Could Human Rights Be Within Reach?

For the next article in my “Hacking Diversity” series I wanted to highlight a non-tech oriented organization.  The World As It Could Be Human Rights Education Program is taking a unique approach to youth empowerment and education.  They use the creative arts to introduce youth to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), creating unique opportunities for diverse groups (students teachers, community members) to actively engage with issues of human rights and social justice.

While raising awareness about the UDHR the project also seeks to:

• Engage youth in ways that inspire learning, critical thinking and positive social interaction
• Encourage youth who are often marginalized due to learning or physical differences to enjoy participation in school-wide events
• Encourage the broader community to support and celebrate the accomplishments of youth
• Showcase the value of the creative arts to personal development and a vibrant culture
• Provide collaborative opportunities among non-profits, public schools and universities

The two main initiatives of the project currently are:

1. Distribution and continued development of a project-based high school curriculum that meets high school requirements for teaching the UDHR, and congruent teacher training institutes.
2. To provide a community led Rite of Passage program at the REACH Ashland Youth Center to initiate and celebrate youth as engaged members of a healthy community.  This program, called The World As It Could Be Is Within REACH, will provide a model that can be replicated in other communities.

I was able to interview Program Director, Sandy Sohcot in order to gain a deeper understanding of this project.

Question: Could you provide me with some background on the program? 

The World As It Could Be Human Rights Education Program, began as a project of the Rex Foundation in 2006.  It is as a series of initiatives that all use the creative arts as a mechanism for raising awareness about the UDHR.  The primary initiative is the development of a curriculum for high school students that teaches them about the Declaration and integrates the creative arts as a tool for increasing comprehension of the concepts and as a vehicle for the students to share their ideas.  The Declaration is supposed to be taught in high schools as a part of Social Studies standards but often is not, yet it is an important frame of reference for inspiring high school students to become more engaged in the community. We also provide resources on our website for teachers.  This past Fall we started a Rites of Passage program at the REACH Ashland Youth Center called, The World As It Could Be Is Within REACH.  It is a 9-month program with a class of 11 youth from the Center ranging in age from 13 to early 20s. The program was created by leaders within REACH that all represent different agencies within the county and essentially function as “elders” within that community who are helping to initiate young people as a part of the community.  We want the youth participating in the program to have a sense of what a healthy community is about, including an understanding of human rights, what their role is in creating a healthy community, and understand that they are vital members of a healthy community. On May 15 the students will put on their own culminating presentation and share what they have learned from the program with the community.  This presentation serves as both a way to celebrate their commitment and accomplishments and also inspire other young people to become involved themselves.

Question: What was the motivation for this project; why do you feel that this work is important?

When I first began working on this I just really wanted to bring to life the idea of the Human Rights framework because it can unite the various struggles for civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, etc… While I was at the Rex Foundation I commissioned an original production created by youth called, “The World As It Could Be: A Declaration of Human Rights”. I wanted young people to have a voice in this effort and I wanted to showcase the work of organizations using the arts to work with youth.  In creating this piece we found that when the youth learned about the UDHR they got very excited.  They felt like it gave them something to fight for. Everyone, adults and youth, were surprised that they had not known much about this document and yet recognized it’s significance in really providing a framework that can guide constructive behaviors to stop conflicts and promote peace and positive solutions.  The use of the arts was vital in getting this message out.  It allowed them another way to really engage with the concepts in the document other than just reading it.

  

1200 kids at Balboa High School in San Francisco saw this production and were totally engaged and really interested. The young people putting on the presentation, which was in a way a Rite of Passage, really felt a huge sense of accomplishment at having this opportunity to be the teachers.  These different elements really propelled us to keep going, particularly because the arts are not being properly funded in the public schools.  It also seems vital that people really know about the UDHR, which was shepherded through the UN by Eleanor Roosevelt after WWII and was really created with the intention of providing a framework to help put an end to wars and oppressive behaviors; we don’t have to reinvent the wheel.

Question:  What do you feel is innovative about your approach (content, delivery, etc…), that distinguish this program from other youth programs that focus on social justice or leadership development?

