You bring up a series of fair points, of issues that absolutely need addressing when they occur.
The point of my thought experiment is not to diminish these issues, but to point out why people may oppose bringing up those topics. Most reasonable people won't react negatively to issues of accessibility, or someone feeling uncomfortable because of their LGBTQ+ status in context of a mostly non-LGBTQ+ workplace; they'll often jump to accommodate their colleagues. But there's a bunch of people wielding these topics the way preachers from my example wield the Bible, and these are the people who are first in line to tell that you need to discuss politics at work (and everywhere, all the time). If one is sympathetic to their position, it may be hard to imagine why others oppose it - hence the example from the other side of social spectrum.
I don't think your thought experiment is pertinent to the discussion in this case.
People who promote diversity and inclusion in the workplace are not trying to change the lifestyles of all employees, as your hypothetical preacher is doing. In the context of discussing "politics" at work, the point is to create a more inclusive workplace. Yes, that means people may have to attend uncomfortable trainings or learn to behave differently on the clock. But nobody is being asked to change their behavior outside of work.
It may be true that some people in some companies are overzealous in their enforcement of inclusivity policies. It may be that the way they are trying to implement those policies has an adverse effect on some other groups in the company. But that is an issue of execution that can be taken up with the people responsible for the initiative. At larger companies, these sorts of programs will be run by professionals who have studied these topics extensively, and who have goals and metrics just like any other employee. If their programs fail to produce the results leadership is looking for, presumably the approach will change.
> People who promote diversity and inclusion in the workplace are not trying to change the lifestyles of all employees, as your hypothetical preacher is doing.
Oh, but they are. Don't do "not all SJWs" argument ;).
Seriously though, this is a bit motte-and-bailey-ish. Sure, diversity and inclusion in the workplace are desirable, but the meaning of those terms is quite different from the one that's being actively promoted (until challenged, when the promoters revert back to pointing out the desirable characteristics; hence the motte-and-bailey).
> Yes, that means people may have to attend uncomfortable trainings or learn to behave differently on the clock.
Yeah, and this is where it often starts to feel like indoctrination. You have the trainings telling you what to do, and HR playing the role of commissars, ensuring you comply. Things like [0] don't happen when it's the level-headed people who are promoting diversity.
> It may be true that some people in some companies are overzealous in their enforcement of inclusivity policies. It may be that the way they are trying to implement those policies has an adverse effect on some other groups in the company. But that is an issue of execution that can be taken up with the people responsible for the initiative.
There's a very real and documented risk that trying to do that will result in the termination of the person doing the taking up, perhaps loud enough to attract a headline.
--
My point with the religious example is to try and make you change perspective, to look at things from the POV of people who oppose discussion of diversity/inclusion politics at work. I'm not it's a perfectly rational position. Feelings are involved. But it is a position that has reasons behind it, and I try to shine the light on those reasons. Do the thought experiment. Look at your social feed, and mentally replace every minority issue with a theocratic issue. Look at the co-worker zealously fighting for social justice and imagine they have a Bible in their hand instead of the rainbow in their lap. This is how it feels to be a person for whom diversity, while still desirable, isn't the most important issue in their lives.
People who say they want to keep politics out of work aren't enemies. They're often sympathetic to your cause, and at the very least willing to accommodate your personal idiosyncrasies. They just know that once you start encouraging such discussions at work, some preacher will always come out of the come out of the woodwork and turn the workplace into a battleground between two rabid minorities fighting it out and trying to desperately recruit people from the indifferent majority to join the cause. None of this is conductive to work, happiness or civilization.
What I'm trying to do with the preacher example is to point out that just because you care about some issue deeply, doesn't mean others do, and you'll get much better headway with them if you respect the fact they have different priorities, and don't want to join wars they don't believe in. It's just as true in case of religion as it is in case of diversity.
Allowing religious employees the space to practice their faith at work is explicitly part of diversity and inclusion. That is why many workplaces have prayer rooms, why dress codes allow people to wear crucifixes, why on-call rotations are moved around to cater for high holidays, why the cafeteria has vege options, and so on. Religion isn't the opposite of diversity - on the contrary!
I think it's disingenuous to portray modern attempts to make the workplace a more inclusive environment for people of different backgrounds as some kind of political indoctrination. There is nothing controversial about companies expecting their increasingly diverse workforce to do their best not to offend one another. It's good people management. It's good business.
