In which case one would have wanted to have those people roleplay as minority identities.
The writeup's phrasing is definitely weird, if accurate. Not sure why people of color would need to be exposed to what it's like to be treated as "brown people"?
Then again... given the logic behind most HR training, I'd be unsurprised if someone misunderstood diversity training guidelines and instead tried to put people in "their groups." facepalm
Wikipedia has it as even broader than my use: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color
I've generally heard it as either "non-white", "non-white, with emphasis on 'brown' skin tones", or "non-white and not covered by a more specific group" in common real world use, depending on the context.
This article doesn't actually contradict that, since random selection will put some in their "appropriate" category.
So, either that, or the person conducting the exercise totally misunderstood it.
Why it’s wrong is debatable. But at least for me it’d be wrong because honestly... that would drag up a lot of psychological trauma for me. Like “I need to take some time off work” bad.
Even if you can predict who that will happen to.. and you try to account for it.. there is no margin of error here that’s acceptable, especially when the material in question could be completed another way.
So yeah. This is a really, really bad look for the Googs here. :(