Part of what makes it innovative is that the curriculum really encourages a lot of critical thinking and creativity in the expression of the UDHR concepts.  We do not see ourselves as taking the place of any other youth organizations that focus on social justice, in fact we feel that exposing young people to this document provides additional context for work in other areas.  A lot of the social justice movements are a vehicle for supporting the human rights of various groups.  It opens up a different perspective that helps to connect seemingly disparate efforts.  The use of this idea of a Rite of Passage is also helpful in that it allows the young people to take on a teaching role in sharing the ideas in this document.  They are given the opportunity to be leaders and teachers and so take on a different level of ownership over the ideas.

Could you say more about this idea of the Rite of Passage and how you are using it and connecting it to teaching the UDHR?

I gained knowledge about Rites of Passage from my own experience and more recently from work being done by Frederick Marx, a documentary filmmaker whose current work is on the importance of Rites of Passage for youth.  A Rite of Passage is basically a process by which young people gain a greater awareness of themselves in their community.  One particular Rite of Passage that I am familiar with is the Jewish Bar or Bat Mitzvah.  The idea in The World as it Could Be is to use the UDHR as a kind of “sacred text” that the young people learn and reflect upon.  The culminating presentation then serves as their Rite of

Passage in which they have to interpret and then share these principles with the community in a creative way.  This really helps them begin to think about how they can make use of these principles and implement them within their communities.  The culminating presentation also provides the community with an opportunity to really recognize and celebrate the accomplishments of the youth so that both the youth and the community are ultimately empowered by the process.

Question: Why does this program attract such a diverse body of young people and how do you nurture their diverse voices and perspectives?

What’s been really interesting is that there is just something about the UDHR that really resonates with high school students.  It is actually hard to describe it, when it first happened I didn’t anticipate the response that it would get from students.  The realization that these rights exist seems to compel the youth to ask, first of all, am I getting all of these rights? If not, what do I need to think about to work toward them?  It seems to compel constructive action.  It also provides a point of entry for young people who feel like they have been marginalized in some way.  A group of kids at Balboa High who have various physical and mental challenges and do not traditionally get a chance to participate in mainstream school activities were able to learn about the UDHR and get onstage and assert their right to be a part of the school community and to be seen as people.  There is just something about learning it. The youth are very impressed by the Articles, they see that they are represented in them.

Question: How does the commitment to diversity and equity shape or influence the work  (in the development of curriculum, identification of facilitators, delivery of content, ect… )?

It’s at the essence of it, human rights, by their definition, means that every human being, no matter what their skin color, religion, gender, nationality, no matter what characteristic you might say… every person is to be honored and experience all of the rights spelled out by the Universal Declaration.  The content in and of itself promotes that attitude.  Through the curriculum we seek to create ways for each participant to have a voice.  The intention is really for every single student to have an opportunity to participate and the arts helps to facilitate this because there are different ways that people can express themselves: through visual art, or movement, or a song, or spoken word...  There is no limit; each person’s spirit can be reflected. We also seek to have a diverse group of people act as facilitators.  We would also like to see some of the teachers that we have trained become facilitators. In addition, we try to train ourselves to be very cognizant of the emotional and charged nature of this work.  We seek to be mindful and prepared to really be able to help people hear and communicate about very personal issues related to human rights. We try to create a safe place for people to be able to contemplate and express their ideas about these issues so that they can be discussed in a way that can facilitate positive change.

In my article, “Hacking Diversity” I talked about the importance raising questions.  I assert that solutions begin as questions, therefore, the question that gets asked and who is asking influence the solution.  The most powerful thing about this project is that it motivates young people, whose voices are traditionally marginalized, to raise important questions about our world and their place in it.  They ask, what does it mean to have human rights-- the right to an education, the right to equal protection of the law, the right to work…?  What does it mean to assert and defend these rights?  More importantly, the culminating presentation carves out a literal and figurative space in which they are able to publicly give voice to these questions, thereby becoming an integral part of the solution.

