Ever so involved in the fight that you don’t even realize it’s a set up?

For instance, “whether” people should/can knell during the national anthem.

It’s a set up.

The issue has been effectively framed as either you support US troops and veterans, or you support racial justice.

What about if you support both? Not possible in this false dichotomy. So we can’t engage on its terms. We have to name the set up and call in everyone who stands (and kneels) for justice and service to imagine beyond this dichotomy, which is false, unnecessary and mortally unfair. Because this isn’t just philosophical: our support matters in the lives of troops and people of color – and if you’re neither, yours too.

Another set up? Roe v Wade versus the end of the right to choose. It hadn’t occurred to me until I read Joan William’s NY Times Opinion: “The Case for accepting defeat on Roe“:

In “Unpregnant,” the HBO bildungsroman released this month, the plot revolves around a 17-year-old heroine who travels from Missouri to Albuquerque — a road trip of 1,000 miles — because that’s the nearest place she can get an abortion without parental consent. Watching it made me recall a conversation with a feminist friend, who shocked the hell out of me last year by saying that progressives were too focused on protecting Roe v. Wade.

Why? The argument is that we currently have the worst of both worlds. We’ve basically lost the abortion fight: If Roe is overturned, access to abortion will depend on where you live — but access to abortion already depends on where you live.

… The argument that the left has already lost the abortion fight reflects the fact that there’s no abortion clinic in 90 percent of American counties. This is the result of the highly successful death-by-a-thousand-cuts anti-abortion strategy, which has piled on restriction after restriction to make abortion inaccessible to as many American women as possible.

… Often forgotten is that R.B.G. herself had decided that Roe was a mistake. In 1992, she gave a lecture musing that the country might be better off if the Supreme Court had written a narrower decision and opened up a “dialogue” with state legislatures, which were trending “toward liberalization of abortion statutes” (to quote the Roe court). Roe “halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby, I believe, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue,” Justice Ginsburg argued. In the process, “a well-organized and vocal right-to-life movement rallied and succeeded, for a considerable time, in turning the legislative tide in the opposite direction.”

What Ginsburg called Roe’s “divisiveness” was instrumental in the rise of the American right, which was flailing until Phyllis Schlafly discovered the galvanizing force of opposition to abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment. Schlafly wrote the culture wars playbook that created the odd coupling of the country-club business elite with evangelicals and blue-collar whites. In exchange for business-friendly policies like tax cuts and deregulation, Republicans now allow these groups to control their agenda on religion and abortion. It’s hard to remember now but this was not inevitable: abortion was not always seen as the partisan issue it is today, nor did evangelicals uniformly oppose abortion.

One of the impacts of confusing Roe v. Wade with a guarantee of the right to choose is that “we have people voting for Trump because he’ll appoint justices who will overturn Roe.” In other words, this determination that Roe v. Wade must stand is interfering with:

• Actually ensuring that all women are able to exercise our right to choose; and
• Advancing any other issue that may be associated with a liberal or progressive agenda, in the shadow of pro-choice.

Another false dichotomy, another red herring. And whom is this costing, not just in outrage (which is exhausting) but in lifelong, consequential impacts and outcomes?

Maybe it is time that abortion access should be fought for in legislatures, not courts.

“My goal is to try and pull this thing out of the ground.”

“My goal is to try and pull this thing out of the ground.”

– J’den Cox, Olympic medalist and world champion wrestler, when challenged to demonstrate his maximal force production using an isometric mid-thigh pull (picture a barbell fixed on a rack at mid-thigh height) on the show “Anatomy of a Wrestler.”

According to J’den, “It was really weird… the feeling of having a bar not really move, but having to put your full effort into it.”

It struck me that J’den could totally do DEI work. Or maybe I could take up wrestling. Trying to “pull this thing out of the ground”? “Putting your effort in” but not feeling the “bar really moving”? And persisting.

(If you’re curious, J’den pulled 3.1 times his body weight.)

Check out the video – if you don’t have time for the full 10 mins, the excerpt runs from 2:07-3:50.

Can black people be racist?

Ever have a tab open to an article because you’re just… not… quite… done with it?

