評論
打印
How diversity training infuriates men and fails women
多元化培訓即惹惱了男性也辜負了女性職員
DECADES BEFORE ANITA HILL, Gretchen Carlson or #MeToo,
在ANITA HILL性騷擾案、Gretchen Carlson案或#MeToo運動案發數十年前，
American companies dreamed up “diversity training,”
美國各大企業一直渴望開展“多元化培訓”，
typically a course that lasts anywhere from an hour to a couple of days,
就是那種持續時間從一小時到幾天不等，
with the goal of wiping out biases against women and others from underrepresented groups.
目的在于消除對女性或其他弱勢群體的偏見的課程。
For most of its history, diversity training has been pretty much a cudgel,
大多數時候，多元化培訓都像一個棍棒，
pounding white men into submission with a mix of finger-wagging and guilt-mongering.
夾雜著拒絕或兜售內疚感等伎倆來迫使白人男性屈服。
The first training programs surfaced in the 1950s,
第一批培訓出現于20世紀50年代，
after men returned from World War II and were appalled and perplexed to find women in their offices.
那時，剛從二戰戰場上下來的男人們看著辦公室里女人們的身影還會覺得膽戰心驚，不知所措。
After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the training took on more urgency.
1964年《民權法案》通過后，開展培訓的需要變得更加緊迫。
Within a decade, it had morphed into a knee-jerk response to legal actions,
不到10年，它就已經演變為對法律制裁的一種下意識反應，
after a series of high-profile sexdiscrimination suits,
這期間發生了一系列備受矚目的性別歧視訴訟案件，
including one by the women of Newsweek magazine, who were stranded in a pink ghetto.
其中就包括《新聞周刊》女員工因為受到職場天花板的限制而起訴一案。
“Women don’t write at Newsweek. If you want to be a writer, go someplace else,”
“《新聞周刊》的女性員工是沒有資格做編輯的。想當一名編輯？慢走不送。”
the bosses told them, according to Lynn Povich, one of the 46 women who sued.
該案46名受害者之一Lynn Povich說，公司的領導們就是這么跟她們說的。
By the time I entered the workforce in the 1980s, the Newsweek suit and others like it—led by women at TIME,
到80年代我進入這個行業的時候，《新聞周刊》一案及類似的案件 - 這些案件都是由《時代周刊》
the Associated Press and the New York Times—were mostly forgotten.
美聯社和《紐約時報》女性帶頭發起的 - 大多大多已經被人遺忘。
Diversity training had taken a backseat too.
多元化培訓也暫時退居二線。
I don’t recall ever hearing the phrase until the 1990s.
我記得，90年代以前多元化培訓這種說法我連聽都沒聽過。
By then, it had been reconstituted as a feel-good exercise in consciousness-raising.
那時它已經被重塑成了一種提高自我意識的良好做法。
White men were told they should include women and minorities because it’s the right thing to do.
白人被告知他們應該接納女性和弱勢群體員工，因為那才是正確的做法。
It was all about the importance of “inclusion.”
這一切都是為了體現“包容”的重要性。
But here’s the thing about diversity training: it doesn’t work.
然而，多元化培訓有一個問題：它不起作用。
Harvard organizational sociology professor Frank Dobbin and others have since delved into why such programs have failed.
一直以來，哈佛大學組織社會學教授弗蘭克·多布賓（Frank Dobbin）等人都在研究這些計劃失敗的原因。
Dobbin combed through thousands of data points and found that for white women and black men and women in management positions, it actually made things worse.
Dobbin梳理了數千個數據點，發現對白人女性、黑人男性以及女性管理人員而言，多元化培訓只會把事情弄得更糟。
That’s right: companies that introduced diversity training would actually employ more women and black men today if they had never had diversity training at all.
沒錯，要不是因為搞了多元化培訓，很多公司現在肯定已經雇用了更多的女性員工和黑人男性員工。
He singled out three situations in which training is doomed to fail:
教授指出了多元化培訓注定失敗的三種情況：
when it’s mandatory; when it so much as mentions the law; or when it is specific to managers, as opposed to being offered to all employees.
一是強制推行多元化培訓，二是培訓提到法律，三是培訓只針對經理人而不是所有員工。
Unfortunately, he found, about 75% of firms with diversity-training programs fall into at least one of those categories.
不幸的是，他發現將近75％的推行多元化培訓計劃的公司至少屬于上述一種類型。