Innovators Closing Gaps in the Leaky Tech Pipeline

For the first article in my “Hacking Diversity” series I am focusing on the Kapor Center for Social Impact. While there are a number of organizations focusing on issues of access and equity within the tech sector, The Kapor Center for Social Impact is taking a unique approach to closing gaps in the leaky tech pipeline.

Founded by Mitch Kapor and Freada Kapor Klein, the Center is located in Downtown Oakland, CA and takes a multi-level approach to leveraging information technology for positive social impact.  In addition to creating programming that is working to diversify the sector, they also identify and support broader strategies that leverage the tech sector as a tool for closing gaps within traditionally marginalized communities.  This commitment to diversity and inclusion permeates every component of the organization and goes beyond their internal organizational culture.  In addition to hiring and nurturing a diverse staff, they are also committed to ensuring that all vendors, organizational partners, and projects that they fund also reflect the community that they serve. 

Over the past year, the Kapor Center has had three major areas of focus:

Educational Access

The Kapor Center partners with several long-standing initiatives: College Bound Brotherhood, The Level Playing Field Institute, and the Berkeley Science Network, in the support of under-represented students of color.  Through these partnerships they work to create “a more robust pipeline of contributors in the tech ecosystem”.

Diversifying Tech

Their work in this area focuses on increasing the presence and viability of underrepresented people of color in the tech sector as producers, entrepreneurs, financiers, and thought leaders.  In support of this work they sponsor events like Brothers Code and Vator Splash Oakland, support coding education organizations such as Black Girls Code and The Hidden Genius Project, and provide training to tech companies on hidden bias, contributing to the development of new strategies  for combating bias in the sector.

Tech for Social Impact

In this work area the focus is on understanding how the tech sector can be utilized as a positive force for social change, rather than as a means by which to further deepen existing inequalities. Their support of 2.Oakland and Open Oakland  display a commitment to fostering an equitable and inclusive tech sector in Oakland, their home base.

While the Kapor Center provides limited financial support to non-profits, their counterpart Kapor Capital invests in tech startups with a positive social impact, nearly half of which are founded by people of color and/or women. Between Kapor Capital and the Kapor Center, these sibling organizations initiate and support a range of work across numerous companies and organizations within the sector.  Because they focus on building partnerships and collaborating with existing organizations that are equally committed to diversity and equity; The Kapor Center for Social Impact acts as a kind of spoke or hub in the wheel of tech diversity efforts happening in the Bay Area.  Their work helps to form a connective tissue linking various non-profits, companies, leaders, funders, and researchers, thereby, amplifying the work of each organization for the greatest collective impact. 

In order to gain greater and insight into the organization I interviewed Cedric Brown,  Managing Partner for the Kapor Center.

Question: What do you feel is the Kapor Center’s greatest contribution?

The Kapor Center is uniquely positioned to make issues of diversity and inclusion within the tech sector more visible, and to actually provide resources to support diversity work that is happening in the technology sector through our start-up funding.  We also have people working within the organization who are well known and well respected in the tech community, which provides us with additional leverage and further legitimizes our efforts.

Question: How does the Kapor Center make diversity and equity integral to the way that you do business?

Diversity is a part of our organizational DNA, mission, and philosophy.  It is baked in and not sprinkled on; things that are sprinkled on can be scraped off. Diversity and inclusion are deeply woven into the substance of the organization.  Because there is diversity within our staff and leadership, having these different perspectives around the table influences how we develop internal ideas and strategies.  It also impacts who we choose to partner with.  We look for partners who also prioritize diversity and inclusion in their organizations as an integral part of their processes; from the governance of the organization to the product that gets produced.

Question: What distinguishes the Kapor Center from other organizations doing similar work?


We are part of a fairly large and varied ecosystem of organizations working to diversify the tech sector.  We play a unique role within this ecosystem because of the range of activities that we provide along the entire tech sector pipeline.  The Kapor Center works with students from school-age all the way through college-age to provide them with educational opportunities and experiences that can help to prepare them to pursue tech careers.  We work with entrepreneurs and start-ups that are creating positive social impact, providing them with critical resources and support. We also provide support to the ecosystem of tech founders and support companies in their diversification efforts.