Here’s one from my browser: “Why non-Black people of color can face racism and still be racist” is an “editor’s pick” from The Lily from 8.25.20.

In many ways, it’s another helpful perspective, maybe not new for POC who have been reflecting on and owning how we have internalized racism and thus are part of racism’s campaign onward.

And, I keep tripping over the title. The implication seems to be that Black people specifically and singularly cannot be racist. I asked a colleague if, indeed, that seems to be the article’s position. They replied, “Not explicitly.”

Indeed, this is never clearly named – let alone explained – in the article; it’s just implied in the really big title at the top.

And the reason I bring this up is because if you are committing to antiracism, you’re going to have to clarify what ethnoracial identity does and doesn’t determine about one’s role in and responsibility for perpetuating racism.

A lot hinges on your choice of verb. There’s a difference between racist as a matter of being, and racist as a matter of doing – including what you’re not doing – racist as a consequence of permitting, participating, colluding, sustaining, fueling… and campaigning for.

Here’s my working definitions (thank you, Ibram Kendi).

Just as I don’t believe that you need to be a Democrat to actually advance a Democratic political campaign (see all the analyses about how many folks aren’t voting for Joe Biden or more generally Democratic platforms in the upcoming presidential election, so much as voting against Donald Trump – i.e. Trump is a motivating Democratic campaign factor), I don’t believe you need to be anything, subscribe to the ideology of racism or “benefit” from it, in order to carry its water. (And I have to qualify “benefit,” because I really do believe racism is out to get all of us, even as the degree of racism’s brutality varies by ethnoracial group and intersecting identities.)

I believe all of us can advance the campaign of racism, by assisting white supremacy in its relentless updates and adaptations. And I believe that under the banner of “antiracism,” we’re still confusing identity with experience and, therefore, with expertise and responsibility. Which results in performative deference to people of color, even among people of color, which ultimately serves to… maintain racism.

So, to be clear: I believe black people can be racist. By which I mean, for example (and I realize these political examples will also inevitably be partisan): I believe that Clarence Thomas and Ben Carson aren’t just surviving antiblack racism, I believe they are campaigning for it with some of their positions and policies.

And my clarity doesn’t need to be yours. But if you and I are going to dismantle antiracism, we each need to be clear whom that campaign needs to enlist.

What’s your politics diet these days?

The morning after RBG died, I just couldn’t read it all. Here’s what I couldn’t (red arrow), did read (green arrow) and was going to discern whether to read (yellow arrow).

I wanted more analysis, less opinion.

I wanted, if not facts, then some well-grounded interpretation and hypothesizing (not conjecture, and clearly presented as possibility not certainty).

Regarding Amy Coney Barrett, I wanted background, not other people’s pre-packaged judgment. Not that that’s easy to find.

The first article I actually read about Barrett illuminated for me that she “joined the faculty [of Notre Dame Law School] in 2002, earning praise from colleagues as an astute scholar and jurist even if they did not always agree on her jurisprudential premises.”

And that has stuck with me. Not as evidence of anything, not as proof of her merit as a Supreme Court Justice (because it’s one thing to teach law, and other to determine law), not as a guarantee of what or how she will rule. But as another piece of information about her.

And today I read this NY Times Opinion piece: “The meaning of Amy Cony Barrett: Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s likely successor could become a different kind of three-initialed icon,” which helped frame some of my concerns in the context of conservative feminism and ongoing antifemale sexism.

I hope what you’re reading in your politics diet is helping you to own what you know/fear/believe/still have to learn and discern action. That’s what I’m trying to make my staple these days. I don’t need to consume more, not just empty, but unhealthy politics calories.

Youth Leadership Film Club informational session (online)

Longtime educators, Erica Hernandez and Prasant Nukalapati invite all teachers, mentors and parents of Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) high school students to attend this virtual informational session to learn more about the upcoming “Youth Leadership Film Club” for #students of color in pubic and private high schools. The objective of this club is to create a community space where BIPOC students can discuss systemic issues that impact the lives of people of color and the wider community, be inspired by those who have come before us, and develop their own leadership capacity.

Interested? Read more and register here.

