An ‘Inclusive’ DEI Sacramento
‘Each person has layers of diversity that make his/her/their perspective unique’
By Thomas Buckley, August 16, 2024 9:00 am
The City of Sacramento has – like sooo many other cities – an Office of Diversity and Equity and it wants you to know – to start with – exactly what that means.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion are, of course, typically meaningless buzzwords bandied about so a city’s bureaucracy can expand in both power and personnel.
Sacramento, though, is very clear about what it thinks those words mean.
Here’s what “diversity” means:
“Each person has layers of diversity that make his/her/their perspective unique. The City of Sacramento defines diversity as the variety of human differences and similarities among people, such as: age, belief system, class/caste, culture, disability, education, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, generation, geography, job role and function, language, marital status, mental health, nationality, native or indigenous origins, parental status, personality type, race, religion, sexual orientation, thinking style, work experience, and work style.”
Pretty much covers everything, doesn’t it? Well, not everything – while it mentions “thinking style” it does not mention thought itself. The city’s definition does not include diversity of ideas, which is very convenient if you want to make sure the system chugs along smoothly for the benefit of the bureaucracy, not the residents. Different ideas can cause different actions, actions that are not in the pre-approved bundle of the permissible.
How about “inclusion?”
“This is an active state of being valued, respected, and supported. Inclusion focuses on the needs of every individual and ensures the right conditions are in place for each person to achieve their full potential. Inclusion should be reflected in an organization’s culture, practices, and relationships, which are in place to support a diverse workforce…An inclusive environment ensures equitable access to resources and opportunities for all. It also enables individuals and groups to feel safe, respected, engaged, motivated, and valued for who they are and for their contributions toward organizational and societal goals.”
While it does include a passing mention of “societal goals,” – something one would think would be at the top of public agency’s “to do” list – it is the internal organization, the staff, that is the focus of inclusion.
The definition also fails to mention the concept of competence. Should the incompetent be “respected and valued” as much as everyone else? It doesn’t seem to matter; in fact, such a heretical idea is intentionally exclusionary.
And, of course, “equity:”
Regardless of one’s identity, equity is when all people have just treatment, access to opportunities necessary to satisfy their essential needs, advance their well-being, and achieve their full potential while identifying and eliminating barriers that have prevented the full participation of some groups.
Pablum for the progressives here – the definition is so meaningless as to be inoffensive, though it can be twisted in such a way as to be used as a bureaucratic weapon against anyone.
And if you want more definitions of things like “white privilege,” the office recommends you look here
So what does the city’s Office of Diversity and Equity actually do? It issues reports to the city council, and is the home of SCORE – the Sacramento Centered on Racial Equity initiative.
And what does SCORE do (actually there are a pair of contractors that do much of the actual work, one being Race Forward which believes that “working within an ecosystem of social justice movements, is positioned to transform both systems and culture to steward our vision into reality.”)?
Creating “Trust Building Circles” is one of SCORE’s efforts. Such “Circles” are “open to anyone – presumably staff? – interested in “developing their conflict resilience skills and creating a supportive space to explore and transform conflict.”
And there are rules to participating, including:
- Respect for confidentiality: What is shared in the Circle stays in the Circle.
- Respectful communication: Speaking from the heart, using “I” statements, and avoiding blame and judgment.
- Active listening: Being fully present and attentive to the speaker without interruption or distraction.
- Commitment to growth: Being open to learning from others and willing to reflect on our own perspectives and biases.
While this sounds an awful lot like group therapy, SCORE makes sure you don’t think that, stating that “If you have a specific issue that requires professional support, please seek help from a qualified therapist or counselor.”
A great deal of the current progressive/DEI/whatever movement is, in fact, draw specifically from the therapy and/or self-help movements. The techniques and specifically the words used are taken from groups like AA and stripped of their actual therapeutic potential.
This usurpation gives the terms a feeling to the public of general familiarity, lending a certain comfort when encountering them. By taking what, in many cases, was non-confrontational “feel good” terminology and warping it for their own purposes, the woke and the bureaucrats can, and so far have successfully, “Trojan Horse” their belief system into society as a whole.
“Trigger,” “safe space,” “speaking your truth” – note, not the truth – are all concepts stolen from the therapy industry. That’s why they – and the eventual actions they generate – are difficult to criticize. Therapy – and now DEI efforts – are about caring – if you disagree, you are an uncaring person.
The circles are run by a facilitator who is a member of something called the “nina collective” based in Madison, Wisconsin. The collective – speaking of words, that one comes up a lot when government warrior bureaucrats are trying to herd everyone in the same direction – “intentionally centers race because structural and institutional racism are at the core of the deepest and most harmful inequities in both our history and current reality.”
Here’s a flower explaining their approach:
Besides, all of that, the office oversaw the “food justice grant program” and is in the process of creating a “citywide racial equity study.”
And then there’s the “WORKFORCE RACE & GENDER EQUITY ACTION PLAN 2020-2025,” a plan based on the following “four pillars of system change:”
1) culture shift, 2) building trust 3) equipping and developing employees, and 4) connecting to purpose
The plan has a number of “performance measures,” most of which involving human resourcey-tasks like updating job descriptions, figuring out how to recruit more “diverse” people, creating “trainings” and such.
