A sad story in the May 6, 2026, edition of SFGate brought back memories of my distant and misspent youth and made me reflect on the efficacy of many of the behavioral training programs that we are subjected to today.
A 17-year-old high school student was killed in a crash, and a second student critically injured, in a car driven by their drunken classmate. What made the accident especially newsworthy was the fact that only a few hours prior to the accident, the kids had all attended an anti-drunk driving training program sponsored by the state of California and put on by their high school called Every 15 Minutes. Even though the impact of the program has previously been questioned, and the article observed that there is “no evidence the program works,” the state currently budgets $30 million for it. The program includes role playing in which some students play the role of the drunk drivers, and others put on ghostly makeup and play the roles of the deceased victims.
During my teenage years in the 1960s, all juveniles who received traffic tickets were required to attend a driving course at the county juvenile hall located up in the hills of San Mateo County. As a fairly rambunctious teen, I had the distinction of attending repeatedly. The course was generally presented by a retired CHP officer and featured the usual “bloody pavement” movies intended to shock us into becoming safe drivers.
My most vivid recollection of the classes was that, after the conclusion of the class, many of us wise guys would promptly light up our tires when leaving the facility and out of view of anyone wearing a badge. Then we would take off on the straight and remote road toward home at high speed just to demonstrate that we were unimpressed by the gruesome content of the course.
And so it goes with many of the behavioral trainings that we are required to participate in, which consume our time and resources, yet accomplish little. The ubiquitous diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs that many of us have been forced to participate in as part of our employment come to mind.
Even though the impact of the program has previously been questioned, and the article observed that there is ‘no evidence the program works,’ the state currently budgets $30 million for it.
The courses that all attorneys are required to regularly attend as a condition of maintaining their license to practice are a good example. These mandatory courses cover bias, substance abuse, and ethics. The unflattering assumption of the State Bar is apparently that we were all drunken or drug-besotted bigots and misogynists who are inclined to steal our clients’ money and that we need to be corrected. These courses can be pretty expensive and time consuming, and yet during the 40 years that I practiced, there was no discernible effect on the Bar membership. I can not recall anyone who suddenly gave themself a palm plant to the head and cried out,“I had no idea that taking meth was a bad idea!” or exclaiming, “Doggonit! I’m going to resign my Klan membership!”
Lawyerly misbehavior continues unabated.
As an involuntary participant in such a pointless exercise, I once had an indignant professional speaker interrupt his presentation in a classroom filled with a couple of hundred other participants to ask me about the novel that he noticed me unobtrusively reading to pass the time. No longer an easily terrorized law student, nor a cringing supplicant before a tyrannical judge, I did not act particularly chastened.
The famous “Just Say No” (D.A.R.E.) anti-drug campaign championed by Nancy Reagan also comes to mind. It continues to this day, and yet the ever-growing legions of shuffling meth and fentanyl zombies still seem inexplicably resistant to the message.
Mandated “re-education” courses have little actual impact, other than creating resentment. Still, they usually go unquestioned and unchallenged. It has become an article of faith among the many people who usually look to the government for solutions that mandatory training is the appropriate go-to remedy for most everything that bothers them. The industry that provides these programs will wrap themselves in civic virtue and howl loudly if their livelihood is questioned.
In reality, such mandated courses do not make a difference and are merely ritualized “moral theater” offered up by government and management any time that they feel obligated to pretend to do something about a problem that has caught the public’s attention. Sort of political Kabuki. But most people recognize when they are just being fed either the obvious or a political agenda and pay little attention. Few hearts and attitudes are changed.
Such programs merely provide performative virtue signaling for the sponsors and employment for the presenters. ∆
John Donegan is a retired attorney in Pismo Beach who has little patience with having to endure prolonged yammering. Respond with your thoughts by emailing an opinion piece to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Pride 2026.
Corporations’ training sessions aren’t Kabuki Theater, they’re necessary to avoid lawsuits. If boorish and unethical behavior continues, a manager must take disciplinary action to protect the company. Of course, the offending employee will walk out the door feeling aggrieved, and in conservative echo chambers their victimization will be reinforced. There are enough dickheads in business already for anyone to want to go back to the 70’s where there was no recourse against smoking, sexual harassment and favoritism.
If offensive behavior creates a problem, an employer has always had the ability to just fire the problem employee. So why is it necessary to make EVERYBODY take the training?
You can’t hold an employee accountable for violating company policy if they are not signed off on it. The labor pool likely has 35 year old incels in arrested adolescence that listen to Andrew Tate and unaware how offensive their behavior is.
To hold an employee accountable, the behavior has to be offensive to a reasonable person, and not a “microaggression” which only sets off those who are spring-loaded to be offended. If anyone is so oblivious that they do not know what is objectively offensive, an employer would probably not want to keep them. An employee manual could list broadly what is prohibited, and it is unlikely that any training could possibly list every possible permutation of offensive behavior. And, the cautious employer would always have the option of counseling or admonishing the employee, and documenting it in their file. An utterly oblivious employee is unlikely to absorb blathering from a trainer.