> I can tell you, from experience, it's a lot easier when you drop the "Okay, if I have to put up with it, let's get some strict definitions!" bullshit.
My experience is that if you take that attitude into a serious negotiation you have a great chance of being fucked over by people who "tell you things from experience".
There's no "rule" that can stop that kind of thing. People have to be reasonable and understand that it's just about "comfort". And silly people made up rules about "making people uncomfortable" and, predictably, people set about testing that rule because that's what people will always do. "Well, why is THIS creepy, but not THAT?!"
Nobody can tell you, Gene. We just all fucking know it. It's pretty obvious if you're not being obtuse about it.
An the other note: I'm sorry you seem to find yourself in situations where you are consistently (or with a great possibility) are getting fucked over by people. Might say something about your adherence to obtuseness, but I suppose I'll take your point here that you don't care what my experience says. Duly noted. I won't bring it up again.
None of which resembles the rank-system self-report antiracist-in-a-particular-way bollocks that is under discussion. That is not in fact a wonderful innovation. It's actually a lot closer to tribal politics than your excellent suggestion of a "promise not to be racist". Specifically in that it's something that "everyone knows" but you nevertheless get ranked on it; which is to say, it's not something everyone knows how to do but rather something everyone important knows about you, it's about your social status, it's a popularity contest.
Thank you for your concern about the situations I've found myself in! I did find myself in much better situations once I learned to treat business more seriously than high school.
You can spend forever, drowning yourself in the "what ifs" trying to appease a type of person that will always be tilting at their preferred windmills, with their only point appearing to be "look! it's not PERFECT, so it's not worth doing."
Alternatively, you can understand why we - as a society - appreciate adjudication by other people (not an ironclad set of rules; the law leaves a lot of leeway for judges and juries to decide), and embrace that kind of governance even within your companies and other social structures. Rules to measure against, not rules to adhere to blindly.
You can pretend it's not the case all day long, but it's an observable state of the world that some people refuse the idea of "institutional racism". Some people refuse the idea that certain actions can be "racist" or "microaggressions". Some people vehemently REFUSE to understand the things that "everybody knows" because they are contrarian.
Writing rules around these people is an effort in futility. It's best to just identify those kinds of people and treat them accordingly. But! If you disagree, feel free to write any sort of policy that you'd like, and ask reddit to try to abuse it. I eagerly await seeing your ironclad policies that take everything into account such that they can be listed as commitments to achieve said policy goals.
Alternatively, you could admit that not everything needs to be codified into a specific rule and that, sometimes, people are going to have to use judgement which, while not perfect, is not necessarily malicious or even harmful.
And hey - glad you found better situations! Sorry you weren't able to treat things seriously, in high school, but better late than never!
Because the immediate problem you're trying to solve as an employer isn't writing a commitment satisfying all situations, it's having a valuable association with your employees, and if employees know under what conditions they will be fired your problem is easier to solve than if they don't. Gene's rules-lawyering is not relevant. Refusal of an idea is not relevant, why would you try to make a window into men's souls that way, are you a better administrator than Elizabeth I? No.