Reclaiming Inclusion: Advancing Equity Without Saying ‘Diversity

 Introduction:

In today’s climate, even the word “diversity” has become politically charged. In some sectors, using it openly may result in backlash—or even legal consequences. But inclusion isn’t optional. Organizations still need to harness the full spectrum of human potential to thrive, adapt, and solve complex problems. Inclusion is about ensuring people can contribute without being excluded, sabotaged, or harassed. And that remains vital, regardless of what we call it.

---

1. Inclusion Is the Goal—Not the Word

The pushback against DEI often centers on terminology. But let’s be clear: we don’t need a word to keep doing the work. Inclusion means making sure everyone—regardless of background, identity, or lived experience—can contribute meaningfully. If the word “diversity” becomes a political lightning rod, we can use other framing—like representation, belonging, psychological safety, or inclusive leadership—without losing the essence.

Tip: Reframe your goals around “effective team participation,” “broadening access,” or “removing participation barriers.”

---

2. The Real Threat to Inclusion? Sabotage and Harassment

The biggest threats to inclusion don’t come from regulations—they come from inside. Passive-aggressive saboteurs, workplace bullies, and gatekeepers can quietly undo inclusive efforts. They withhold information, sideline new hires, or harass people into quitting—all without ever breaking an official policy.

Inclusion fails not when we stop using the word, but when we let toxic behaviors fester.

Organizations need strategies rooted in behavioral psychology to recognize and stop these patterns. It’s not about training people to “be nice”—it’s about changing the reinforcement systems that allow bullying and exclusion to persist so that bullies can't exclude people from the work group anymore. 

---

3. Why Inclusion Still Pays Off

Inclusive teams don’t just feel better—they perform better. Research shows that when people from different backgrounds are truly allowed to collaborate, they identify risks faster, innovate more, and solve problems more effectively. But that only happens when team members feel safe speaking up—and that means rooting out behaviors that silence or sideline differing viewpoints.

If you’re hiring for talent, you need to protect that talent from saboteurs.

---

4. How to Protect Your Inclusion Initiatives in a Politicized World

You can protect inclusion efforts without waving a DEI banner:

• Embed it into leadership values: Talk about fairness, safety, and performance, not identity politics.

• Use data, not slogans: Focus on participation metrics, attrition rates, and engagement scores.

• Train your managers in behavioral techniques: Give them tools to shut down sabotage and ensure new ideas aren’t ignored or punished.

• Make inclusion a performance issue: If someone is undermining a team member’s ability to contribute, it’s a leadership failure—not a personality clash.

---

5. Next Steps: Train for Real Inclusion

Stopping harassment and sabotage requires more than good intentions—it takes skills. My courses are designed to teach exactly that, using proven behavioral psychology techniques to:

• Stop variably reinforced harassment

• Create reinforcement systems that protect inclusion

• Identify and neutralize saboteurs of inclusive culture

Whether you call it “diversity,” “belonging,” or “collaborative team culture,” the goal is the same: make sure everyone is included and no one on your team is being sabotaged.

Learn how to stop harassment using behavioral psychology →https://humanistlearning.com/programsoffered/#bullying
Learn how to safeguard your inclusion initiatives →https://humanistlearning.com/safeguarding-diversity-and-inclusion-unmasking-saboteurs/

Questions about Dealing with Bullies in the Workplace.

 Participants in my online courses ask great questions.  Here are a couple from my stop bullying in the workplace program and my answers to them. They are about false reports and how to effectively document bullying. 

PS if you want to take one of these courses - here is the link: https://humanistlearning.com/category/bullyingharassment/

Question 1: What do you do with a false harassment report?

When a report is false – it tells you something valuable. Which is that – someone just made a false report.    

There are a few reasons why this could be.

1. They lied.

2. They told the truth – but you just don’t know it yet

3. Something between the truth and non-truth is going on.

I would start watching and paying a bit more attention to this employee.  Give them the benefit of the doubt, and see if there are other things going on.  But it’s honestly not unheard of for bullies to make false reports against their targets.  So – treat it as valuable information and monitor.

