[Clare Steward]

https://laceonrace.com/2021/04/22/dear-nice-white-people-part-2/

Dear Nice White People – Part 2

Discussion

[Laura Berwick]

If I cannot bring myself to practice articulating my stand on anti-racism here, in a community focused on lessening and mitigating harm to Black and brown people perpetuated by white people like me, it stands to reason that it will only be harder being quick and definite and kind in real life. I need the practice as much as I need the feedback and the prompt to reflection and self-interrogation.

“In what ways was the comment problematic?”

People are not purple. To me, putting it like that continues to other non-white people be implying they’re in a non- or less-human category. Also, a person’s racial identity is part of who they are, the whole person, whom we should care about. And the challenges a person will face in life and at my workplace will be different because of their racial identity. So we need to care.

“How do you think that comment landed on Black and Brown employees?”

I imagine there’s a spectrum of how it might land. If the speaker had a friendship with someone there who is Black or of color, it may be anything from exasperation and/or understanding to frustration, but maybe grace and yet more of that benefit of the doubt we white people demand so much of. Those with no relationship or a negative relationship to know him through, I imagine they might feel anger, pain, and suspicion of the speaker’s commitment to diversity and inclusion.

“How would you address the comment?

“Would you type something in the chat or address another way? or both?”

“If you would type a comment in the chat, be specific and share here.”

My inclination would be to address it with the speaker personally, if I knew him to speak to, or with someone I knew did know him, and I think that is needed, but only a partial solution. We’ve learned here that speaking up kindly, and immediately are important to mitigating harm. So I would type something brief in chat, like, “I feel that what X just said about hiring purple people is not a good way to express our commitment to diversity, and could come across as othering or dismissive. Can we make time to talk about this in the near future?”

“If you chose not to address in the moment, why? What are you afraid of and who or what are you protecting?”

In typing out the above, I found myself very mindful of seeming to speak for folks who don’t need me to speak for them. It’s easy for me to not be afraid of someone else’s coworker. I think that I would say it to people in my own company, which is heartening, but I’ve also worked for people I would be less fearless about speaking up to. I would have been afraid of them complaining to my boss, who might let me go if too many clients complained. But it seems like a DEI meeting is still about the safest corporate space I’d get. I think I’d be more just generally afraid than afraid of something real.

“Would it be anonymous or under your name and why?”

I would write it under my name. I would want people to know what I stand for. I would want them to know that’s where I’m at as a white person. I… would imagine that posting anonymously might make some people attribute that choice to cowardice, and also make people start to want to guess, and someone else might end up with repercussions that are rightfully mine.

[Laura Berwick]

I should also say that… as part of suggesting we discuss later, I would be trying to not impede the flow of a meeting others have planned with care, but I would commit personally to being a squeaky wheel until that follow up happened.

[Clare Steward]

Thinking about owing the follow up and being a squeaky wheel…I catch myself in the behavior of saying something and letting the follow up rest on the shoulders of the other person thinking to myself that I did my part and now the ball is in their court. Although I can’t own the outcome for the other person, the ball is always in my court and the responsibility is mine. I control my own praxis and alignment to the NS and letting any movement be up to the other person is a carevout..

[Rebecca McClinton]

“the benefit of the doubt we white people demand so much of,” thank you for pointing that out. It’s true, I flex on that too often still, and were I to measure it, I imagine the amount I demand (even just internally in my thoughts most of the time) is more than I intentionally take time to seek out and give.

[Christin Spoolstra]

” I think I’d be more just generally afraid than afraid of something real.”

I feel this. I appreciate this practice and also the courage series where we’re digging deep to identify our fears. Because I too think my fear would be a generalized abstract of hypotheticals.

[Julia Tayler]

I know I would feel the same way about the flow of the meeting. Especially if a lot of people were attending – made time in their day and there was an agenda. I also know I would be – at the very least – nervous about calling out the CEO. I would send a follow up e-mail but the moment would be lost.

[Jessie Lee]

It didn’t occur to me that people would try to guess the person behind an anonymous comment, and would very likely assume it was a person of color. This is a good example of un-centering myself and thinking about the ripple effects of my choices on people of color, and refusing to enter that savior mindset of NOT considering my potentially negative impact just because I’m speaking up at all while majority of other white people are silent.

[Shannon Brescher Shea]

Yes, that’s a great point. When we don’t take responsibility for our actions, someone else inevitably will and it is extremely likely to be the least privileged person (especially Black and brown people) in the room. “Raising awareness” of a problem can’t be anonymous as a result.

