except that the Left divides people into hostile groups to achieve their ultimate goals, precisely the opposite of the biblical injunction. 

Thus, "understanding economic disparities, gender and racial discrimination, intolerance and the impact of our explicit and implicit biases takes work, but it's an important first step." And then the onus is put on the reader -- "How have you misused your power?"

As George Carlin once opined  “[p]olitical correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness,yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules."  Don't forget guilt.

We must become "allies at work." But even this is insufficient "unless we truly address historical power imbalances or structural inequality [because] privilege at work" is one of the reasons that "diversity training is necessary." The fact that there are laws already on the books that cover employment-based discrimination is not sufficient, i.e., Civil Rights Act of 1964; Title VII.  The Left trots out the myth that "a women's [sic] average earnings will be less than a man's even if they have the same education."  What is ignored is that " [t]he average woman cuts back when her kids are born, regardless of whether her country offers family cheap childcare." But in the leftist periscope, this is just another example of sexism.

Naming is not an innocent endeavor either. Consequently, "[j]ob applicants with 'white sounding' names are 50% more likely to interview than similarly qualified applicants with 'black-sounding' names." According to Princeton University "research shows that the more people in a given field who believed that success comes from intrinsic/natural ability, the fewer women and African Americans were successful in their field."  Huh?

Victor Davis Hanson asserts that "the left has destroyed the idea of absolute truth and legitimate ends.  They have created this effort to distort reality through vocabulary."

Lawrence A. Howard has written that he "attended a mandatory training session on 'diversity' [and the] session made [him] reflect how dangerous political correctness has become; how insidious are the changes being wrought to the basic tenets of American culture . . . and how  innocent and positive it all seems to too many of [his] colleagues.  The fact is that most people think they are doing something wholesome and beneficial to the community when they engage in [such] activities [.]"  Yet such mandatory sessions "affirm and accentuate toxic differences between us.  Not relevant issues of character and merit, but rather differences, which should be irrelevant in a decent society. At one time, our society championed the cause of being blind to those same differences that we now accentuate and affirm, e.g., age, race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation." 

Everything is concerned with identity-consciousness.  Thus, if a Caucasian of Irish descent sells tamales from a concession stand, he is suddenly guilty of "cultural misappropriation."  In fact, "accentuating differences . . . has exactly the opposite effect of judging individuals based on [one's individual] character."  It is pernicious.  It should also never be forgotten that the Left wants to dismantle, dismember and destroy America. So-called diversity training is just one of its techniques.

Graphic credit: Needpix

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com