Upside/ Down Diversity?

I came across this Ted Talk given by Andrѐs Tapia titled, “Why diversity is upside down” and felt that it was worth sharing.  This talk provides a fresh take on what diversity means in today’s world.  The idea of the world being upside /down is really about reframing our understanding of the world, and ultimately of diversity.  His basic argument is that the world, as some of us have known it, and as others of us have imagined it, simply does not exist any longer.  Something that meant one thing previously now means something else entirely.

The rapidly shifting demographics in the U.S. have transformed communities that once comprised a numerical minority into the numerical majority, even though we remain “minorities” socially, politically, culturally, and economically.  Our changing landscape mirrors the changing global landscape in which nations that were once considered “backward” and “third-world” are now world powers or rising world powers. This means that peoples who have always been the numerical global majority are increasingly becoming the cultural and economic majority as well.

I appreciate this perspective because it requires a critical paradigm shift; for us to completely reframe how we discuss diversity in ways that will be really helpful moving forward:

• Andrѐs is asking us to acknowledge the reality of where we are NOW as a nation and not where we once were, or where we imagine ourselves to be.  Within this new America we really have to ask ourselves what it means to create organizations and institutions that are truly reflective of the nation.
• It points us to the elastic nature of society and the need to acknowledge that culture and the meanings that we ascribe to our world are continuously evolving and changing.
• By framing the conversation in this way, it helps us understand that diversity can no longer be regarded as just an ideal or a nice theory.   It is a reality that must be taken seriously if businesses and organizations are to remain competitive within this new social order.

Another very important point that he raises is that identity is multi-dimensional.  This idea of multi-dimensionality (or intersectionality) is really about understanding how our various identities intersect and converge.  I am not just Black.  I am not just a Black woman. I am an educated, able-bodied, heterosexual, Black woman, etc… This means that my interests and needs intersect and converge with other people who are also Black or women or able-bodied or heterosexual, etc… What he is calling the “1.0 version” or the “right-side-up” version of diversity is based in a one-dimensional identity that creates false binaries: White/ Mexican, heterosexual/homosexual, man/woman, that leads to me/us/them.   Within this paradigm diversity becomes about an essentialized “us” accepting or tolerating an essentialized “them”.

The “upside/ down” version of diversity that Andrѐs posits acknowledges the fact that there is not really a clear or clean us/them binary because we are not so easily compartmentalized.  Just as being a woman does not provide a complete picture of who I am or of my experiences, I cannot completely collapse another person’s experiences into a single element of their identity.  This requires me to engage with the person rather than my pre-conceived notions of what “men” do or what “Christians” act like.  This is why it is not enough to celebrate, recognize, or tolerate difference; we must ultimately understand that we NEED one another’s differences.  Diversity is not a question of preference or convenience, but of necessity.

There is one point of divergence that I will raise.  Andrѐs talks about inclusion, but I will replace inclusion with equity, because I think that in order to move beyond the binaries and get to diversity as necessity, there must be some notion of social justice.  We are where we are NOW because of where we were yesterday.  In order to get beyond the effects of yesterday’s actions, we must fully acknowledge and take responsibility for them.  This is also one of the ways that we come to understand our own multi-dimensionality as well as another person’s.  I do not think that inclusion will get us there.  Andrѐs says that diversity is the mix and inclusion is how the mix works.  I would argue that equity helps us understand the mix in the first place and provides us with the tools to make it “work”.

I will close by highlighting one of the most important points that he raises.  “Diversity is a skill and not an attitude”, which means that there needs to be good management and facilitation in order to make diversity work.  One of the difficulties with our present “right-side” up version of diversity is that it is so heavily based in ideas about intention and emotion, but our feelings, desires, and good intentions are not sufficient.  There are actual tools and skills that are necessary for helping people bridge gaps in understanding, their preferences, stereotypes, etc… This is one of the reasons why Diversity as Counting Bodies (see my first article) is insufficient.  The simple proximity of people who perceive themselves as being different is not enough, even when those people have the best intentions.  This means that the diversity and equity that we desire will not happen naturally or accidentally; it must be a thoughtful and conscientious process.

