system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Micro-aggressions should take intent into account.

I was required by my company to participate in DEI (Diversity Equity and Inclusion) training that stated, "It does not matter what the aggressor intended, harm was caused." While I understand where this logic comes from, it is a poor principle for the workplace, justice, or society.

Let me use a non-racial analogy: You tripped me.

Let's say I am walking past you sitting down. Our legs make contact and I trip and fall. Let's look at some possible intents:

1. You didn't see me coming and accidentally tripped me, apologized for the accident, and helped me up.
2. You did see me coming, intended to trip me, laughed as I fell, and did not help me up.
3. I saw your legs were there, could have slightly altered my path in order not to trip, and tripped over your legs purposefully with the intent to shame you for having your legs in my path.

According to the "intent does not matter" logic, all of these scenarios deserve equal treatment. This is obviously wrong to me. Treating someone who does not intend to cause harm as harshly as someone who does is unjust.

And while this point is ancillary, this "intent does not matter" logic alienates would-be supporters of DEI goals.

Edit: Wow. This is a very hot issue. Love a lot of the discussion. Let me summarize how my view has changed.

There are people out there who believe that racism cannot exist unless there is explicit intent to be racist. This has never been my position. Much of what the DEI folks were trying to communicate was that racism, and some other isms, can exist and cause some harm, even if harm was not intended. To this point I also agree.

So while this person (a consultant BTW and not an actual employee or manager) might have over stepped linguistically to try and emphasize a point, most people do not believe that Justice and punishment should be blind to intent. Some exist, but that perspective is rare, especially off of the internet.
gpt
They're not saying intent doesn't matter *at all*, only that intent doesn't completely negate the harm. No one thinks intent is irrelevant, but what they're trying to say is that not intending harm isn't an excuse.