[Emily Holzknecht]

The comment suggested that nonwhite people run a likelihood of being unqualified. Treating race as if it’s as ridiculous and unimportant as a fantasy color. Colorblind comments are racist because they deny the reality of the lived experience of people because of their skin colors/race, they ignore important aspects of individuals that they might be proud of, acting like it’s more polite not to mention the unmentionable skin color/race and just like “I don’t even think of you as a woman” is a gender blind comment that is really saying, “Women suck, so I’m giving you a backhanded compliment by seeing you as a man”, not caring if they’re purple is a colorblind comment saying “Other colors suck and I’m giving you a backhanded compliment by seeing you as the same as me as since I am the dominant race, that means seeing you as white.

How do I think the comment landed on Black and brown folks… he basically announced his white supremacy and as far as I heard in the story, no one said anything about it, so I think it landed on Black and brown folks that this is not a safe place to work…which they probably already knew, but it is reinforced now. This is a place where their lived experience and their history is not valued. This is a place where the comfort of a white man’s white supremacy is more important than Black and brown employees.

How would I address the comment? I have addressed a harmful race comment aloud to my coworkers in a zoom meeting (I did have the opportunity to speak aloud), and in another situation I have direct messaged a person for a different harmful appropriative word use during a video call meeting, but in both of those situations, I had at least something of a relationship with the person I was making the comment to as well as the other people in the room. And though those people were my seniors, they were not company executives. In the second situation also, there were others who spoke after the person who was harmfully using an appropriated word while modeling a better word choice, so although no one said anything out loud about the word choice and there were no Black or brown people in the room to hear the initial word choice, the situation was “addressed” in a way both out loud and in the private message. I think in this second situation it still would have been better to be public about the correction for the cheap seats and also for everyone to see the modeling of calling in and using kind candor and accepting feedback with grace. It is hard to say that, oh yes, even if there was a lot more risk to me as there potentially was in Clare’s situation, I definitely would “speak up” publicly in the chat in front of everyone. Correction, it’s easy to say, but does saying it mean I’d actually do it? No. I can’t guarantee that I would take that risk. I hope that I would, but I can’t say with confidence yet that I would. But I can work towards a time when I am able to say with confidence that I guarantee that I will take that risk. As I speak up more and more I am getting stronger and getting more courage and then I speak up more still.

My goal would be to speak up with my name attached, not anonymously in that situation. And to do it during the meeting and not at a later time because the purple comment already landed on Black and brown people and also the cheap seats are listening in. If I did it anonymously and there were Black and brown people at the meeting, it would be assumed that one of them posted it. I would be putting the risk that I should be taking onto them. That would not be lessening and mitigating harm. I am remembering Marlise’s story about the FedEx store making the Black woman stand outside and how Marlise handled it in a way that put the potential annoyance of everyone on Marlise, not on the Black woman. That is what I would do in this situation.

As for what would I type specifically, I agree with Laura about putting it into the context of company values. I do not know the values of the company values of the company Clare is writing about, but I assume there is something like a commitment to diversity to reference. Actually I shouldn’t have read Laura’s comment first because now I want to type that in the chat. I answered the other questions without reading anyone else’s answers because I wanted to challenge myself to think for myself, but the specific language I peeked on and now I wish I hadn’t. Laura’s way of expressing it is very like what was suggested at a recent workshop I went to in this sort of situation and I thought it was a great approach and then apparently I didn’t “get it in” because I didn’t think of it until I saw Laura’s wording. Now that I’ve had two encounters with it, perhaps I can get it in. Also I need to be on the lookout for an opportunity to actually do it soon because actually doing it is much more likely to get it in.

[Clare Steward]

I appreciate your take on how an anonymous comment would place the burden and risk on the Black and Brown people of the company and taking full ownership of it is the best approach and I also appreciate the tie back in to Marlise’s actions at the FedEx store.

I agree that a real time, public chat (as our mics were muted and only the CEO and top execs had mics on) would have been the best approach and being direct and tying it in to my company’s initiative for diversity and inclusion would have been the best approach. I was frozen in indecision fighting slosh and my own activation and I let my discomfort and lack of confidence in my ability to deploy winning strategies quickly overrule doing what was right. I definitely floundered and hard.

My company boasts that we are not hierarchical and does not publish org charts as if that were a form of proof …. although I find that to be untrue- as evidenced by the lack of a voice we all had on the all hands meeting, no mic and only access to chat and that chat was being monitored for what comments would be posted. Removing org charts is not a way to create a flat and round structure, it is a way to leverage the lack of an org chart to make it appear there is no hierarchy- so on paper the perception is different than reality for those on the outside looking in or those who care to swallow that fish whole. Keeping the hierarchy hidden only makes it very difficult for those not working in close proximity to the executives to know who exactly holds the power.

It is clear to me that I let the CEO title/position rattle me, there is zero relationship between me and the higher tiers of executives both where I live and at the headquarters. I have been thinking a lot about the article from part 1 and everything I feared was named- I feared losing my own power/position/benefits on the ladder of the “non-existent hierarchy”. I am also thinking deeply on cowardice and courage and being able to apply my praxis unilaterally and reflexively. There is a lot of work for me to do so I keep walking.