Talking Diversity- Building Bridges

Act 1: What is Diversity?

Scene 2: Building Bridges

In my previous article, “Counting Bodies”, I talked about the important, yet limited, role of access and data collection in diversification efforts.  Many organizations have begun to understand that access, the numbers, is only one part of the equation; so the question becomes, what’s next?  If recruitment is not the answer, if having the “right” ratios and proportions is not the answer; then what is? Well, there is no singular formula or one-size fits all solution.  No one wants to hear that right? We are a solutions-driven, results-oriented, blah, blah, blah… kind of society—but there is a problem with this kind of approach.   Anytime you are dealing with a complex problem with multiple causes, there is not going to be a single solution.  This means that the initiatives that produce results tend to be far more comprehensive, address multiple dimensions (socio-political, cultural, economic…), and continue to evolve as their understanding of the issues continue to evolve.

Since not all White women, Black gay men, Mexican lesbians, people in wheelchairs, transgender White men, immigrants, Filipino men etc. share the same issues (though we all tend to get lumped into the “under-represented” category), we cannot expect that a single solution will suffice.  So, if there is no “solution”, if I am not going to provide you with the “10 steps to a diverse workforce” or “The secret to achieving equity in your organization”, why am I even writing this stupid article, right? As I stated in the first article, diversity and equity are complex issues.  When dealing with any complex issue it is paramount that we take some time to understand and engage with that complexity.  Think about any big issue, like poverty or hunger; if we do not understand the causes of poverty or why it persists how can we possibly hope to end it?  This is why progress in areas like these requires a commitment to process, and we need to embrace the fact that there are no singular approaches or simple answers.

As I said earlier, many organizations and companies have already come to understand that the simple presence of different kinds of bodies does not necessarily get them to their desired end.  Maybe HR managed to recruit more White and Asian women to their tech company, only to find that these women are not moving up through the ranks into leadership positions.   These women might also be expressing dissatisfaction with the company, leading to turnover rates that are higher than their male counterparts.  In an attempt to address this new issue the company might begin to think of ways to better integrate women.  The question then becomes, how do we better prepare women to succeed in this company?  One of the most popular techniques that arise at this stage is what I am calling diversity as “building bridges”, in which organizations create special training programs, mentoring programs, etc… to help acculturate the under-represented group into the organization or company.  In essence, the square peg is taught how to act round, or how to cram themselves into the prevailing cultural norms of said organization.

These programs and initiatives function as additive structures within the organization meant to “bridge” the gulf between the institutional culture and a particular group’s perceived deficiencies.  And yes, these gaps in culture are often perceived as being deficiencies on the side of those who are under-represented.  These “bridges” are most often single-lane highways, meaning that there is no exchange of ideas, all knowledge and information flows in one-direction only.  This is because the organization most often begins from the premise that the company/organization/institution “works”.  The company is fine; it’s the women who are the problem that must be fixed.  However, I would submit that if a company/organization/institution only attracts and supports a very limited range of life experiences, cultural perspectives, and voices then it is not functioning to its fullest and greatest capacity.  Something in that organization/company/institution is not working.

I do understand that these additive structures, no matter how artificial and at times patronizing, do serve a function and have played a critical role to date.  I, myself, have certainly created, implemented, and facilitated such programs in my work.  The difference is that I understand that these “bridges” are not a permanent solution.  In structuring these kinds of programs I also try to make sure that there is two-way traffic.  In other words, I start from the understanding that the organization needs to do a better job accommodating square pegs and triangular pegs and oval pegs, etc… in addition to the round ones.  In other words, the organization also has a lot to learn.

