Ironically, neurodiversity — the kind of diversity that matters most for intellectual work — gets choked in the current DEI rush.

My and other's regional accents have been the source of consternation at work. Speakers with regional accents have been encouraged to modify them for the benefit of non native English speakers by the DEI group. I find that ironic.

> I find that ironic.

Whyso? At work you're expected to function as a team, and part of being a team necessarily means needing to make personal compromises for the team's sake.

In this situation, non-native English speakers are going through the monumental effort of both learning English and having to put their skills to the test every day instead of them working and communicating in their fluent language. While people with accents such that they're harder for non-native speakers to understand are being asked to have clearer enunciation - for the sake of the team.

You're not being asked to change your accent, just to have clearer enunciation (if your org's DEI team said "accent" instead of "enunciation" then their wording is unhelpfully vague or demonstrably open to misinterpretation) - and not for the benefit of people who aren't themselves doing anything for their own situation (it's not like the non-native English speakers in your workplace are insisting everyone speak their language, after all). Everyone is making a compromise for everyone's sake. There's nothing ironic about it at all - just unfortunate messaging from the DEI people.

Well they said accent. They also mentioned the speed at which people with such accents talked. So both were asked to be modified.

The irony is the reduction in diversity of speaking is requested to improve the equity and inclusivity of comprehension.

Do you think a DEI team would ever ask a non-native speaker to modify their accent to make it easier for the rest of the team to understand them?

Did you get that request on paper? Share it with wider groups, it should be interesting if people learn DEI groups are asking americans with regional accents to change them.

No, electronically.

I am more inclined to charitably view it as a minor inconsiderate overstep, an internal matter not for public consumption. Perhaps if it was phrased as 'enunciation' it would not have garnered any reaction.

There is no way to do what you suggest without risking a mob.

I mean, you can make a hardcopy with the DEI team's name attached to the statement?

You should risk the mob. It's not ok for a DEI team to ask people to tailor their regional accents for foreigners who don't speak english well. You can also release this anonymously (it's hard for people to deny written exchanges because the results are in many inboxes).

Thanks for your advice, but I don't believe in mob 'justice'. I'd rather take it up with the DEI team than the internet!

Also on a point of misunderstanding it's not an Americans vs. Foreigners situation.

You will find that the DEI team feels empowered to ignore you.

I'm not saying to take advantage of mob justice, just shine a larger light on the facts.

Not ironically, that's intended, here's the diversity definition explained for you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsVDWuQYzxs

"New Discourses" is headed by one James Lindsay, of which it is said:

> Lindsay is a critic of woke culture

Riiiight.

> Lindsay announced his intention to vote for Trump in the 2020 election, citing illiberalism on the left as the reason

I'm not interested in polemics from people who voted for Trump because they feel the opposition is "illiberal".

It’s not male or female. It’s rude to tell people they are talking wrong.