The Kapor Center for Social Change exemplifies the kind of exciting and creative solutions that can arise when an organization takes diversity and equity seriously. Rather than detracting from or somehow denigrating excellence, the organization’s “baked in” approach to diversity undergirds their innovative approach to closing gaps in the tech pipeline.  Their multi-level and highly collaborative approach is impacting, not only the demographic composition of the tech sector, but also the kinds of technologies being produced and the ways that they are being produced.  Rather than simply trying to increase the number of under-represented people who are participating in the tech sector status quo, the Kapor Center is committed to changing that ecosystem.  Because of this commitment, organizations looking to partner with them and tech start-ups that come to seek their support are forced to think differently about the role that diversity can and will play in the development of new technologies.

I am closing this article with a Ted talk given by Freada Kapor Klein, entitled, “We Can Do Better”, because it both articulates The Kapor Center philosophy and serves as a beautifully crafted call to action.

For more information about the Kapor Center For Social Impact visit: www.kaporcenter.org

Tools for Navigating Difficult Conversations

Any serious commitment to diversity and equity will inevitably lead to uncomfortable and difficult conversations.  Time and again I have seen perfectly good and well-intentioned people trying to do good and well-intentioned work that gets muddled or even undermined by the inability to have open and honest conversations.  I have also participated in such conversations and so understand these challenges first hand.  I am going to offer some tools that can help you to face and move through these challenges.

1) Be willing to check your guilt at the door- Guilt-motivated conversations are less impactful than respect-motivated conversations.  Actions that are motivated or, more likely, blocked by guilt do not accomplish anything positive or fruitful.  There is a big difference between conversations that are shaped by guilt or fear and conversations that are shaped by a desire for mutual respect and understanding.  Guilt and fear are accompanied by a kind of tightening up and closing off, because we want to hide and protect ourselves.   In contrast, when we are being respectful we are likely to be more open and receptive to other people.  Any constructive conversation is based in the ability to remain open; so if you find that you tend to respond to certain topics or situations with guilt, be willing to check that guilt at the door.

2) Get clear about your intentions and set some ground rules- When entering into a difficult conversation it is important that everyone is clear about their intentions in having the conversation.  What is it that you hope to accomplish: greater clarity, consensus-building, mutual understanding, mediation, debate, conversion…?  This is important because if one person wants to convert others to their way of thinking and another person is simply hurt and wants to vent, and another person is hoping for mediation… the conversation is not going to go anywhere and may do more harm than good.  There are times and situations in which venting may be appropriate and healthy and there are times when mediation is needed; the important thing is that everyone be on the same page from the beginning.  If you all agree that the purpose of the conversation is mediation then you need to set ground rules for a mediation.  This is also helpful because it can force you to take a closer look at where you actually are in the process.  You may need to have several different kinds of conversations because your group may need to work through grievances before you can do consensus-building, for example.

3) Be willing to be wrong- The willingness to be wrong allows for greater honesty and openness.  I am less likely to be honest about my feelings or ideas when I am more concerned about being right or about appearing to hold a particular set of beliefs that I am afraid will be unpopular.  When I am willing to be wrong I am more likely to be open to having someone else offer criticism of my ideas.  Often we are protective of our ideas and opinions because we fear how they will be received or that people will think less of us or see us in a negative light.  When we are willing to be wrong, we open the door for the possibility of genuine engagement with another person and this lays the groundwork for us to be able to have the kinds of conversations that can actually accomplish something.

4) Relinquish the idea that you can control how others perceive of you- So often we get caught up in trying to say the “right” thing.  We can get caught up in trying to control other people’s reactions, not wanting to anger or offend someone, but the truth is that we cannot know, nor can we control how someone will hear or respond to what we say. What we can do is remain open to the other person’s feedback and be willing to work through the ramifications of what we say.