Even with their limitations, if done properly, these programs are certainly an important step in the diversification process for several reasons:

1. They represent an increased and more sustained commitment to diversity on the part of the company or organization.
2. They usually mean that there are individuals, or a powerful individual, within the organization who have more than a passing interest in diversity.
3. Because they often arise out of some kind of internal surveying process and/or as a response to prevailing trends; they require some self-reflection on the part of the company or organization.
4. They open up a space for dialogue and provide the necessary space for critical engagement of the status-quo, which also opens up valuable opportunities for innovation.
5. They provide much needed support for under-represented staff and leadership.
6. They often result in the company/ organization’s broader engagement within the community and to outreach to previously ignored communities where there are under-utilized resources and talents.
7. They can improve retention and success rates for under-represented populations within the organization and ultimately help to foster a better organizational culture.

Though “bridging” can serve an important function, it is limited because these programs and initiatives are additive structures.  This means that they are constructed on top of prevailing cultural norms such that they cannot actually address any of the underlying issues that under-gird the original lack of diversity within the company or organization. If the culture of an organization is racist, simply hiring more people of color and training them on how to navigate the racism in the organization is not going to solve the problem.  Shifting organizational culture is such a difficult, painful, and slow process, that it often appears quicker and easier to acculturate “others” into that prevailing culture.  So we provide “them” with mentors who understand how to navigate the company, and we provide “them” with special classes or workshops or trainings… BUT, and this is a big but, we can do all of this without ever challenging or changing racist, sexist, ablest, homophobic… structures within the organization.  Unless and until those structures are themselves explicitly addressed so that they can eventually be dismantled, the issue will remain.  This is why bridge programs, which should be temporary, often become permanent structures within organizations.  Think about it, if this “worked” wouldn't an organization eventually be able to do away with these programs?  Usually the opposite happens and theses programs only become more entrenched over time.  Higher education is a perfect example of this.  What I have seen in institutions of higher education is that bridging programs tend to multiply and grow larger and more expansive over time.

 

Think about it this way.  Imagine that you are a transportation expert called in to help a city that is dealing with overcrowded roads that result in frequent traffic jams.  Well, you say, since the roads are jammed that means we need bigger roads, and so you start to add more lanes to certain highways and expand roads in areas with the greatest congestion.  This helps a bit and traffic starts to move a little faster but it does not actually solve the problem.  So what do you do?  You cannot just keep expanding the roads.  What you ultimately come to realize is that the number of lanes is not the core issue.  In fact, there are a number of issues that are contributing to the traffic problems, issues that span multiple agencies.  More people are commuting further distances because of high housing costs in the area.  On top of that, the public transportation system is too limited and inefficient.  Also, neighborhoods are not pedestrian friendly, meaning that people cannot just walk to grocery stores or other local businesses.  All of these factors mean that more people are finding it necessary to drive most of the time.   So, unless and until people are provided with other alternatives, they will continue to drive a lot and the roads will continue to be congested.

This is essentially what has occurred within higher education, only most institutions just keep building more bridges.  When this happens you wind up with a complicated and, often inefficient, network of bridges on top of bridges, intersecting with bridges, colliding with bridges, replicating bridges...  Some of these bridges are new and some are rickety and falling apart.  Some are long and some are short. Some are dismantled only to have a new and only slightly improved (sometimes a slightly worse) version put up in nearly the same place.  Some bridges span the length of the institution and some are bridges to nowhere… But under this highly evolved network of structures, the institution itself remains largely unchanged.  Because of this, the experiences of students, staff, leadership, and faculty from under-represented groups also remain largely unchanged.  There is only added confusion and more mazes to navigate.

While “bridges” certainly have a role to play as a company or organization is looking to become more diverse and equitable, they should not be mistaken for a long-term solution. 

Talking Diversity: Counting Bodies

Act 1: What is Diversity? 

