FAA CIVIL RIGHTS SCAM

The Corporate and Government Diversity Scam

Under the guise of "diversity training," the intolerance of
the political Left has penetrated corporate America.
Initially implemented to both insulate companies from
lawsuits while fostering a more harmonious working
environment, corporate diversity training has turned the
twenty-first century workplace into a war zone. Throughout
the last decade, corporate diversity departments and
well-paid external "diversity consultants" have instituted
training programs specifically designed to enforce political
correctness in corporations.

The demand for conformity inherent to these programs is
undeniable. Despite their stated purpose, corporate
"diversity" departments have demonstrated a fundamental lack
of tolerance for any diversity in employee thought and have
made basic decency in the workplace a matter of swallowing
political correctness. Employing behavior modification
techniques popular with totalitarian regimes, they have
spent the last decade intimidating and indoctrinating employees.

Before many corporate diversity programs begin their
campaign of employee behavior modification, a workshop
facilitator often attempts to identify the employees most in
need of re-education. For example, the opening exercise from
a diversity program used by AT&T, Chevron and Nabisco works
as follows. When the workshop begins, employees must sit in
a circle and give an immediate "thumbs up" or "thumbs down"
response to statements provided by a workshop facilitator on
subjects such as affirmative action, inter-racial marriage
and AIDS in the workplace.

According to the program’s creator, the statements are
designed to provoke a "gut" response, so that the
facilitator can essentially gain insight into each
employee’s susceptibility to the message of political
correctness. If any employees’ responses "indicate confusion
or bias" or seem incompatible with the ideology being
presented by the workshop, facilitators are urged to "waste
no time in seeking help from a diversity consultant,
corporate attorney or other human resource facilitators."1
In other words, Maoist self-criticism circles have come to
the office.

This attitude of ideological intolerance reveals the most
fundamentally frightening element of such diversity
workshops: any opinion expressed that conflicts with the
workshop teachings is inherently invalid and indicates
"confusion," an unfortunate condition that requires further,
more drastic indoctrination techniques. Not to mention, of
course, an increase in corporate diversity spending. Decent
behavior, tolerance, and non-discrimination towards one’s
fellow-employees is not enough; employees are required to
buy into a set of political attitudes.

The reasonable solution to the problems that the diversity
industry claims to solve is obvious. It is in fact what most
businesses too small to be worth shaking down do: set
straightforward rules that employees must not discriminate
or harass and enforce them. That’s it. There is no need to
inflame the naturally-occurring tensions of a diverse
society by trying to coercively manipulate people’s
attitudes. And political controversies have no place in the
office or factory floor.

Back to the diversity programs: after any "confused"
employees are identified, the diversity facilitator launches
a multi-faceted assault designed to force the resisting
individuals to conform. Tactics range from group pressure,
in which the facilitator encourages politically-correct
employees to pressure non-conformist co-workers into
accepting the consensus view, to isolation in which the
dissenting individual is ostracized from the group.

Such tactics have drawn comparison to the Tavistock Method
of behavior modification, a technique once employed by
Soviet mental hospitals to "re-educate" political prisoners.
In order to manufacture a consensus:

"a controlled stress situation is created by a group leader
("facilitator") with the ostensible goal of achieving a
consensus or agreement which has, in reality, been
predetermined. By using peer pressure in gradually
increasing increments, up to and including yelling at,
cursing at, and isolating the holdouts, weaker individuals
are intimidated into caving in. They emerge, facilitators
hope, with a new value structure in place, and the goal is
achieved."2

Diversity seminars and sensitivity training groups have also
been known to use physically traumatic events to break
non-conformists. In the mid-1990’s, male employees of the
Federal Aviation Agency were tied to a toilet together while
female employees were forced to bathe in the same shower.
Female employees were also made to share a bed with their
male supervisors, and some participants even reported that
they were sleep deprived and then verbally assaulted. But
the most disturbing element of the FAA diversity training
sessions were exercises in which groups of dissenting, or
even potentially dissenting employees, were tormented by
their peers. For example, in a one FAA diversity-training
program, white males were "verbally castigated" by their
black co-workers and then forced to run a gauntlet in which
they were aggressively fondled by their female co-workers.

