Workplace diversity - acceptance vs. tolerance

[SpankMe]

There is a "Diversity and Inclusion" initiative within the HR department at my company. It is spearheaded by the company itself and is not just an employee group. Their stated goal is: "...to help create an environment...that fosters diverse thinking and inclusive behavior to help promote innovation and business success."

Although this sounds very sound-bitey and self serving, there is something good about it. Many company functions include a table, booth or some other presence of the Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) team attempting to promote inclusiveness and battle prejudice. Occasionally, pins, mugs or coffee is distributed to all employees as part of the ongoing outreach. It gets corny sometimes, but it's nothing outrageous and the whole program is probably worthwhile.

Most employees of my company are conservative. Although D&I focuses on sensitivity with regard to race and toward women, GLBT comes up occasionally. When it does, these conservative people explode with indignation. They see "the gay" everywhere. Even though D&I addresses race, women's issues, religious tolerance - everything you can think of - most of the conservatives here see the entire program as "shoving the gay agenda down our throat". The cynicism is bordering on psychotic.

In a recent discussion with a coworker, he said that he resented that the goal of D&I wasn't merely to promote tolerance, but to force acceptance. He says he can tolerate gay people on the job, but that he doesn't have to "accept their lifestyle". He did admit that his choice of the term "lifestyle" wasn't quite right and that being gay is a state of being and not a choice. But he still maintained that he doesn't have to accept "teh ghey" (sarcastic spelling = mine).

I'm not sure what the difference is between tolerance and acceptance. Can one tolerate blacks in the workplace, but not accept the black lifestyle - whatever that is? What about "accepting" vs. "tolerating" women, the handicapped, Jehova's Witnesses?

How does one address the argument to a person who is tolerant of inequality? I know he's not likely to change, but what words or ideas could be put out there anyway to clarify the acceptance position? And, is there really a difference between acceptance and tolerance?

If someone said "I can tolerate gays, but I shouldn't be forced to accept them", then what would be some serious discussion points?

[elleng]

1. There is a difference, imo, and as tolerance leads to acceptance,

I think its a good first step and should be encouraged.

[bighart]

2. My first thought is that this individual must equate "acceptance"

with full scale endorsement so he assumes everyone else does to. He must see it as anyone that is "accepting" is actual doing the same thing as those they "accept"

[BR_Parkway]

3. As a gay man, I'd rather they simply outright hate me and don't try to

mask it in something "nice" like "tolerance". Tolerance implies that they are somehow superior and are merely putting up with something because they either have to (as in workplace situations) or don't want to be perceived as a bigot.

It's a pretty little mask. Simply replace the word gays in the sentence you typed and it's crystal clear bigotry

"I can tolerate blacks, but I shouldn't be forced to accept them"
"I can tolerate Asians, but I shouldn't be forced to accept them"
"I can tolerate women, but I shouldn't be forced to accept them"
"I can tolerate Catholics, but I shouldn't be forced to accept them"
"I can tolerate Jews, but I shouldn't be forced to accept them"

obviously I could go on substituting any minority or "other".

Tolerance = Bigotry plain and simple. Fuck their tolerance, I prefer Fred Phelp's brand of honesty over that little mask of civility they want to wear.

[bighart]

4. Well said