In order to answer the larger question, "Why Diversity?", I will start by focusing on an equally complex question, "What is Diversity"?  Take a moment and try to answer that question for yourself.  Note that your approach to this question, how you read it and how you respond to it is heavily context-laden.  If you are the ED of an educational non-profit you will likely approach this question differently from an HR Manager at a large corporation, or a college student.  I raise the question of context because, much like you, I have a particular context from which I am approaching this topic.  While I will try to address multiple contexts and perspectives throughout these series of conversations, my particular context/ paradigm informs my interpretation, approach, and ultimately shapes my intention for raising this question in the first place.

So, here is some sense of my context: I am a 37 year old Black woman (born and raised in the US).  I am from Detroit, MI. and have lived all over the country.  I have multiple degrees in Philosophy, including a PhD. I am an alum of Spelman College in Atlanta, GA.  I am the eldest child in a large extended family.  I am heterosexual and able-bodied.  I am not a religious person. I am married and have no children presently.  I take the question of diversity personally, ie my engagement with this topic is not a purely theoretical or political exercise.  I am an educator, committed to educational equity.  I grew up poor and as an adult have largely been working/ middle class...  While none of these facts determine my perspective, and there are certainly other relevant pieces that that I did not mention, this list will at least provide you with some sense of where I am "coming from". 

I chose to open the conversation in this way because conversations about things like race, class, sexuality, etc... are mired in the personal.  In this way, it is helpful to have some understanding of who the other person is and where s/he is "coming from" when we attempt to engage in these conversations.  My intention in raising this question is that I think that diversity is critical, but that as much as the word is used, we often fail to do justice to the complexity of this issue or its critical importance.

So, "What is Diversity"? This question will take several articles to address because there are many different approaches and perspectives that should be considered.

Scene 1: Counting Bodies


At it's most basic, diversity is enacted at the level of raw data: how many ___ are in the classroom, boardroom, office, etc... While this approach ultimately proves to be ineffectual, it does have an important role to play in diversity and equity work.  Before I get into where I think that this approach falls short, let me start out by explaining why this approach is so prevalent and important.  The primary driving force for work in the area of diversity and equity has been the reality of deficiency, or the absence of certain kinds of bodies in the classroom, boardroom, office, etc..., due to structural inequalities within our social, political, and economic systems.  In order to really name and understand the depth of these deficiencies, we began to survey and quantify the problem.  It is not enough to simply say that there is an inequitable proportion of ___ in these kinds of positions; we have to have the hard data and statistics that provide a concrete way to identify and track the effects of these systemic inequalities.  The data also gives us a way to hold universities, corporations, and other institutions accountable.

Beyond all of this, numbers do matter for a plethora of reasons.  There is a great deal of research out there (some of which I will share with you in greater detail) on the importance of role models and the impact of phenomena like, "stereotype" threat, that are heavily influenced by numbers.  I have personally seen the positive impact that cohort recruitment and programming can have on outcomes for under-represented people in higher education and in other organizations.  So, because numbers do matter, many organizations and institutions began to focus on recruitment or "access", which makes a certain amount of sense.  If the problem is assumed to be numbers, then the goal is to increase the numbers. In this way, the "problem" of diversity has been largely relegated to a recruitment issue.

Here's the problem, diversity is not just a question of numbers.  The numbers are a manifestation or symptom of an underlying set of issues.  Most recruiters have come to understand the importance of retention and success in addition to access.  In other words, the ability to recruit people into an organization does not mean that they will stay.  We have certainly seen this in higher education where graduation rates for under-represented students did not increase in proportion to increased access.  The simple accumulation of different kinds of bodies does not and cannot alone account for, or correct, the systemic inequities that led to this deficiency in the numbers in the first place.  The lack of Black men and women in the sciences is not a recruitment issue.  The lack of white women in engineering is not a recruitment issue.  The lack of Indigenous men and women in higher education is not a recruitment issue.  While the numbers provide us with a necessary and important point of departure, they cannot serve as the sole focus of diversification efforts.