Also- I want to say how much I appreciate Lace and the fact that she and team are taking great pains to make sure the bylaws and leadership guidelines truly represent a flat and round structure and fully reflect the ethos Lace has cultivated. They imbody full respect living.

[Emily Holzknecht]

What an interesting example of performativity being hiding the hierarchy of the organization in order to pretend that it is flat and round. I am in the process of supporting an organization in transitioning to using sociocracy as a method of flat/round governance which involves a lot of transparency, AND even though the sociocratic method builds in lots of structures to support governance actually being flat and round, we are so used to white supremacy and hierarchies that there is always a danger of us saying “well it’s flat and round because we use sociocracy” without asking ourselves where we are still carrying hierarchy and supremacy with us and using the term “sociocracy” to allow ourselves to perform flat and round without actually identifying what is not flat and round in order to move closer to that value (reference to negative theology). And sociocracy is not a replacement for studying relational ethics and for rooting out our own internal white supremacy.

[Shannon Brescher Shea]

“Removing org charts is not a way to create a flat and round structure, it is a way to leverage the lack of an org chart to make it appear there is no hierarchy … Keeping the hierarchy hidden only makes it very difficult for those not working in close proximity to the executives to know who exactly holds the power.”

Inevitably that sort of structure makes it even harder for people who don’t have privilege to have any sort of ability to make decisions or even provide input. All decisions are based on informal relationships, where it’s about who you know – which of course, just reinforces existing hierarchies of privilege. White women do this quite a bit socially, actually, which excludes Black and brown women. There are social hierarchies that are never spoken, but you need to just “know” and act accordingly, or else you are excluded.

[Shannon Brescher Shea]

Yes! If we don’t face our own personal, cultural, and organizational histories as part of a process, we’ll just end up repeating the same hierarchies but with a fancy new name. We have to be willing to do the hard work of social and racial justice, not just rebranding.

[Christina Sonas]

I too appreciate you pointing out that an anonymous comment doesn’t avoid risk, it merely shifts it, and onto Black and brown people. White supremacy is about transferring all kinds of risks onto BIPOC, and that needs to be a part of what I reform in myself.

[Jen Scaggs]

In what ways was the comment problematic?

My first thought was that this comment is problematic because it insinuates that Black and Brown people were generally not qualified in the past, which is why the company has such poor diversity. I think the use of purple is problematic as pointed out above because it implies BIPOC are non-human and maybe because it perpetuates the idealism of color-blindness.

How do you think that comment landed on Black and Brown employees?

I think Black and Brown employees would be upset with the assumption that qualifications were lacking and possibly less comfortable speaking up about efforts to increase diversity as the comment would demonstrate an attitude of disbelief in the existence of the problem. It may make them believe that the initiative is all just a show.

How would you address the comment?

I would probably try to address the comment privately. While I agree that handling it publicly would be good to demonstrate that not everyone agrees with the comment, I probably would not have the courage to address it that way in a workplace situation. Fear of authority, fear of personal backlash, etc. It’s not the best answer, but probably where I am right now.

[Clare Steward]

“My first thought was that this comment is problematic because it insinuates that Black and Brown people were generally not qualified in the past, which is why the company has such poor diversity.” – Exactly this. It completely shifted the responsibility and the ownership away from where it belonged and put it on the shoulders of every Black and Brown person. This is right in line with victim blaming in my mind.

[Clare Steward]

What would you say in private to address the situation? I really had to think hard about this and actually formulate the words. I find that practicing by going through creating an actual response is helpful for me to be able to reflexively address similar situations in the future.

[Jen Scaggs]

Here’s my first try: I’m really excited for the company’s new emphasis on diversity and inclusion! Respectfully, I think there was a comment made during the meeting that did not quite align with those new values. I imagine that you meant well by pointing out that skin color was not a deciding factor in hiring decisions, but your statement implied that Black and Brown people were not as qualified as white people. As I’m sure we will discuss more in our implicit bias training, implicit bias affects all of our decisions subconsciously, and likely affected those previous hiring decisions. I’m concerned that this comment may have given employees the idea that the company is not seriously considering diversity and inclusion in our hiring practices.

[Clare Steward]

Thank you for working through the exercise and formulating a response. I find that putting the words together is a huge part of me developing my praxis. I have also noticed that I often soften what I am saying to other white people because I am falling back on my “niceness” and conflict avoidance which is ultimately a protection of my comfort and theirs. I do see some of that in your response as well. For example…. “that did not quite align”….there is a softening there. Is there a reason you avoided saying “that did not align” and added in the quite?

