Why Robin DiAngelo-style anti-racism trainings are counterproductive

Studies show they can make things worse

Robin DiAngelo's seminars on diversity and anti-racism, especially those based on her book White Fragility, are designed to address racism by making white people more aware of their racial biases and the dynamics of white privilege. Despite their widespread popularity, extensive academic studies have shown that they do not work for their intended purposes and often even worsen things.

Sociology professors and authors of the book Getting to Diversity: What Works and What Doesn’t, Frank Dobbin, of Harvard University, and Alexandra Kalev, of Tel Aviv University, have shown that such diversity training not only exacerbates personal prejudice and group division but reduces organizational diversity.

Musa al-Gharbi, a sociologist and social justice discourse expert at Stony Brook University, writes, ”Unfortunately, a robust and ever-growing body of empirical literature suggests that diversity-related training typically fails at its stated objectives. It does not seem to meaningfully or durably improve organizational climate or workplace morale; it does not increase collaboration or exchange across lines of difference; it does not improve hiring, retention or promotion of diverse candidates. In fact, the training is often counterproductive with respect to these explicit goals.”

.

Why these types of training do not work and even make things worse

The following are some reasons for the ineffectiveness.

.

Its guilting, shaming, and name-calling methods are counterproductive to learning

DiAngelo-style seminars use methods of name-calling—labeling all white participants as eternally racist, proponents of white supremacy, ignorant, and emotionally fragile—and induce feelings of guilt and shame. This approach is detrimental to education and can make participants feel attacked, reinforcing their defensiveness instead of fostering reflection and growth. A clinical and organizational psychologist told me that insulting an audience causes most to simply stop listening.

Rather than creating a conducive environment for genuine learning, such tactics may entrench individuals in their positions, making them more resistant to change and less open to discussions about race. Psychology professor Krystine Batcho states that "Shaming places individuals in an impossible situation that yields no benefit."

It increases racial prejudice

In the Harvard Business Review article titled “Diversity Training Doesn’t Work”, executive coach Peter Bregman writes that the DiAngelo-style training has it backward: “Rather than changing attitudes of prejudice and bias, it solidified them. . . . When people divide into categories to illustrate the idea of diversity, it reinforces the idea of the categories.” Dobbin and Kalev write that “laboratory studies show that this kind of force-feeding can activate bias rather than stamp it out.”

It promotes false stereotypes of races

The approach promotes misleading and overly simplistic stereotypes, categorizing all white people as inherently racist, ignorant about race, and privileged, while portraying all black people as victims. Such sweeping generalizations are not only false but also counterproductive, as they reinforce the very racial stereotypes that racial justice education should deemphasize. It teaches people to view themselves and others primarily through the lens of race.

The seminars produce a backlash

Robin DiAngelo’s seminars have faced considerable backlash because many attendees feel that the approach personally attacks their identity and character, and they see where the stereotypes do not match their personal experiences. Rather than promoting self-reflection, these tactics can make participants feel singled out and alienated.

Shaming and name-calling can create adversarial relationships. It often turns interactions into confrontations rather than constructive discussions. The foundation of trust necessary for effective teaching, especially on sensitive topics like racial justice, is undermined.

Teaching white people that they are inherently and eternally racist no matter what they do can teach them that it is a hopeless cause and leads to people dismissing the entire racial justice cause.

Its views are simplistic and shut down any other ideas

Robin DiAngelo's concept of white fragility has been criticized for shutting down dissent and suppressing other ideas. Racism and inequality are complex issues caused by various factors, including economics, education, and social structures, not just racism alone. Addressing these issues effectively requires a multifaceted approach that incorporates a range of ideas, nuanced discussions, and dialogue. However, the framework of white fragility often stifles such discussions. The concept of white fragility is designed in a way that any disagreement or pushback is pathologized as further evidence of fragility, making it a self-perpetuating and non-falsifiable framework that resists critique.

By limiting the conversation in this way, the framework can hinder innovation and a comprehensive understanding of complex social issues, as progress often stems from a diversity of ideas and approaches.

It lacks practical solutions

DiAngelo's framework tends to center on identifying and discussing the problem of white fragility and personal racial prejudice rather than providing actionable strategies for addressing these issues in practical ways. Many find that the seminars don’t offer concrete steps for individuals or organizations to implement change, leading to frustration and a sense of helplessness.

It commercializes anti-racism

DiAngelo and others have faced criticism for profiting from anti-racism work, with some arguing that the commodification of her seminars and materials can be seen as exploiting the very issues of racial injustice she aims to address. This commercial aspect can undermine the authenticity of her message and lead to questions about the seminars’ motivations.

.

Approaches to anti-racism training that work better

Academics such as Dobbins, Kalav, and al-Gharbi have researched and offer approaches that work better. The following are some aspects that they promote.

Showing that cognitive biases affect and apply to everyone

Anti-racism training should begin by teaching that cognitive biases are universal and manifest in many forms, not just racial prejudice by white people. Everyone, of every race and background, has irrational biases and false stereotypes and has experienced being mischaracterized and misunderstood because of others’ false beliefs. When people recognize that biases affect everyone in many ways, they are less likely to feel personally attacked and can develop a more nuanced understanding.

al-Gharbi writes, “Rather than reinforcing this perception of double standards, diversity-related training should start by explaining bias, discrimination, nepotism and motivated reasoning as general cognitive tendencies, which all people are susceptible to.”

Promoting open dialogue and diversity of ideas

Effective anti-racism training fosters environments where participants can discuss race openly and respectfully without fear of judgment or shaming. It should welcome a diversity of ideas. Training should offer concrete strategies for addressing both individual and systemic racism and promote critical thinking and reflection rather than rigid adherence to a specific doctrine. Models that prioritize empathy, understanding, and practical action tend to encourage deeper engagement and sustained commitment to anti-racism efforts.

Encouraging individual interactions

Bregman argues people should work directly with a diverse group of individuals rather than being trained to abstractly accept diversity. He writes: “The solution? Instead of seeing people as categories, we need to see people as people. Stop training people to be more accepting of diversity. It’s too conceptual, and it doesn’t work. Instead, train them to do their work with a diverse set of individuals. Not categories of people. People.”

Participation should be voluntary

According to Dobbin, voluntary training is more effective than mandatory sessions. When participation is optional, employees who choose to attend are typically more engaged and open to learning. This approach reduces resistance and fosters a more genuine internalization of anti-racism principles. Forced training often leads to backlash.

Focusing on systemic change

Addressing both institutional and systemic forms of racism, alongside individual biases, provides a more comprehensive framework for combating racism.

Providing practical strategies

Training should include actionable steps that participants can implement in their personal and professional lives to effectively address racism.

Mentoring and networking programs

Dobbin also highlights the value of mentoring and networking initiatives. Pairing employees from underrepresented groups with mentors and providing networking opportunities can support professional development, enhance feelings of support, and broaden career prospects, contributing to a more inclusive organizational culture.

.

References/Further reading:

Why Diversity Programs Fail: And What Works Better by Sociology Professors Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev

The Problem(s) With Diversity-Related Training by Professor Musa al-Gharbi

Diversity Training Doesn’t Work by Peter Bregman (Harvard Business Review)

Asset-Based Antiracism vs. Guilt-Based Antiracism: What works and what doesn't by Prof. Kenneth Christiansen

Why Shaming Doesn't Work by psychology professor Krystine I. Batcho

Tema Okun decries the misuse of her ‘Characteristics of White Supremacy Culture’ list

Robin DiAngelo’s ‘White Fragility’ ignores the differences within whiteness [ by professor Raluca Bejan