Just so you know though – I have a colleague who runs a reporting system for a school district. He told me that out of 2 million reports they received – only 2 were false.   It does happen though.

Your goal – to know what the truth is. So – just keep focusing on that.

Question 2: How do you document bullying behavior?

Hi – I have a sample bullying documentation log at: https://bullyvaccineproject.com/courses/downloads/ free to download.

Date – when/where – who  - what exactly happened – who witnessed. – who you reported it to and any documentation available to back it up.

These are mostly for your records – but can be shared with people in authority. Bullying is a pattern of behavior – so it’s important to – document that pattern.

The reporting process in most business aren’t designed to capture patterns of behavior though. They are designed for 1 off situations.  That is a challenge for someone trying to prove bullying.

A log that shows the pattern is what helps people understand – this isn’t just a single incident – it’s a pattern.

Free Bullying Resources for Your Family

I offer free bullying resources in English and Spanish. Where I teach how to stop bullying using behavioral science. The book has been translated into Spanish, Italians and Portuguese  https://bullyvaccineproject.com/ and https://humanistlearning.com/books-bully-vaccine-translations/

Critical Race Theory and EEO and Diversity Training

 At the beginning of September, the Office of Budget and Management at the request of President Trump issued M-20-34, which basically states that no federal government training should include critical race theory or any other training that address white privilege or that suggests white people are inherently racist. As someone who provides harassment and EEO training to government agencies, what is my feeling on this? I'm glad you asked.

First, I have no problem with critical race theory. I think it's a REALLY useful lens to understand American History. And I agree with the statement put out by the Deans of the UC Irvine Law School that it is absolutely ridiculous to describe critical race theory as anti-American. https://www.law.uci.edu/news/in-the-news/2020/richardson-uc-law-deans-critical-race-theory.html

But I also am already in compliance with the memo as I don't use critical race theory in my trainings. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/M-20-34.pdf

As I said, I offer EEO Refresher and Settlement Training and just bid on anti-racism training for a government agency. I reviewed the memo and executive order as soon as it came out and I can safely say, it doesn’t impact me or my colleagues who offer similar training at all.

 And again, I think Critical Race theory is a useful theory. I actually agree with it. It's just that, as a training tool, not only do I think it would not be effective, I think it would be counterproductive. It is not something I would introduce or use as a tool or a lens to consider the topic at hand.  Mostly because all it does is raise awareness. It doesn’t help change behavior. 

Just making people aware of a problem doesn’t’ fix the problem.

I have many reasons why I would NOT and do not use it in a training program. Let’s assume I’m doing a training for a group and – the group includes a racist. 

First, everyone in the group knows that person is a racist. It’s not a secret. What they want to learn is, 'how do I stop them from hurting me and my colleagues.' Being told racism is a problem and how exactly it is a problem doesn’t teach people what they need to know. It just tells them what they already know.  It would be better to teach them what they really want to learn, which is, how do I make it stop.

Second: the racist won’t learn anything from the training. There will be no epiphany. They will just feel attacked and self-righteous and probably dig into their behaviors more. Again, this doesn’t fix the problem. 

Third: using critical race theory as the basis of a training contains a flawed assumption. This flaw is not unique to anti-racism training. It’s in harassment training and NO FEAR Act training as well. The long-standing assumption with harassment and No FEAR Act training and discrimination training and civility training is: if we just explain to people that certain behaviors are hurting others they will just stop. Never once in the entire history of humanity has asking an abusive person to stop being abusive worked. Not once. And yet, that's what these trainings usually boil down to. 

(Note: My training is about how to stop unwanted behavior, so if you want to have a training that teaches your staff what they really want to know, contact me.)

The Ban on Critical Race Theory

The only situation I would use critical race theory in a training would be a high-level meeting to discuss strategy on how to fix systemic problems in a workplace and it would be used as a topic to discuss systems adjustments not as a bludgeon to make people feel bad.  I would NEVER use it in the way it is described in the executive order.  IF those examples are true then whoever those trainers are should be banned.  

What was described in the executive order violates the dignity of the individuals in the training. No good training would do that.  

