Inclusion, training and the pervasiveness of implicit bias

Last week, Duke Open Campus Coalition published an open letter to President Brodhead expressing concerns over perceived censorship and a campus climate that threatened academic freedom. These student leaders—though concerned about acts of racism, homophobia and bigotry—were unsettled by recent demands from student protestors. But while I laud DOCC’s support for an open and inclusive campus, good intentions do not necessarily translate into well-founded arguments. Specifically, I was troubled by the group’s opposition to “the administration’s recent announcements suggesting that Implicit Bias Training and a required diversity course may soon be institutionalized” and labeling of such efforts as “mandatory reeducation classes.” This is what I want to address in my column.

Implicit bias training is part of a larger effort to expand training on inclusion and cultural awareness. Duke’s Task Force on Diversity presented a report to the Academic Council last May with a series of recommendations to improve faculty diversity, retention and engagement with the administration and broader Duke community. Among other findings, the task force recommended implementing “proven methods for educating faculty and leadership to recognize and counteract existing biases” and support a climate of “inclusion and empowerment.” While the DOCC is strictly opposed to such mandatory learning, a growing body of evidence supports that this type of training and continued education is both needed and effective.

I think there is little dispute that humans judge each other by race, gender and certain other characteristics. To be clear: this has a very real impact on the daily experiences of minorities and other marginalized groups. Research has shown again and again that conscious and subconscious discrimination plays an active role in the workplace, where underrepresented groups have to work harder and be better for recognition and opportunities in an environment where white men are typically the norm. Discrimination may not be as overt as it once was—though at times it definitely is—but it is pervasive and insidious nonetheless. And that is where DOCC’s “mandatory re-education” argument falls short. Bias and subconscious discrimination is not some sort of belief system someone can choose whether or not to believe in—it exists regardless and with far reaching implications. It is not a political issue, it is a human one—and importantly, one that tends to be easier to address than other forms of oppression.

Corporations have picked up on this and are paving the way for wide spread unconscious bias and diversity training, largely thanks to employees—and presumably former college students—who push for institutional change. Companies like Facebook and Google have implemented their own initiatives so employees can better understand how bias affects judgment and workplace outcomes. Thoughtfully developed training programs combat bias by enabling people to “accept that biases affect them, stress their concern about the consequences, and assure people are willing to learn to replace those tendencies with ones that more closely match their values.”

If the top companies in the world can require their employees to undergo anti-bias and racial awareness training, then why can’t our university? Training is not the end-all be-all to ending systemic racism and oppression, but it should be part of larger efforts to create more equal and just institutions. The university is considering initiatives to include diversity training for faculty and awareness for students, and they should move forward with these steps.

Duke will not be the first elite institution to implement such a system, but it can be a leader among its peers and set the standard for other universities. The University already sets curriculum requirements, as well as mandatory online alcohol education classes and sexual assault awareness during orientation week. These topics are deemed so critical to the wellbeing and intellectual development of students that they are mandatory, and diversity education is no less essential. To be sure, there are questions of cost, format and grading that are important and must be thoroughly considered by the administration. But these concerns should not preempt action

I hope that Duke can continue engaging with these topics thoughtfully and openly. But at some point, it is not enough to merely appreciate that we all have different opinions in this “marketplace of ideas.” Ideas for social change mean little if they aren’t followed by action—and at times action may first require a set of demands.

Michelle Menchaca is a Trinity senior. Her column runs on alternate Wednesdays.