But one plan task stands out. Under “hiring process” is the following “outcome”:
The City of Sacramento workforce reflects the racial and gender makeup of the community, creating an inclusive, effective, and competitive future. “Reflect the community we serve – to better serve the community”
And meeting that goal involves the following:
“(ensuring)…paper application process are clear, centralized by department, and analyzed by race, gender, etc.
I didn’t think you could do that in California.
- Why the Menendez Case, George? - October 4, 2024
- Hochman Dwarfs Gascon in Campaign Funds - October 4, 2024
- Advantage, Vance - October 2, 2024
So glad that here in Lake Elsinore and other neighboring cities we don’t waste taxpayer money and staff time on such nonsense as “Diversity Officers” and “DEI Statements”. It’s so incredibly insulting to taxpayers who just want functioning roads and emergency services that respond when needed.
First of all, for every govt invocation of “diversity,” etc. that we have been nagged about for a couple of decades, we have all since learned that the opposite of their noble-sounding terminology will be the result. Did you notice that the more we have been made to practice “diversity,” the more narrow and homogenized (and incompetent) everything has become?
Once upon a time, back when the politicians and bureaucrats (school boards, city councils, city staff, commissions, etc.) thought they had to get —- or were required to get —- community “consensus” before recklessly closing down schools, drafting the city’s new “general plan,” downgrading all established zoning, etc., and were irritated by pesky citizen taxpayers showing up at meetings with torches and pitchforks, they would stage a theatrical production where citizens were invited to meetings to give “community input.” At those meetings, to prevent any one person from speaking their objections out loud to be heard by the entire group, each person was assigned to a “breakout group” of 8-10 people, which was led by a hired and paid “facilitator,” who sought to socially-shame obstinate and opinionated individuals into submission.
It was the rare person who knew what was going on and who thus tried to foil their plan, which even if one knew, was pretty much impossible anyway. For instance if you tried to sound the alarm to the entire group you were shunned for not “following the rules” and thus made a pariah, and eventually you were flirting with removal or worse. Then, having gathered the results from the “facilitators” and having thus achieved public “consensus,” the city, or school board, or whoever, could say that —- for instance —- turning the schools into homeless housing or spending millions on useless “bike lanes” had a total thumbs-up from the “community.” But as you can see the whole expensive show was nothing but a cheap parlor trick. Not to mention a jobs program for “facilitators” and “consultants.”
That the Marxists in our local govts and beyond managed to get away with this B.S. for so long—– applied to just about every wacky idea from the local govt pinheads a person can think of — is probably WHY we are beset with the Super-B.S. of D.E.I. today. And now they don’t even bother to put on the phony theatrical presentation to achieve “community consensus.”
This began in the late 60’s with SENSITIVITY trainings and role playing groups conducted by pseudo psychologists.
A local general manager whose skill set was not equipped to understand the enormity of the job, invested her vision and our unavailable resources to develop a splash pad in a natural park populated with pooping Canada geese. The board was led to believe it would benefit the community because a favorite swimming hole was too expensive to maintain and there was a grant opportunity. After investing tens of thousands on foundational studies and designs, a number of residents, who were not initially informed of the plan and its impact, saw the folly in maintaining water sourced equipment, sanitation and liabilities in a location primarily suited for nature and wildlife.
The project was scrubbed by public outrage, but no loss to those who tried to implement it.
That is a great example, Roberta Bailey. To add insult to injury, it is my understanding that much of the bond money we voted for from 2000 on — to build reservoirs and expand water storage in California — was spent locally on preposterous projects such as what you described, as well as stupid green projects that were of no use and benefited no one once the cash was handed out. The bond money was not meant for that nonsense in the first place, and the stuff it was used for not only failed miserably but cost more money to get rid of in the second place. Usually because it quickly became a hazard! That had to be removed or there would be law suits! Sigh
I’ll spare you the story of the “trout pond” — stocked with actual trout, poor things — that was built in the local arroyo in my town with bond money meant for water storage. Well, I’ll spare you except to say it had a Visqueen (thick plastic) liner which soon began to leak, apparently compromising the stability of the land it was on, and of course it also smelled, with no ability to maintain or clean it or flush the silly thing with fresh water. As I recall they actually drained it, replaced the liner, and filled it back up again, having learned nothing from their idiocy the first time around. And all that money wasted.
Anyone with common sense (no engineering degree needed) could have predicted this project was doomed to fail. But as you pointed out, there is never a loss or downside for the people who burden us with their stupid ideas and fantasy projects but who WANT THAT GOVT MONEY! These people are never embarrassed by their boondoggles, large or small, are they?
“The City of Sacramento workforce reflects the racial and gender makeup of the community, creating an inclusive, effective, and competitive future. “Reflect the community we serve – to better serve the community”
Are people of less pigmented skin or whose pronouns reflect the XX or XY of their birth excluded to accept more diverse colors and genders?
Doesn’t equity defeat competition?
” From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs “
While Mayor Steinberg and the evil communist Democrats who have a strangle hold on power in Sacramento obsess over race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, they completely ignore what matters to most Sacramentan’s like good roads and other infrastructure, good public schools, and safe communities.