I have to really look at what I am writing and examine it because I find I fall back on old behaviors quite often. Questioning why I chose certain words is part of my deep rooting. Speaking without the luxury of having time to scrutinize what I have written is a whole other challenge for me and that is where my clumsiness really comes in. I replay a conversation over and over in my mind and come up with alternate responses that are in alignment with the NS and pull from what I have learned here at LoR and then I say them aloud so they are not foreign on my tongue. The more I practice my praxis, the more unshakeable and effectively reflexive I will become.

[Shara Cody]

I’ve caught myself doing that “softening” of words for my own or other white peoples’ benefit while commenting here at LoR but usually recognize it and correct it right away. I definitely do it when I’m wanting to avoid full accountability and/or seeing others eye to eye.

[Jen Scaggs]

Yes, you’re right I did soften my words. I think I did that somewhat intentionally with the hopes of making it more palatable and thereby maybe more likely to receive a good response. As a white person trying to encourage other white people to walk with us, is it problematic to soften our words? If the goal is to help them to take at least one small step in the right direction, is that better than the rejection we may get without the softening? Or maybe I’m not giving them enough credit and they don’t need the softening? I guess my understanding is that as white people we shouldn’t expect BIPOC people to soften their words for our own comfort, but is it problematic for white people to choose to soften words to ease other white people into the conversation?

[Clare Steward]

I would love for others to add their perspective here as well.

I do think that we should not soften our words and make them more palatable for other white people to hear. Being direct and using kind candor is important and when I soften the message so that other white people can hear it, it is placating to white supremacist behaviors. To me, this is akin to repackaging or whitewashing a message for the benefit of other white people and it takes our focus off of the North Star.

I totally agree, we are working to keep other people in the car with us and we can do that by seeing people eye to eye and not talking down to or at people. I often conflate directly relaying a message with being too harsh and that is where my toxic passive aggressive behaviors seep in and I am catering to my own comfort as much as I am catering to the other person’s comfort. Being direct is not the same thing as punching down. When addressing racism, there is no room for anything else but calling a thing a thing (as Lace says).

As I wrote this, I went back and read what I wrote and then reworded so many things because I was softening my message. Being indirect, passive and dancing around the issue is part of my standard operating procedure and I am working hard to break that.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 6 months ago by  Clare Steward.

[Julia Tayler]

I see myself in this too. I try to keep the peace and agonize about the right tone and wording. I think in the case of a CEO it would be worse. Especially if I didn’t know him or her very well and didn’t know the thought behind their comments. Were they trying to be self-depreciating? Was the purple remark to keep the tone light? I worry about my words landing wrong or being misconstrued. Not that I can even remember many times where that happened.

[Christin Spoolstra]

Julia, I also tie myself in those knots. But we have to remember impact over intent. If those words hit us grossly as white folk, how would they have landed on bipoc in that meeting? I think that’s why this practice is great because we can think through and script our words as practice for those critical moments. If the CEO was being self deprecating or attempting to lighten the mood, how would you word your comment?

[Clare Steward]

@julia Your comment got me thinking about conversations we have had about IMPACT holding weight over someone’s intent. The thought behind why someone says or does something does not excuse the impact that the words had on Black and Brown people. I have hidden behind my intent so many times in the past and still catch myself doing that currently vs really thinking through how what I say and do will actually land on Black and Brown people.

The fact that it was the CEO was absolutely intimidating to me and I stumbled….as I am being honest with myself, I stumbled more because I was afraid for MYSELF and the consequences of addressing the behavior. The article Dear Nice White People written by Austin Channing Brown names my fears to a T. After thinking about it and practicing what I would say in a similar event in the future, I am confident I can hold my slosh (because I was activated when I heard him say that and was in danger of sliding into losing strategies) and address the behavior using kind candor with the North Star vs my own comfort front and center.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 6 months ago by  Clare Steward.

[Julia Tayler]

This whole thread has been very helpful. I’m going back to the relational ethics posts also and reviewing them with this in mind.

[Christin Spoolstra]

I think about your question a lot, Jen, because I known I’m prone to soften. I’ve recently restarted the relational ethics series and two things come to mind: 1) de Botton saying people won’t change after being humiliated; 2) Rankin asking how she can say what she needs to say while still staying in the car with that person.

I reread your original statement and I see two types of softening, one I would posit is part of kind candor and staying in the car and one which softens the racism that occurred. The two words are “respectfully “ and “quite “

The first is about how we approach the person, it’s about not humiliating and staying eye to eye and meeting that person where they are

The second avoids fully calling a spade a spade, it leaves wiggle room for racism, it downplays a racist comment.

I think we can soften with the first without the second as part of staying in the car with someone

That’s where my head is currently at and I welcome hearing from others!