While diversity workshops’ employment of behavior
modification tactics allows for increased susceptibility of
their politically correct ideology, it has also enabled an
entire industry to be constructed around the concept of
corporate diversity training. Diversity consulting has
become a financial gravy train for a parasitic class of
consultants and the lawyers they dig up lawsuits for.

Forbes Magazine reports that U.S companies spend as much as
ten billion dollars per year on corporate diversity
training. According to the Wall Street Journal, "a network
of hot lines, crises centers and advocacy groups, many with
close ties to plaintiff’s lawyers, has emerged to advise
persons troubled by sex in the workplace."

Nolo Press has even released a self-help book entitled
Sexual Harassment on the Job that comes complete with a
handy reference guide detailing key phrases "A lawyer wants
to hear," such as "Fairly serious harassment," "personal
injuries (the more serious the better), " and "a solvent
defendant." These examples are just a glimpse of the sexual
harassment component of the industry. Racial discrimination
and sexual orientation have also fostered the creation of
similarly lucrative alliances between the diversity industry
and the bar.4

The corporate diversity industry has created a sanctuary
where careerist radicals can continue to spew their racially
divisive message even as mainstream America continues to
reject their politics. Nearly all of the early leaders of
the diversity industry are products of sixties leftism.
Marilyn Loden, Elsie Cross, Judith Katz, Mark Chesler,
Lillian Roybal Rose, Tom Kochman, and Price Cobbs all
developed their ideology through experiences in higher
education, race relations, and the civil rights movement.5
Despite the nearly wholesale rebuke of their far-Left
"diversity" agenda by American public opinion as revealed in
polls, these radicals have kept their ideology alive by
slowly migrating from academia and the civil rights
establishment to the corporate boardroom.

Has this vast industry improved conditions in the workplace?
All signs say no. Harassment and discrimination complaints
continue to skyrocket and workplace tensions increase. This
is no surprise, as the diversity industry has an intrinsic
interest in encouraging people to be upset and making the
situation as bad as possible. Many white or male employees
feel alienated, decreasing the morale of a significant
employee demographic and creating resentments that poison
the work environment. The imposition of a group think
mentality on corporations also strangles creative energy,
the lifeblood of a successful company.

Worse, corporations have been intimidated to the point where
an employee’s ability to navigate the corporate ladder seems
to center around "diversity" characteristics, as opposed to
actual ability. This is a threat to the competitiveness of
American companies – their Japanese and Chinese competitors
certainly don’t have to deal with this nonsense in Tokyo and
Hong Kong.

By exploiting corporate America’s lawsuit paranoia,
"diversity pioneers" have managed to develop an incredibly
lucrative war chest which allows them to continue their
radical crusade. The political Left’s corporate shakedown
has proved so lucrative that these consultants have taken
every possible step to ensure that businesses continue to
feel pressured into retaining their consulting services.
They lobby for more legislation in order to provide more
grounds for lawsuits, which then pay for more lobbying and
the vicious cycle continues.

Their system works: discrimination and harassment complaints
have risen a whopping 231%% since 1991. The spike in
corporate sexual harassment and discrimination issues does
not stem from increased awareness, as those on the political
Left would encourage us to believe. Rather, the same
manufactured tension and paranoia that left the workplace
susceptible to group think indoctrination has naturally led
to an increase in harassment and discrimination issues.
Subsequently, the "need" for more frequent, more intensive,
and of course, more expensive diversity training arises.
It’s the perfect scam.