 5) You can be both honest and kind- We can approach honesty as an act of vulnerability, “Here is what I think, what do you think?”, rather than as a judgment, “I think this and this is the truth.”  One stance is open-ended and invites engagement, while the other stance is closed and discourages engagement.   Because we are all fallible and carry both conscious and unconscious prejudices there is always the possibility that our honesty might be inflammatory.  When we approach honesty as an act of vulnerability we are able to embrace the fullness of our imperfect humanity by opening up our ideas and opinions to public scrutiny.  By leaving the door open for our own fallibility we also acknowledge the humanity of other people who are also fallible and imperfect.  Our ideas and opinions, even those that go unexpressed, still function to shape our attitudes and behaviors.  When we remain silent about our ideas because we think that they are inflammatory, we are really protecting those ideas from closer inspection; we are not protecting other people.

6) Self-awareness goes a long way- Each of us has a specific world-view that is comprised of our history, experiences, beliefs, etc…  Our world-view shapes how we experience and live in the world.  We interpret our experiences and our interactions with others through this lens.  If we do not practice self-awareness we can forget that we are wearing this lens and we start to think that the world is as we see and experience it.  If we remain aware of the fact that we are wearing this lens then we can also acknowledge that we have some blind spots.  We can acknowledge that there are some things that we do not know about the world and even about ourselves because we are seeing and interpreting the world through a particular lens.  Self-awareness also requires that we seek to better understand our own particular world-view: What are my prejudices? How do my privileges shape my perspective? What assumptions am I making about a particular situation based upon my fundamental beliefs about how the world works?  Practicing self-awareness ultimately helps us to be more open to ideas and beliefs that do not fit within our particular world-view.  Practicing self-awareness also makes us more aware of our own triggers and allows us to better assess our ability to participate in difficult conversations.  Do I need a space to vent before I can participate in a consensus-building conversation? Am I so attached to my perspective that I am more interested in conversion than mutual understanding?  Understanding these things about ourselves provides us with greater insight and clarity making it easier to participate in difficult conversations.

7) Exercise some humility-  Once we become more aware of our world-view, and that we are operating from a particular set of experiences, beliefs, etc… then it becomes easier to relinquish the idea that our interpretation is THE interpretation.  This does not mean that we cannot be committed to our beliefs or that we should not stand up for our beliefs, it simply means that we can both hold our beliefs and remain open to an alternative interpretation.

8) Ask real questions- While it is important to ask a lot of questions when  we are engaging in difficult conversations, there are times when we ask questions that simply reinforce our assumptions.  When we are really trying to understand a person’s point of view it is important to ask truly open-ended questions that allow the space for our assumptions to be incorrect.  For example, if you ask a person: “Why are you so irresponsible?”  That is not a real question and it actually closes off the possibility for real dialogue. That person is either left to acquiesce and explain or to defend him/herself.  A more open-ended approach would be, “When you are constantly late for work it makes me feel that you are not committed to this job, why are you late so often?”  By framing the question in this way you are being honest about your assumptions while still remaining open and allowing for the possibility that your assumption might be inaccurate or incomplete.

9) Ask yourself, what is at stake here?- Sometimes we find ourselves locked in battle mode.  Our jawlines are tight, our shoulder muscles bunched, with stomach muscles tightened as though we are bracing for battle.  But what is really at stake? If I say something “wrong” or embarrass myself or upset someone is that really going to be the end of the world? Probably not, I may need to clean up after myself later or I might have to relinquish or revise some judgment, but really, what would I lose if I approach this exchange with a spirit of honesty and openness rather than with fists clenched and stomach in knot?  What am I really afraid of? You may find that your trepidation is legitimate.  Your colleague or friend or boss might be slightly unhinged and/or unreasonable and might not be open to engaging with you in an open and honest manner, but that is their problem, not yours.  In those instances you might actually need to reevaluate some things about that relationship or situation that go beyond a specific conversation.  It is more frequently the case that bosses, colleagues, and friends are not unhinged and would actually be willing to engage in open and honest conversation, even if that conversation is unpleasant.