[Clare Steward]

Thank you for your thoughts on this Christin. I will go back though the relational ethics series as well with this in mind. Using winning strategies to communicate and treating the other person with respect and not humiliating them is crucial. What you said about the two types of softening resonates with me- treating people kindly and respecting their humanity is a must while still fully calling out the behavior and naming why it is harmful in a direct manner. This reminds me of the conversation we had a while back about calling people IN vs calling them out- calling them in to course correction and new behaviors.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 6 months ago by  Clare Steward.

[Christin Spoolstra]

I am in danger of creating confusion over semantics. Like, the “respectfully” I suppose could not be considered “Softening” at all but rather relational approach. The “quite” for sure is what’s traditionally called softening and I agree is not a part of kind candor.

[Clare Steward]

hmmm yes…. I like the distinction between relational and softening….using skills to communicate relationally is different than softening. To me, softening is used when we are trying to lessen the impact of something and if the purpose is to lessen the impact on other white people when we are addressing harmful behaviors, that causes additional harm to Black and Brown people- the focus is in the wrong place. We keep others in the car with us when we use the relational tools that we learn here at LoR.

[Christin Spoolstra]

Exactly. That’s what I was ineloquently attempting to say to address Jens query about how to communicate in a way that people will be open to hearing. Just because we won’t soften the impact does not mean we are throwing relational communication out the window

[Jessie Lee]

“Speaking without the luxury of having time to scrutinize what I have written is a whole other challenge for me and that is where my clumsiness really comes in.” – this. Me too. Walking with you.

I love your strategy of saying the other NS-aligned responses aloud so they’re not “foreign on [your] tongue.” Reminds me of doing transcripts and processing information in multiple ways to “get it in” better, but with this it’s like rehearsing.

Editing to add now that I’ve worked my way down the comments: I really appreciate the distinction between relational use of “respectfully” vs. softening with “not quite.” I tend to swing between extremes, either too soft and avoidant of calling a thing a thing or harsh and condescending. Or I obsess about hitting the right note and instead of responding reflexively. I need to return again and again to the question of who my words are serving.

I’m conflicted about assuming or acknowledging positive intent from another person who has said something problematic. On one hand, it’s a way to say the thing so the person stays in the car. On the other, it could be centering white feelings/comfort while minimizing the harm and its impact. Here is where I tend to get stuck in seeking formulas and boxes to check so that I can know I’m “getting it right,” which isn’t “getting it relational” (I think I’m borrowing that language from M on another post).

• This reply was modified 3 years, 6 months ago by  Jessie Lee.

[Jen Scaggs]

Thanks for all of your thoughts here! I appreciate the input and your ideas make a lot of sense. (Sorry it’s taken me so long to respond. I haven’t been feeling well this week.) I see what you mean when noting the difference between relational and softening. I shouldn’t leave any wiggle room when “calling a thing a thing,” but trying to appeal to the listener relationally is a little different.

[Rebecca McClinton]

Love the cooking analogy! I just tried for the second time in a couple weeks to make coleslaw and it was another flop tonight, but you know what, it was better than the last time (at least I used the right blade on the food processor this time and people didn’t die-by-excessive-peppering)!

Our kiddo is very direct about how he feels about the food I make. I can either sob and personalize and feel like a failure, wallowing in my naval gazing misery (been there, done that), or, as I’m working to do, accept his feedback as a gift, and reflection of the information he’s giving me about his own experiences, likes and dislikes. Essentially, I can make it all about centering my own self and discomfort, or I can choose a different path. It’s a work in progress.

Translating that to this work, my initial comments here (I’m certain) contained a lot of pepper and made others wince and need to gulp water. I’m sure some of them still do. I have gotten better only through the practice of engagement here, only by leaning in and giving my thought and word processor another go, by digging deeper to check things out, by carving out time to make it a practice.

To answer the specific queries, the purple comment was problematic because it completely denies and makes fun of Black and Brown people’s experiences…it diminishes their experiences to a pigmentation. It essential says, ‘I refuse to look, see, and believe your experiences. This is exactly like saying ‘all lives matter’. I would address the comment as such, I’d like to think I’d state that in direct public acknowledgement in the group, but probably more likely I’d gossip about it in shock with others, then after some contemplation and conviction address the facilitator in private (centering my own comfort and protecting myself from public conflict). One of the most important pieces of my growth here in this space, and working to be safer for Black and Brown people, has been that it’s on a very public platform. My personal friends and family see every word if they want. Doing this work in secret accomplishes NOTHING. I continue to need every moment of practice in this space to continue to challenge that clench. Furthermore, in my line of work we’re encouraged to be anonymous, neutral platforms. I’ve learned here just how harmful that can be, and work to challenge that by my continued engagement. It’s hard sometimes, but it’s the very least I can do. to lesson and mitigate harm caused by me personally and by my profession.