What should be in a training? 

First - All training on harassment, discrimination, retaliation and civility should be based in dignity.  Everyone in every training I have ever given has experienced what Donna Hicks calls dignity violations. Everyone. Including the people who I have been told by the people bringing me in are the ‘problem people.’  Everyone.

Trainings need to help people assert their dignity and learn to do so in a way that does not denigrate the dignity of others.  This means a training should help the 'problem person' be less defensive and own their own dignity so that they can give dignity to others.

Second: In order to help people get unwanted behavior directed at them to stop (which is what people REALLY want to learn) we need to learn what works to ‘fix’ behaviors. This means teaching people behavioral approaches to get unwanted behaviors to stop. Just making people aware of a problem doesn’t’ fix the problem.  Teaching them how to take responsibility for their own behavior so that they can ‘fix’ the behavioral dynamics around them is priceless. People want to learn this and are motivated to learn it and this results in an entire office of people being on their best behaviors to ‘fix’ what they believe to be the bad behaviors of others.  Best of all, this sort of training  helps people claim their dignity and worth and learn how to assert it without harming others in the process. It creates a positive feedback loop.

Rethinking the problem and treating people with dignity. 

Having done this for a long time now, pretty much my entire adult life, I can tell you with some authority that very few people are truly problematic. Most people are good people.  In most offices there are people who make mistakes and these problems are easily fixed if given the right tools.  

In the few cases that can't be fixed it is because the ‘problem person’ has a mental health issue that is impeding their ability to control their behavior. If that is the case, they need and deserve to be treated with dignity and compassion.  The descriptions of what is being banned and why in the EO violates people’s dignity. I will never be ok with any training approach that violates people's dignity.  

What about the racists?

For the people who are in management positions and who are truly racist, and they exist, no training on how to be anti-racist will fix that. You just have to fire them. Or at least not give them any position of power over any person. 

I get called in by companies who want me to ‘fix’ their problem person. I don’t take those jobs.  What they want me to do I can’t do. People have to want to learn what you are teaching them.  Very few racists want to learn to not be racist. Some do get to that point but those people talk about deconversion, like racism is a religion that they have to break away from. A critical race theory training isn’t going to do that. Deconversion is a time intensive process.  

Deconverting a racist is really NOT something an employer should be taking on. Companies just have to decide whether they can minimize the harm a racist is causing by NOT giving this person authority over ANYONE (because they will abuse their authority if given the chance) or if they should fire them. 

My advice: 

When you get someone who holds an extreme ideology that is fundamentally against treating everyone with dignity, if you don’t fire them, then you are culpable for the harm they do. And they will do harm because they won’t treat certain people with dignity.

Conclusion:

To me, the ban on critical race theory as a training tool is valid. As I said right after the ban came out I participated in a joint bid on anti-racism training and none of us were concerned that our bid would be negatively impacted by the order as none of us involved in the bid use critical race theory. In fact the lead on that project was pretty happy the ban was issued, because it gives us an edge. And yes she is a black woman.

 If you are in the government and need a training that complies with this order, contact me and check out my course offerings: https://humanistlearning.com/category/businesscourses/mandated/

How do we get rid of workplace bullies?

I teach a behavioral approach on how to eliminate abusive behavior. Bullying is a behavior – it needs a behavioral solution.

How we can get rid of workplace bullies when those bullies are workplace leaders?  

Well – it depends. Are they the ultimate boss? If so – you can’t. If they are a middle manager and have people above them – you can, but ONLY if upper management supports the effort and understands how their responses either support behavior elimination or support the continuation of the behavior.  In other words, people need to learn what actually works to get unwanted behaviors to stop and to take their role in making that happen seriously.

If you're a workplace that has turned a toxic culture around, how did you do it? 

I was hired once to fix a toxic volunteer culture at a nonprofit. Staff volunteer relations were toxic. Volunteers thought their job was to spy on staff and turn them in for malfeasance. The result is no staff wanted to work with volunteers.  When I came in – I created job descriptions for volunteers and did a training on what we expected them to do. Most were quite happy to actually be of help. Only one person was not. We gave that person time to adjust to the new role expectations and when she failed – we fired her.  She attempted to retaliation (which is normal and predicted using a behavioral model) and she failed.