Presently, one of the most popular trends in corporate
America is the "cultural audit." Initially conceived as a
way to limit bias-based lawsuits, these cultural audits have
degenerated into one of the most lethal weapons in the
politically correct careerist’s arsenal. For a mere
$20,000-$35,000, a Washington DC-based consulting firm will
perform a "cultural audit" of your company in order to
reveal any discriminatory or insensitive practices. Once one
of these audits is concluded, the company being investigated
is naturally revealed to suffer from some sort of
culturally, sexually, or racially biased work environment.
These charges are then reported to corporate executives,
who, eager to avoid legal difficulties, hire the consultant,
or an organization connected to the consultant, to conduct
diversity or sensitivity training.

For these consultants, this diversity mandate means
conducting "cultural awareness seminars," which not only
continues to fill consultants’ coffers while spreading a
politically correct ideology, but by creating more
discontent in the workplace, these consultants increase the
need for more costly seminars and training sessions.

Frequently, these "cultural awareness seminars" preach a
message of pure racial poison. One consultant teaches
employees that:

"Euro-Americans are acquisitive, for them ‘the highest value
lies in the object,’ or in obtaining it. This group ‘knows
through counting and measuring.’ For Blacks, Hispanics and
Arabs, ‘the highest value lies in the interpersonal
relationship among men.’ This group knows ‘through symbolic
imagery and rhythm.’ Asians, on the other hand, ‘know
through striving toward transcendence.’"6

Despite corporate diversity training’s expressed goal of
fostering respect for the rights of each individual
employee, cultural "awareness programs" often serve only to
perpetuate racial stereotypes while increasing the
likelihood of racial enmity in the workplace. For example,
when a prominent Washington DC based consultant addressed a
group of 300 Bureau of Labor Statistics employees, he
explained to them:

"We can’t ask non-whites to maintain ‘white’ standards. If a
pair of black employees arrives late for a meeting, it’s not
because they don’t have the company’s best interests in
mind. They may have been chatting in the hallway, developing
those personal relationships."7

Due to such awareness seminars, co-workers are no longer
identifiable by name or interest, but by race, gender or
sexual preference. Once peers begin identifying themselves
racially, culturally or sexually, inherent differences that
once may have been of little concern are suddenly thrust
into the limelight. But this is just what the consultants
want, since out of this manufactured tension comes an
increase in all discrimination and harassment complaints,
furthering the need for diversity consultants.

Occasionally a brave individual simply refuses to bend
before the pressures employed by corporate diversity
departments. On October 11th 2002, the Kodak Corporation, as
part of the company’s continuing "Winning & Inclusive
Culture" campaign, sent out a memo to all employees
regarding the Human Rights Campaign's annual "Coming Out
Day." Among other things, the memo ordered employees to:

"Acknowledge your level of awareness of this topic, and
share your personal willingness to understand. Acknowledge
his/her courage to publicly share this personal information." 8

One employee, 23-year Kodak veteran and devout Christian
Rolf Szabo took offense to the memo and emailed the company
the following response:

"Please do not send this type of information to me anymore,
as I find it disgusting and offensive."9

Mr. Szabo’s right to express his religious beliefs in the
workplace is protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. The act prohibits discrimination based on race,
color, sex, religion, or national origin. The "sex"
mentioned in Title VII refers to gender based discrimination
against a person. It contains no legal reference to
homosexuality.

However, the corporate thought-police have little use for
Federal Statues. Szabo was immediately reprimanded by his
supervisor, who informed the entire company that,

"our behaviors must align to the Kodak values [as outlined
in the Winning and Inclusive Culture] campaign."10

Szabo was then asked to sign an employee commitment plan
stating he regretted what he had written and outlining steps
to prevent a similar incident from reoccurring. When Szabo
refused to reconcile his Catholic faith with Kodak’s Winning
and Inclusive Program, he was fired.

What is truly terrifying about the Szabo - Kodak incident is
that Szabo was fired not because he violated any law or
statute, but because he rejected the group think mentality
demanded by Kodak. No longer is job performance or company
loyalty sufficient for continued employment; an employee’s
core beliefs must now conform to a Leftist political agenda.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS-TYRANNY WITH MANNERS