10) Sometimes you need to agree to disagree-  If you get to a place of frustration or you feel like the dialogue is stalled or stuck you may need to take a step back and re-evaluate the intention of the conversation.  Maybe you need to take a step back and try to work on coming to some mutual understanding before you try to come to consensus… There will also be some times when you will need to be open to the fact that everyone will not agree about everything.  The good news is that complete consensus is often not necessary to move forward.  It is often the case that people are able to agree on some fundamental element or component of an issue and use that as a basis upon which to set priorities.  When disagreements arise, it is not usually the fact that people disagree that causes a problem; the biggest problems usually arise when people become too focused on conversion and are unwilling to allow differences to stand.  People do not have to agree about everything or see things in the exact same way in order to work well together—this is the very heart of diversity. If, however, there are, indeed, irreconcilable differences on a fundamental level then you may need to re-evaluate the relationship or situation.

How Do We Hack Diversity?

Solutions begin as questions—the question that gets asked and who is asking influence the solution. Think about the story of how Sir Isaac Newton came up with the theory of gravitational pull.  As the story goes, he was sitting under an apple tree when an apple fell either on the ground or on his head, depends on who tells the story. Either way, the apple falls and he asks himself “Why should that apple always fall perpendicularly from the tree?” This question eventually leads him to postulate the theory of gravity. Now imagine that St. Augustine had sat under a Zeen Oak and been hit on the head by an acorn. St. Augustine, being who he was, might very likely have turned his head heavenwards and asked “Why O Lord hast Thou made this acorn fall upon my head?” Similar situation, yet different men in different times would lead to different questions that would have invariably led to very different solutions (only I made up the whole St. Augustine bit).

On the flip side, if the same kinds of people are asking the same kinds of questions, you are bound to come up with the same kinds of solutions. Additionally, the kinds of questions that get asked, in the first place, are influenced by our priorities/ what matters most to us.  If profit matters most, then the questions raised will lead to solutions that maximize profit. If the environment is what matters, then the questions raised will lead to solutions that protect the environment, and so on, and so forth. This might explain why we have a proliferation of apps that allow us to call a cab or order a pizza, but far fewer technological solutions that address some of our greatest global challenges.

How far will technology take us? Well, a lot of that will depend on who gets to ask the questions. So, you see, it is not just about solutions after all. Every solution has a point of departure, a context, a frame of reference and so if we are truly committed to coming up with different kinds of solutions, we actually have to be committed to asking different kinds of questions. In order to do that we have to broaden the pool of questioners; this is why diversity and equity is a necessity. It is not only about having people who look different at the table, but about nurturing spaces where people with different perspectives, experiences, and priorities can raise the questions that will lead to the solutions that will benefit us all.

This is why I want to hack diversity. Hack diversity? What does that even mean? Hacking is no longer just for techies; the meaning of hacking has been broadened. To “hack”, is to modify or to change something in an extraordinary way. Now people talk about hacking just about everything from food to production processes. So, after writing my last article about diversity being upside/down I thought, why not hack diversity?  The beauty is that “hacking” diversity and equity could mean a lot of different things and that is the whole point. Remember, the question is as important as the solution. By raising the question of what it might mean to “hack” or modify how we think about, talk about, and do diversity and equity work in an extra-ordinary way, I am providing a new framework in which to do those very things.

In order to help facilitate this process I will start to highlight businesses and organizations that are doing truly innovative work in diversity and equity, harnessing the creative potential of diverse voices in innovative ways in order to come up with truly innovative solutions. Exemplars are an important part of facilitating a paradigm shift. One of the ways that we learn what change looks like is to make visible the work of change-agents. This allows us to more readily make the leap from the ideal to the concrete and identify the actual practices that make change happen.

In my exploration of each organization/business I will seek to answer the following questions:

1) How is this business/organization hacking diversity and equity?
2) How does the work of this organization/business contribute to a paradigmatic shift in diversity and equity?
3) What new questions (or new approaches to old questions) does this business/ organization posit as a result of this shift?
4) How does this business/ organization make diversity and equity integral to the way that they do business?

If you would like to recommend any businesses or organizations that you think should be highlighted as exemplars, fill out this FORM and I might just give them a shout out.

Happy New Year!

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.