Relationships and culture improved from there.  The big thing I did – was I recruited volunteers willing to help me change the culture and staff members who were willing to experiment with the volunteers. I helped the people with good intentions willing to experiment and reset the relationships. I helped them work through initial difficulties and trust issues until – they were working well together as a team. As I had success with individuals – other staff members requested I help them too. At each stage – I put in the time to coach and help the participants – establish positive working relationships.  We went from 10 volunteers with toxic relationships to 500 volunteers working in every part of the agency – including our law enforcement aspects (we were an animal welfare agency in CA).  My volunteers put in over 20,000 hours a year – which was the equivalent of 10 full time employees.   Let me help you understand this. 1 toxic volunteer was costing us 10 full time employees! That’s a lot of lost productivity. Now think of how much damage one toxic employee can do. It’s important to tax this seriously and put in the work required to reset relationships and build trust.

What advice do you have for companies to do the same?

1. Be realistic. I get calls all the time from companies who ask me to train a toxic employee to be less toxic. I can’t do that. No one can.  If you want to fix the problem, you have to take responsibility for fixing it. There is no magic way to fix it and you can’t offload the problem either.
2. Take responsibility for fixing the problem. If you want to eliminate toxic workplaces you must eliminate the toxic individuals. And then, you have to do the work to re-establish trust in the teams and between people. This takes time and effort and if you don’t put the time and effort it – it won’t happen.
3. Don’t assume people are toxic. Most people want to be in positive work relationships and respond well to coaching. Always go in assuming people will surprise you and will respond well to support and coaching. But if someone does not – eliminate them.

What role does HR need to do (and step up to) to stop bullying?

HR needs to help upper management learn what exactly needs to happen to get bullying to stop. That means – if they don’t know exactly how to get unwanted behavior like bullying to stop – they need to learn it – because until they know the behavioral science behind how to get unwanted behaviors to stop  - they won’t be able to help upper management. Often – all that is required is tweaks to some of the systems, a compassionate attitude and consistency. The first step is to learn the behavioral science so you can make those tweaks.

Who needs to be involved? 

If upper management is not on board – any effort to  change culture will fail. Bullies will not be eliminated.

HR needs to be involved to help create the processes that help support the change and the improved methods for stopping bullying behavior and resetting relationships. Again – what needs to happen to reset relationships – is time intensive. And – some people – won’t respond to coaching  - so having compassion based processes to help people learn to behave better and to eliminate them if they don’t – are what HR should be helping with.

Middle managers need to be trained on these new processes and they need to be coached on how to properly handle problems as they arise. Middle managers are the key. You either help them succeed or the initiative fails.

What do they need to do? What resources should be in place?

Everyone needs to be trained on how to eliminate unwanted behaviors and how to reward wanted behaviors and people need to have a clear understanding of what exactly those behaviors are that we are reinforcing and rewarding and what exactly to do when an unwanted behavior occurs. So – a training on behavior modification is needed along with ongoing support and coaching so that middle managers can actually reset relationships and build positive trusting teams. HR and upper management need to know what to do if – a middle manager is a bully and how they handle their non-compliance with the new processes. Everyone should be on the same page – because – when it comes to eliminating unwanted behavior – consistency is key.


Let me know if I can be of any further help. I have a variety of online programs that teach these techniques – and also do in person trainings. https://humanistlearning.com/category/bullyingharassment/

What can companies actually do about harassment?

Google was in the news this week because - 20,000+ of their employees walked out to demand better treatment of women.  Their demands include not just pay equity, but also - improvements to how the company deals with harassment problems.

Photo by Russell Brandom / The Verge

Their list of demands seems quite reasonable and can be found here: https://www.thecut.com/2018/11/google-walkout-organizers-explain-demands.html

The catalyst for this was that an executive at Alphabet - the parent company of Google - stepped down amid harassment allegations. https://www.upi.com/Google-workers-walking-off-the-job-amid-sexual-harassment-cases/2971541066788/

This was an is a global movement within the company and the company was supportive of the walk out - meaning - they were not planning to retaliate against employees who participated. Which is good.