If there really is - as you suggest - an "indifferent majority" who find it outrageously disruptive to learn how to treat their colleagues with respect, then that just reinforces the OC's point: people who resist "discussing politics" at work are privileged because they are the majority.
Fortunately, in my experience, that is not the case. I don't think most employees have a problem with doing training on unconscious bias or inclusion or whatever else, because they understand that they are at work and they are expected to uphold a certain level of professionalism. There are lots of trainings people do at work that they don't care deeply about - bribery, first aid, occupational health and safety, etc. Some of that will sink in, some of it won't, but overall the trend will be toward a happier, safer and more productive workplace for everyone.
I think you're still missing my point. I didn't mean any religion. I explicitly and purposefully brought up proselytizing religions - as a parallel to the kind of people who push for doing politics at work.
Much like many workspaces cater to the regular needs of religious people, many workplaces cater for the diversity requirements for their employees. This is non-controversial, and people generally aren't against it.
But there is a reason why most of the same workplaces will frown upon making a show of practicing your own religion at workplace, or constantly bringing it up and pushing your religious views on your co-workers. There's a difference between inclusiveness and converting. The same applies to politics, and to identity politics in particular.
> If there really is - as you suggest - an "indifferent majority" who find it outrageously disruptive to learn how to treat their colleagues with respect
I really hate this rhetorical trick. It's totally disingenuous. The indifferent majority doesn't "find it outrageously disruptive to learn how to treat their colleagues with respect". They treat their colleagues with respect already. What they find disruptive is the disrespectful colleagues who try to bully them into things by abusing their minority status, or aggressively try to force their involvement in issues they're not interested in. The "practicing politics" of this colleagues is the adult environment of punching someone in the face and then asking, "why are you hitting my fist with your face?".
You may not agree with anything I said. But consider at least the possibility that the opponents of politics at workplace, who you try to paint as morally deficient and ignoring basic decency, actually view this the way I described it. That it's true from their point of view. Accepting that will make it much easier for you to understand why they react the way they do.
You seem to be operating under the absolutist assumption that all people who discuss politics at work have some kind of malicious intent to entrap or brainwash their colleagues. That is not the case.
All that the OC pointed out is that there are situations at work - and diversity and inclusion programs are one - where the discussion of issues deemed to be "politics" can be in the interests of improving the workplace.
Obviously if an employee is disruptive, that is a problem. Your hypothetical preacher is disruptive. Your hypothetical diversity advocate who bullies their colleagues is also disruptive. But both of these are straw people. Bullying is clearly not appropriate at the workplace. That is separate to the issue of discussing politics.
I would be very surprised if the "indifferent majority" feels that inclusion programs containing some political discussion is tantamount to workplace bullying. If that were the case, it would be observable in the metrics. At least engagement and likely also productivity would take a hit if the majority of employees felt bullied. I am quite sure HR and People Ops professionals would adjust their programs if they were received that poorly.
I think the reality is that the majority of people truly are indifferent. That is, they don't care about diversity and inclusion one way or the other. They do the trainings. They hear that certain groups feel oppressed in society. They stop describing situations as "gay" or "retarded". They let women speak first sometimes. Then they get on with their day because really what difference does it make? It's just work.
Please understand that I do know there are people who are very offended or unhappy with the idea of politics in the workplace. I read HN. I can see lots of them like to comment here. These people's feelings are important to consider too, and HR professionals do exactly that when thinking about how to implement their initiatives. It's a delicate balance, and whatever they do may upset someone. But trust that they are working in good faith, and they are doing their best to try serve the interests of all employees. That is their job, after all.
The point of my thought experiment is not to diminish these issues, but to point out why people may oppose bringing up those topics. Most reasonable people won't react negatively to issues of accessibility, or someone feeling uncomfortable because of their LGBTQ+ status in context of a mostly non-LGBTQ+ workplace; they'll often jump to accommodate their colleagues. But there's a bunch of people wielding these topics the way preachers from my example wield the Bible, and these are the people who are first in line to tell that you need to discuss politics at work (and everywhere, all the time). If one is sympathetic to their position, it may be hard to imagine why others oppose it - hence the example from the other side of social spectrum.