[Clare Steward]

In what ways was the comment problematic?
This was the new CEO of our company speaking. He has been part of the company since the very beginning and recently stepped in to the position. When I heard him say this, it felt like a distancing from the issue that our company is NOT diverse. It felt like an attempt to negate the problem and even reinforce the fact that we have hired the best people….so is this truly an issue the company is committed to resolve if he is absolving the company of any wrong doing in the first place? There are no purple people. If our CEO is afraid to name that we do not have enough Black and Brown people in leadership positions, how serious can he be about changing the culture? That “we don’t care what color someone is as long as they are qualified” absolutely reeks of the colorblind viewpoint that so many people think is appropriate. It also shows that we as a company felt that the majority of people we deem as qualified are white- ouch. He stated that he took the implicit bias courses and based on this comment, I had serious doubts about whether he took them seriously and if he was feeding us a PR line of lip service to jump on the bandwagon that so many companies jumped on last summer ……when the diversity and inclusion program got started.

How do you think that comment landed on Black and Brown employees?
I would imagine it would feel dismissive and that there was lack of serious commitment to truly diversify our company. I talked to my husband about it and his response was unsurprised, par for the course…..this is so common, why are white people acting like all of this is so brand new when it has been happening for ever and is probably how most companies operate. In this case, we know exactly where the CEO is coming from vs in most cases, they aren’t as overtly ignorant in making these types of statements, they would at least be prepared and read off of a script that would keep their personal problematic behaviors safety hidden away.

How would you address the comment?

I addressed it via a survey after the fact- with my name stamped on it vs anonymous. Our CEO is located in another state and I did not seek out direct communication with him- that is my cowardice showing.

Would you type something in the chat or address another way? or both?
I wish I would have typed something in the chat. After the fact, I think something along the lines of saying that it is important as a company to address head on that we do not have enough Black and Brown people in positions of leadership despite there being an abundance of qualified candidates. I am glad that we are committed to doing better and taking a good hard look at our hiring practices and addressing implicit biases. To keep the meeting “on track” because they asked for questions….I could have followed that opening statement up by asking what specific steps or plans our company has in place to rectify the issue.

If you chose not to address in the moment, why? What are you afraid of and who or what are you protecting?
I chose not to because I was frozen in fear and could not muster the courage. I typed and retyped and overthought and typed a few things that were not part of winning strategies in communication and not holding my own slosh….and I kept rethinking and overthinking and eventually doing NOTHING until a survey was sent out after the meeting. I need to practice my praxis so I AM READY and without hesitation and can respond in a way that is solid and true to the NS. I was protecting myself – I was afraid of putting a target on my back for questioning the new CEO of the company.

I also spoke with 2 of my direct managers regarding the comment and how I found it to be problematic.

[Rebecca McClinton]

His purple comment definitely turned the tone from being intentional about lessoning and mitigating harm, and set it up as performative and ‘because we have to’. Ugh. I love your idea that leaders “at least read off a script that would keep their personal problematic behaviors safely hidden away”. Makes me think about myself and the confidence I put sometimes into being ok ‘off script’ instead of carefully holding each of my words to account.

When I’ve pressed my mgr about intentionally recruiting more people of color, she has used the “of course they’d have to be qualified and meet all the qualifications that the rest of us do,” line. The assumption that’s present in that is that they won’t be. Though I know that’s not what she’s intending, that’s how that lands. When she first said that to me, I knew I felt ‘off’ about it, but didn’t know reflexively what to say, so I appreciate you making public your own experiences here in helping me think through that better so I know exactly what I’ll be saying next time.

[Clare Steward]

After thinking on this, I definitely see snark and sarcasm coming in to what I wrote about people keeping problematic behaviors safely hidden away and there is nothing safe about that at all. Just because the person can hide their ignorance behind carefully crafted words does not mean there is safety for Black and Brown people. I have noticed that I deployed snark and sarcasm, which are not winning strategies or in alignment with our ethos. I exhibited similar behaviors in another response on the FB page and I am examining this course correcting. I was activated last week and in my activation, I slipped back to harmful habits and did not take into account how my words would land. I apologize. There was another way to get my point across without punching down.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 7 months ago by  Clare Steward.

[Clare Steward]

I have been thinking about on my slide into losing strategies a lot more this morning. I have a lot of resentment and anger built up in terms of feeling like I have not been heard in other circumstances within the company….or that I have been heard and my voice was discarded.

1) If I am not applying the tools I have learned to be an adult and appropriately process my feelings, I tend to slip into losing strategies and contribute to a toxic cycle and downward spiral. There can be nothing good gained from that tendency I feel to fight to be right.

2) there is so much privilege packed into this. I am so used to having a voice and feeling valued that I get angry as soon as I feel I am not being heard. Black and Brown people face this every single day. I need to take a very close look at how this cycle of behavior plays out in other avenues in my life and I can guarantee when I am not able to manage my slosh appropriately, I am causing harm to Black and Brown people.

