Dygert clearly has some screwed-up ideas. Not uncommon and she’s broken no laws, but messed up. If the team is serious about inclusion, and principled, that should be enough to not renew her contract.
I do find the idea that each sponsor feels the duty to try and mould her thinking a bit sad.
Whether or not the interference is done with good intentions (as education) or cynically (as PR training) it’s highly unlikely to change her beliefs. The dynamics are all wrong: the sponsor being in control of her immediate livelihood. She will have given them whatever platitudes are necessary and (rightly?) resent them for making her do it. I don’t think that’s how you go about opening someone up to better thinking.
[ There is a lot of conjecture ^ here - we can’t really know what was said, we just see careful public statements. ]
Do you think people can't change their minds/beliefs or shouldn't be given the opportunity to? It does come across a bit creepy in the PR statement but I do believe people have the capacity to change for the good.
Dygert clearly has some screwed-up ideas. Not uncommon and she’s broken no laws, but messed up. If the team is serious about inclusion, and principled, that should be enough to not renew her contract.
I do find the idea that each sponsor feels the duty to try and mould her thinking a bit sad.
Whether or not the interference is done with good intentions (as education) or cynically (as PR training) it’s highly unlikely to change her beliefs. The dynamics are all wrong: the sponsor being in control of her immediate livelihood. She will have given them whatever platitudes are necessary and (rightly?) resent them for making her do it. I don’t think that’s how you go about opening someone up to better thinking.
[ There is a lot of conjecture ^ here - we can’t really know what was said, we just see careful public statements. ]