What concerns me, and what concerns me

This is the post from our Nextdoor neighborhood channel:

Anti Semitic list. This is so hard to believe but a list of Jewish student’s names was compiled. It was complete with swastikas etc. My beautiful granddaughter was notified she was on this list. Not enough is being done to make these kids feel safe. I am asking you to sign this petition.

This isn’t just neighborhood gossip.

And while the local community is rightfully Demanding action against antisemitism in the Tam District, I’m concerned not only about this anti-Semitic resurgence (and please, no rationalizing that these are “just kids” who are “just kidding around” or “don’t know what they’re saying”) but about the adult conversation about this anti-Semitism.

Here are some of the comments in the thread:

• I’m so sorry for your granddaughter and all the other Jewish students.
• I would recommend you contact Patrice O’Neill who works with the organization Not In Our Town. If you are not familiar with that organization you should check out the many different ways that they can provide community assistance in dealing with hate crimes. They conducted community meetings here in Mill Valley in the past when Tam High Principal Farr was target of an ugly attack.
• A march w a rally in support of Jewish people in our communities would be a great idea.
• We have a local Auschwitz survivor Herbert Heller he still speaks to students at local schools about his survival. I have had the pleasure of working with him in the past. He is a wonderful man.
• This kind of action usually requires an immediate expulsion following a proper investigation and verdict.

You may be wondering why I’m concerned.

While these comments are anti-anti-Semitism, they seem to point everywhere but back at ourselves.

• Yes, Jewish students are being targeted and thus, that should be our priority regarding fundamental safety, equity and inclusion. And, when we regard anti-Semitism as a threat only against Jewish people, we are mistaken. Any identity-based hatred is linked to every identity-based hatred. We should be sorry for everyone, and address the unequal threat to our Jewish students and families.
• This is connected to Herbert Heller having to keep showing up to relive the Holocaust. I respect the power of his sharing his story of survival. I am grateful that he is willing to relive this trauma for the benefit of other people (not only those of us who weren’t sent to concentration camps ourselves, but those who may not know about or believe that the Holocaust happened). And I am frustrated that this is what we require to educate and empower youth not just to not perpetuate hate, but to actively stand against it.
• Marching and contacting resources is helpful. And, you are the expert of your own family. I didn’t see (although I was scanning quickly) any posts about: “what I’m going to say to my kids.” I didn’t see ownership of this local anti-Semitic activity.

And maybe, maybe none of the families whose kids are committing these hate crimes are on this channel. But really? And even if you don’t know if your kids is involved, wouldn’t they be where you’d start?

I appreciate the resource-sharing and the calling out of the school district for its inadequate preparation and response. And I keep thinking about the need for each of us to start with calling ourselves in. We can’t end anti-Semitism if we always assign identify is as someone else’s actions, and someone else’s problem to resolve.

All of this.

Highlights from this interview with Mellody Hobson, President and Co-CEO, Ariel Investments; and Rhonda Morris, Chief Human Resources Officer, Chevron [emphasis added below]. But please: Read. It. All.

Hobson: And putting all people of color under one umbrella of “multicultural” doesn’t work. You have to break it down by ethnicity from the board all the way down through the organization. That will show you if you are tracking with the demographics of the country.

Interviewer: How do you respond to White males saying that they are starting to feel they are being discriminated against? Because if we are going to increase the representation of one group, it has to be at the expense of another one.

Hobson: Not at the expense of a group that has had the edge for 400 years. That falls on deaf ears with me. Until the numbers start to look simpatico and appropriate in some way, that is an empty argument. And then people say, well, why are you focusing on Black people? Because there is actually a true crisis for Black Americans. Fifty percent of African American workers right now are unemployed. A high school dropout who is White is more likely to have a higher median income in America than a Black college graduate.

Interviewer: What is your reaction to all the announcements from companies in the wake of the killing of George Floyd?

Hobson: Talk is cheap. We need action. I quote Yoda all the time. “Do or do not; there is no try.” I want to make sure that boards and leadership teams hold themselves accountable to make sure there are no empty words. Some companies are going to get in trouble by making statements that have no substance behind them. Race is the third rail. Once you get it wrong, it’s hard to fix.

Morris: So many companies repeat the mantra of, “We’re committed to this, we’re making headway, we’re not where we want to be.”

