A report alleging that several Lockheed Martin executives participated in a workplace seminar a journalist has labeled “a white male re-education camp” has attracted the very unfavorable attention of an Arizona congressman.
City Journal reported on Wednesday that Lockheed, the nation’s top defense contractor, “sent white male executives to a three-day diversity-training program aimed at deconstructing their ‘white male culture’ and encouraging them to atone for their ‘white male privilege.'”
Republican Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona said that the report — buttressed by multiple images of documents from the seminar posted online — was an outrage.
“This anti-white, anti-male poison is a Marxist cancer in our society. Any defense contractor taking this approach is a threat to our national security and should be de-barred as a defense contractor,” he tweeted on Wednesday.
This anti-white, anti-male poison is a Marxist cancer in our society. Any defense contractor taking this approach is a threat to our national security and should be de-barred as a defense contractor. https://t.co/vRQPrIFbNY
— Paul Gosar (@DrPaulGosar) May 26, 2021
Christopher Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of the article, reported that the training was conducted by White Men as Full Diversity Partners for 13 Lockheed senior executives.
The article did not quote sources by name, but supplied anecdotes from the training.
Rufo stated that during what was termed a free association exercise, when the time came to connect words to the term “white men,” “trainers wrote down ‘old,’ ‘racist,’ ‘privileged,’ ‘anti-women,’ ‘angry,’ ‘Aryan Nation,’ ‘KKK,’ ‘Founding fathers,’ ‘guns,’ ‘guilty,’ and ‘can’t jump.'”
“According to the participants, these perceptions have led to ‘assumptions about white men and diversity,’ with many employees believing that white men ‘don’t care about diversity,’ ‘have a classical perspective on history and colonialism,’ and ‘don’t want to give away our power.'”
The trainers then asked “what’s in it for white men,” listing responses: “I won’t get replaced by someone who is a better full diversity partner,” “[I will] improve the brand, image, reputation of white men,” and “I [will] have less nagging sense of guilt that I am the problem.” pic.twitter.com/DSRhT55XQy
— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) May 26, 2021
The report said the group was given a collection of more than 150 so-called “privilege statements” to discuss.
“The statements included, ‘My culture teaches me to minimize the perspectives and powers of people of other races’ and ‘I can commit acts of terrorism, violence or crime and not have it attributed to my race.'”
Next, participants were asked to repeat and internalize 50 “white privilege statements,” including: “My culture teaches me to minimize the perspectives and powers of people of other races”; “I can commit acts of terrorism, violence or crime and not have it attributed to my race.” pic.twitter.com/uA8tZXajFi
— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) May 26, 2021
Rufo concluded his extensive Twitter thread providing reported images from the training with a call to action.
“This is pure neoracism from a company that receives billions of taxpayer dollars every year,” he wrote. “I call on the United States Senate to launch an immediate inquiry into the racist practices at @LockheedMartin. We must shut this down before it endangers our national security.”
[firefly_poll]
When the New York Post published a summary of the City Journal report, Lockheed provided the outlet with a statement that said it “has robust employee training programs focused on our core values of doing what is right, respecting others and performing with excellence.”
“Like many corporations, we employ multiple vendors and continuously evaluate the effectiveness of training programs to ensure they are aligned with our values, applicable laws and regulations, and incorporate employee feedback and best practices,” the statement said.
A spokesperson for White Men as Full Diversity Partners told the Post that the City Journal report was “based on factual misrepresentations and a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of diversity, equity and inclusion work.”
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
