credit:
Corporate DEIs love heritage month celebrations, culturally sensitive calendars, implicit bias training, and more, but they don’t really like the actual teaching of America’s racial history.
The former feels so easy.It gives up plastic bottles and bags as the only environmental strategy, refuses to truly understand the climate crisis, and refuses to make real personal sacrifices to achieve measurable impact. The unspoken truth for many organizations is that America’s racial history feels too downer and is perceived as too threatening to many white professionals. Earn credibility by doing Something at the expense of something with impact.
The inconvenient truth is that the stark racial disparities we still face today are the cumulative result of centuries of history, and how we can unravel these inequalities. It requires a thorough, methodical, and purposeful approach that begins with a fundamental understanding of how we got here. I have. This is no exception. Self-advocacy is an instinctive response for many, but the truth is that studying America’s racial history is not about punishing white people. understanding how it was built and being prepared to actually dismantle it.
Unfortunately, many organizations are bound by hopelessly safe implicit bias training and remain indifferent to delving into the real debate about America’s racial history. Here’s why that line of thinking is not only misleading, but can be costly and counterproductive.
Workplace professionals (including many DEI leaders) are ill-equipped to have productive and informed conversations about race and racism.
In order to have a productive and insightful conversation about it, you have to be knowledgeable about something, and most experts participate in informed conversations about race and racism because The simple fact is that America’s racial history is complex and nuanced. is. Most of us would not dare to tackle IT or product design issues without sufficient relevant background knowledge, yet in most workplaces the most cursory understanding of indigenous The slave trade and Jim Crow are sufficient foundations for well-informed workplace discussions about race and racism.
While certainly not everyone is expected to be a historian, history can be viewed in a way that not only dispels common myths, but also reveals and explains the reasons behind large and persistent racial disparities. It is very important to connect the dots. Without this historical context, it is too easy to see racism-fueled disparities as evidence of true racial difference. No, but it’s perfectly logical. For example, when we rarely see black women in executive positions in the tech industry, and instead see white and Asian men overrepresented, some people (consciously or otherwise It is easy to see that we may begin to associate race with intelligence, ability, and merit.
Arguably, most adults today (among all racial backgrounds) do not have a firm grasp of American history, let alone racial history. Few people have a concrete understanding of how the system of racial apartheid was carefully constructed and maintained over the centuries. On the other hand, they do not understand that blacks and indigenous peoples (with very few exceptions) have not received concrete rewards for centuries of government-sanctioned injustice. They do not understand the crucial role that slavery (and the continued slave-like oppression after so-called emancipation) played in building the wealth of the businesses and national economies that thrive to this day. They see African Americans as the sole (or primary) beneficiaries of affirmative action initiatives, unaware of how such initiatives have benefited white women more. Nor does it recognize that historically white males have been favored over other demographics. group. They argued that the New Deal policy program was specifically designed with exceptions to exclude most African Americans, keeping the burgeoning middle class out of reach of black and brown families. I don’t understand what you’re putting. They are unaware that government-backed redline policies and practices have created the racially segregated neighborhoods and schools that largely persist to this day.
This history is important. It is very important to explain that racial disparity is not the result of racial inferiority, but a very logical result of a society that has been defined for centuries by racial apartheid. provide context.
Individuals lack genuine inner motivation.
All leaders are expected to do something, rather than driven by a burning inner desire, so we see a huge difference in those who do things. of organizations implement DEI initiatives each year and is the main reason why we see little improvement in racial disparities. Perhaps most pundits believe that the DEI or anti-racism is not the result of deep personal beliefs or motivations, but rather to check a box or bolster anti-racism street cred. doing activities.
This powerful quote cuts to the heart of the matter.
“White supremacy will not change until white people see it as a white problem they must solve, not a black problem they must sympathize with.”
This distinction highlights a fundamental flaw in popular attitudes and approaches to racial equality. This means that it is primarily black and brown issues that need to be persuaded to persuade white people to care. The truth is that equality as a value should be racially agnostic. It should be something that everyone cherishes and supports in their actions. American white supremacy, in particular, has a long and horrifying history, and many would argue that white people should not be persuaded to learn, but instead they take the responsibility to understand and dismantle it. I would argue that it should.
Dale Carnegie was probably the first to say it when asked about motivational techniques. I want to do it. “This nuance gets to the heart of why many anti-racism efforts sound lofty but deliver little results. Those who must be tempted, seduced, appeased, or pampered will never be the ones who confront it head-on and demand radical change. Anyone who debates which semantics to use or appeals for participation instead of inviting them is not one to challenge long-standing policies or revamp widely accepted processes. It takes its own reason, its own drive and passion to ignite that kind of sustained enthusiasm. Just like committing to a healthier lifestyle or quitting smoking, they can’t do it to please someone else. , they need to do it for themselves and meet their own values, and educating the public about the truth behind racial inequality is a matter of personal and personal motivation. It can be the spark that ignites.
This omission sends a reckless and dangerous message to Black and Brown employees
Please do not make any mistakes. Black and brown employees absolutely notice when companies put a twist on the pretzel to avoid discussing the racist truth in this country. The focus is almost exclusively on white sentiment. But what about black and brown sentiment? There is usually little focus on how the noticeable omission of these topics makes you feel.
These are among the subtle messages many Black and Brown people receive when organizations shy away from training and content on America’s racial history.
– Your history is not so important.
– We focus on your history only as far as we continue to feel comfortable.
– Our potential discomfort negates the advantage of validating and enhancing the truth of our collective American experience.
– Our version of “American history” is just white American history. Any significant discussion of the black experience in America will be considered black history and not American history.
– I don’t think this is a serious problem. Therefore, no analysis of it is necessary.
– We value equality, but not enough to endure significant discomfort.
In some ways, May 25, 2020, both the days of George Floyd’s murder and Amy Cooper’s infamous Central Park racism, marked the nadir of modern American race relations. Within days, the company has launched a firm pledge to not only be “non-racist,” but to be “anti-racist.” How to be anti-racist Author Dr. Ibram X. Kendy (and his predecessor Angela Davis). But slowly, predictably, calls for a radical and resolute focus on anti-racism soon turned to be aimed at distracting and entertaining, rather than disrupting and transforming. It’s been superseded by the much more palatable, paltry DEI initiative that looks like a well-designed and performant shell game.
Indeed, the training and discussion of America’s racial history must be treated with the utmost care and responsibly, and through a historical rather than a political lens. Best of all, fact-based and authoritative resources such as the Equal Justice Initiative, PBS, and history.com are readily available. There’s been a lot of debate lately about how to discuss America’s racial history, but it’s becoming more and more apparent that the problem is will, not ability.
