Hey folks, I’m a freelance voice-over artist and QA reviewer working on training content, usually things like workplace harassment and diversity courses. Recently, I was asked to QA a course on workplace harassment—and noticed the client had removed all references to gender, replacing it with sex. Anywhere the word “gender” appeared, it was just… gone or replaced.
It seems like a subtle thing on the surface, but it’s not. It completely shifts the tone and scope of the training. It feels like a quiet rollback of DEI principles, and honestly, it made my stomach turn. The kicker? I need this job. Turning this down could burn a bridge I can’t afford to lose.
I have a good relationship with the lead on the project (who’s just relaying instructions—they don’t have control over the content decisions), and I want to say something. At the same time, I’m scared that even a polite pushback could cost me.
Has anyone else been in this kind of situation? How do you draw the line when your ethics and survival are at odds? Would really appreciate your thoughts.
Yeah, I think this is the most reasonable approach. Everyone else is suggesting that falling on your sword is the first line of defense, and it really shouldn’t be.
If you are the attorney general, and the president asks you to fire someone prosecuting him, sure, resign.
If you are just some person trying to get by, shooting yourself in the foot isn’t going to help anyone. If you refuse to do a job, and they just hire someone else to do it, you’ve only really lost a lot at the cost of a small moral victory immediately rendered nil.
Not to get too utilitarian, but the ultimate goal should be to have the best outcome for everyone, not to just make the first decision that seems to be right.
There’s a saying about fascism “Do not obey in advance”, and the idea is that during the rise of fascism, the fascists don’t actually have to make people do what they want. Lots of people comply with their goals well before being forced to. We are seeing many companies eliminating DEI objectives because it’s what the fascists want, even though they don’t have to.
This could be one of those situations where a frank conversation with the project lead to see if that’s what’s happening because there is a chance to convince them not to obey in advance. It could also be that the training is going for federal agencies that have been “legally” required to eliminate “gender” from any training materials.
I think it would be foolish to turn down the job without at least establishing that.
I didn’t think of that. All of those are good points.