The basic demands are pay equity, transparent policy regarding harassment, an end to force arbitration, a diversity officer that reports directly to the CEO and employee representation on the board. These all seem like reasonable demands.

But this does bring up the question, what can companies realistically do? Obviously - conducting a harassment training isn't enough. A training won't change behavior and it certainly won't change processes that are in place to protect the company instead of processes to protect the employees.

This last bit is the important part. What the employees want - are processes that protect them. The problem is that even with processes in place, they aren't always used and processes can often protect the accused and cause harm to the victim.

So what should companies that take this seriously do?  Find out what ideally should be happening.  And I don't mean - the basics - have a whistle blower program and polices etc. Though you should have all that.

What I mean is that employees and lawyers advising employers need to know what exactly should be happening to make the unwanted behavior stop. It should be pretty clear to everyone that telling someone who is abusing an employee to stop - doesn't actually work. I get called in when companies have an employee they want to "fix." And if that is your attitude, you aren't going to succeed.

Harassment is a behavior. Unwanted behaviors can be eliminated but you need to know the science of how exactly that happens so you can build your process to accomplish that. Legal concerns are important, but legal processes are almost always after the fact and designed to protect the employer against claims made by an employee. And yes - you need to do that - but again - that leaves your employees vulnerable and tends to protect the abuser and actually increases the harm done.

So let's stop putting the cart before the horse and start focusing on what actually has to happen to help employees protect themselves and their co-workers from the bad apples in your organization.  Learn what works to make unwanted behaviors stop!

I have a lot of courses on this and if you are a labor lawyer and have not yet been taught the behavioral science of how to get unwanted behaviors to stop - I have great news for you - I have courses approved by the FL Bar for CLE credit. So please start learning this and lets start changing how we handle these situations.

Behavioral Science Based Bullying & Harassment Courses: https://humanistlearning.com/category/bullyingharassment/

CLE: https://humanistlearning.com/category/continuing-education-2/cle/

Which is better, online or in person training?

Which is better depends on what you are teaching and why you want to learn it.

 

In an age of online information it is very easy to get access to learning resources for just about any subject or discipline. But is that the best way to learn? Online learning is efficient. It's accessible. I, personally, find it very effective. Best? If not, why? What do you (did you?) like better about a
"traditional" learning experience? The next Big Question asks: What is the big difference between learning online and traditional classroom learning?

I have an online training company so I do like online for some things. But what I teach is just knowledge transmission.   It doesn’t require a lot of coaching and practice.  Whether I teach it online or in person, it’s pretty much the same. The big different is Q&A.  It is much easier to have a discussion about implementation and make sure that comprehension is clear through a discussion – when it is in person.

I view online similar to reading a book or listening to an audio book. Different people want to self-study in different ways and online can facilitate that – especially if they are a motivated learner.  It is also useful for redundant training that is really just about making sure people receive knowledge (like a harassment training).

The hybrid model, though works well. My son likes to play Minecraft. He will watch online videos related to that and then excitedly come to his computer to try out what he has learned. He self educates through online content and active practice all the time.

On the other hand – he is also learning to do wood working. His dad is teaching him. This requires hands on in the workshop learning on how to saw, or sand or whatever. These sorts of hands on skills are best taught through apprenticeship.

So – which is better? Depends on what is being taught. Some things need to be experienced, others can be transmitted through a lecture (book, audiobook, or video).

I am a big fan of using evidence based approaches. So here is a research paper on the effectiveness of bias training. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/research-report-113-unconcious-bais-training-an-assessment-of-the-evidence-for-effectiveness-pdf.pdf

This is a really useful resource for people considering unconscious bias training in terms of finding out what works and what doesn't.  Turns out - online and face to face - are both equally effective in terms of raising awareness. But if you want to actually change behavior, you need to take a behavioral approach. There is more in the report than that, specifically related to levels of gender bias.

This is why I teach - a behavioral approach to harassment!