[Rebecca McClinton]

I appreciate the example you set for us in holding your sarcasm to account. You’re right, carefully crafted words often don’t mean safety for Black and Brown people, and I see what you mean now with the hidden away part. There is no safety for anyone in hiding. I was thinking ‘off script’ in terms of living outside of my stated ethos, but my stated ethos should definitely never include anything covert.

[Shara Cody]

I’ve stated that the next person hired to my team will be a person of color and when I did so I added the “provided they meet the qualifications”. In my mind I had to add the qualifications part or else responses or questions to my statement would undoubtedly be something about meeting requirements for the position. Looking myself in the eye about that, I see my need to “get it right” for the white supremacy in me trying to make a statement instead of a conversation as well as trying to defend the white supremacy in the system/requirements and in my coworkers to whom I’m speaking. I was protecting supremacy and causing harm by needing to qualify what was supposed to be making public my walk towards the North Star. Until working through this post (until examining someone else doing it), I wasn’t seeing how it implies that people of color won’t be qualified or aren’t likely to be. I will remove that conditional part of my statement next time I say this and I’ll have to think about how I’ll respond to the response I know I’ll get about qualifications/requirements. I’m thinking it will be to explain just what I’ve said here about how it implies POC won’t be qualified or at least start with that and just stay in the conversation.

[Rhonda Freeman]

I want to believe that speaking up during the meeting, or even after the meeting, or through the chat would have made a difference. For me, what was the most problematic is that once the person with the most power in the room said this, it can not be unsaid. He could back track, but everyone knows that he said it. I believe the black and brown people rolled their eyes and thought, ‘well, that’s not surprising. Same old, same old.’ So, for me, it is about the times that I have power. If I practice here, at those times when I have power, I can use it to mitigate the harm I do to brown and black people.

[Clare Steward]

“Once it has been said, it can not be unsaid” …absolutely. The words are out there and now damage must be mitigated.

What words would you use to mitigate harm?

[Emily Holzknecht]

It can’t be unsaid. And back tracking does not help. Actual repair is the only course for him after it is said.

[Shannon Brescher Shea]

I do think it’s important to note that while it can’t be unsaid, having someone speak up can still lessen the harm. It shows the Black and brown people in the company that the CEO doesn’t speak for everyone. In contrast, leaving it uncommented on makes it possible for those words to be the last word on it.

[Deleted User]

I would address this statement in the comments and I would put my name on it. It’s important that, as I white woman, I take responsibility to course correction. I want the leadership to know where this comment is coming from.

To say we didn’t care if they were purple as long as they were qualified means the company’s hiring practices were biased, insensitive, and unaware of what Black and Brown applicants face in terms of discrimination. The company should review their fair hiring practices. However, there are laws that prohibit what a company can ask an applicant within the hiring process.

<font face=”inherit”>I think this (fair hiring practices)vary, state by state. This company cannot with integrity, call themselves an equal </font>opportunity<font face=”inherit”> employer if they are not aware of implicit, historical racial </font>bias<font face=”inherit”> and discrimination and do not put policies in place to be inclusive, welcoming and intentional about </font>hiring<font face=”inherit”> diversity within their company, they have some learning to do. Speaking up about this is one </font>way to raise awareness.

[Shara Cody]

In what ways was the comment problematic?

The comment was used to avoid accountability. It suggests “we don’t see color” and layers on a justification (qualifications) for perpetuating racism because white people get more opportunities therefore gain more “qualifications”.

How do you think that comment landed on Black and Brown employees?

I think it was hurtful because it sends the message that pretty much only white people are “qualified” and because it doesn’t take accountability for past practices, it probably feels hopeless that new actions or policies will address the root of the issue.

How would you address the comment? Would you type something in the chat or address another way? or both?

I want to say that I would have addressed it in the moment but that’s not true for me at this point. I probably would have sent an email after the meeting.

If you chose not to address in the moment, why? What are you afraid of and who or what are you protecting?

Not addressing it in the moment protects the person who made the problematic comment from being called in publicly. It’s not aligned with the North Star and my silence in the moment causes harm.

[Shara Cody]

I’m working towards being able to use kind candor to address something like this no matter the position of the person in the moment but right now if I were to type a response in the chat it would be too direct and blamey. Yes, I’m using the losing strategy of “getting it right” to justify my silence which causes more harm so I need to shed that excuse and try. Here’s reflexively what I would type in the chat: “talking about purple people and focusing on qualifications is harmful so I hope we’re going to take accountability for past hiring practices before we start to work to create new policies.”

[Shara Cody]

Reflecting on what I would have written in the chat if I had to do it in that moment above, I’m thinking it might not have been too direct as I thought at first but I could have added an explanation of why it was harmful. Perhaps adding a brief explanation of how it was harmful could be done after my initial chat comment.