Hobson: This is the only area in corporate America that people want to get credit just for working on it. There is no other aspect of corporate America where you can work on something for a long time and make no progress and still have your job.

Hobson: I don’t think Martin Luther King was talking about work-life balance, and thank God he didn’t, because the world is a better place for me and so many others. It all depends on what you want to do and how big you’re going to dream. I’ve had the opportunity to work up close with some people who are true icons. Those icons made some pretty significant sacrifices, and they made them in the name of progress and ingenuity.

To my DEI colleagues: Is anyone else confused?

This is the headline I read today:

“Trump Bans U.S. From Doing Business With Those Who Promote ‘Harmful’ Far-Left Critical Race Theory”

So, I figured, OK, I can’t do business with the “US” anymore (meaning specifically the US government). Got it.

But then I read this from Russell Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in the memo about Trump’s ban (via – you guessed it – Executive Order): “The President has directed me to ensure that Federal agencies cease and desist from using taxpayer dollars to fund these divisive, un-American propaganda training sessions.”

OK, so since I don’t conduct “divisive, un-American propaganda” training sessions, whether or not I’m explicitly using a critical race theory lens, I should be good, right?

Of course, no.

So even though critical race theory (maybe they misunderstand the meaning of “critical” in this context?) is not actually propaganda, any more than any other theory is propaganda (oh, wait, I can see the argument emerging: the theory of evolution is not science but a political agenda), we are to accept the definition that critical race theory is “divisive, un-American propaganda,” even though it strives to strengthen society in offering a vision of equality under the law when laws are designed for equity.

Someone apparently has never learned critical race theory, just taken up an opinion about it. This is like reading the opinion pages in the paper and thinking you now have the facts.

This excerpt from (yet another) Executive Order actually clarifies a lot:

Sec. 2.  Definitions.  For the purposes of this order, the phrase:

(a)  “Divisive concepts” means the concepts that (1) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; (2) the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist; (3) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (4) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (5) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex; (6) an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (7) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; (8) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or (9) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.  The term “divisive concepts” also includes any other form of race or sex stereotyping or any other form of race or sex scapegoating.

(b)  “Race or sex stereotyping” means ascribing character traits, values, moral and ethical codes, privileges, status, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of his or her race or sex.

(c)  “Race or sex scapegoating” means assigning fault, blame, or bias to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex because of their race or sex.  It similarly encompasses any claim that, consciously or unconsciously, and by virtue of his or her race or sex, members of any race are inherently racist or are inherently inclined to oppress others, or that members of a sex are inherently sexist or inclined to oppress others.

(d)  “Senior political appointee” means an individual appointed by the President, or a non-career member of the Senior Executive Service (or agency-equivalent system).

By, the way, this glossary of definitions makes me tilt my head (one of these things is not like the others…)

And, to be clear:

“Divisive concepts” means the concepts that… (8) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex…

This is actually white supremacy mandated by Executive Order: the right to comfort (Okun).

“Divisive concepts” means the concepts that… (9) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.  

This is confusing intention with impact and outcomes. Whether or not “meritocracy” was conceptualized to have racist and sexist outcomes, it has, in a society that has disproportionately facilitated white men’s ability and opportunity to exercise, demonstrate and be rewarded for that work ethic.

It is, in fact, “race or sex scapegoating” to suggest that the disproportionate over-representation of white men in positions of power across sectors of US society in the US is the fault or deficiency of people of color and women.

But there I go again. With that critical race theory.

Dear boards: We are between a rock and a hard place

For boards looking for more after watching this video:

• Here are some starter frameworks from Blink about advancing DEI institutionally.
• Here is information about Got a plan? a WORKshop for governance to advance DEI in Winter 2020.

Quote of the day

“Everything is an equity issue.”

– Dot Kowal, DEI Director

When people identify “equity issues,” this is my colleague Dot’s response.

In other words, when don’t you have to consider access and thriving? If we start from the presumption that we need to design for equity, then we won’t have as much to learn and redesign the hard way (meaning, after people in our communities have experienced inequity and exclusion.)

Let’s set the default to inequity until proven otherwise.

* Thanks, Dot, for this clear framing.