[Rhonda Freeman]

I appreciate how you are continuing to come back to this and think about it and consider options. I believe it is part of the praxis to go deeper. Have you had a chance to call someone in through chat in real life?

[Shara Cody]

I haven’t call anyone in through chat in real life yet but I want to be prepared and I felt I used the idea of being reflexive to blurt what I might write above and be done. I had continued to consider it and read the examples of others and didn’t want to let myself off the hook. I’m glad you brought me back to it cause I was thinking afterwards that starting my comment with “the comment about…” could make it feel less like an attack (even though it’s not) because it sounds less about the person and focuses on the comment and the harm it causes.

[Christin Spoolstra]

Clare, thank you for this post and challenge. I really related to your cooking analogy as I too love cooking shows but can’t really cook. When I do, it’s good enough for me but I wouldn’t serve it to others. That’s not useful for others, though, and it’s a cop out for me. There is vulnerability and risk to opening myself up for feedback. But only with that feedback do I become a better cook.

For your queries, the comment refuses to see color and in doing so refuses to acknowledge racism. It’s often used to discredit the truth of what BIPOC experience in the work place and elsewhere as well as to present oneself as a “good” person who loves everyone “regardless of their color.” When the root of a problem is erased, the problem cannot be addressed.

I want to say I’d respond in the moment, that I’d overcome my “nice,” white conditioning and say it publicly. Honestly, though, I don’t have certainty because I have not been tested enough to know myself (or, more likely, I have not noticed the tests). Due to my conditioning, if I did say something public in the moment, id probably soften the language to take the spotlight off the boss (for example, sharing an article about how I learned that phrasing is harmful). I know I wouldn’t have trouble addressing the boss privately later but that does nothing to mitigate the harm bipoc experienced in that moment.

[Clare Steward]

**This was supposed to be in response to @emily post and I put it in the wrong place***

I appreciate your take on how an anonymous comment would place the burden and risk on the Black and Brown people of the company and taking full ownership of it is the best approach and I also appreciate the tie back in to Marlise’s actions at the FedEx store.

I agree that a real time, public chat (as our mics were muted and only the CEO and top execs had mics on) would have been the best approach and being direct and tying it in to my company’s initiative for diversity and inclusion would have been the best approach. I was frozen in indecision fighting slosh and my own activation and I let my discomfort and lack of confidence in my ability to deploy winning strategies quickly overrule doing what was right. I definitely floundered and hard.

My company boasts that we are not hierarchical and does not publish org charts as if that were a form of proof …. although I find that to be untrue- as evidenced by the lack of a voice we all had on the all hands meeting, no mic and only access to chat and that chat was being monitored for what comments would be posted. Removing org charts is not a way to create a flat and round structure, it is a way to leverage the lack of an org chart to make it appear there is no hierarchy- so on paper the perception is different than reality for those on the outside looking in or those who care to swallow that fish whole. Keeping the hierarchy hidden only makes it very difficult for those not working in close proximity to the executives to know who exactly holds the power.

It is clear to me that I let the CEO title/position rattle me, there is zero relationship between me and the higher tiers of executives both where I live and at the headquarters. I have been thinking a lot about the article from part 1 and everything I feared was named- I feared losing my own power/position/benefits on the ladder of the “non-existent hierarchy”. I am also thinking deeply on cowardice and courage and being able to apply my praxis unilaterally and reflexively. There is a lot of work for me to do so I keep walking.

Also- I want to say how much I appreciate Lace and the fact that she and team are taking great pains to make sure the bylaws and leadership guidelines truly represent a flat and round structure and fully reflect the ethos Lace has cultivated. They imbody full respect living.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 7 months ago by  Clare Steward.

[Christina Sonas]

In what ways was the comment problematic? It’s dismissive of Black and brown talent that was available to hire or advance, and it ignores the ways that talent pool is hidden and suppressed.

How do you think that comment landed on Black and Brown employees? Poorly. They are all likely to know other Black and brown people in their field, at all levels, who could be part of the company but aren’t. It also hurts the initiative overall, because what confidence can there be when this completely unreformed person is helming a division and in some ways helming the initiative.

How would you address the comment? Would you type something in the chat or address another way? or both? If you chose not to address in the moment, why? What are you afraid of and who or what are you protecting? If you would type a comment in the chat, be specific and share here. Would it be anonymous or under your name and why?

Best case scenario would be an immediate entry to the chat, under my own name: “That comment is highly problematic, probably very hurtful to our employees of color, and needs to be addressed ASAP.” I need to be willing to risk my social capital to lessen and mitigate harm to BIPOC.

But my initial response is that it’s a statement of fact and lighthearted. The executive meant no harm by it. Etc.

So I would need to overcome that initial response, maybe even incorporate it into my comment: “That probably felt like a self-deprecating joke, but since antiracism and D&I aren’t jokes, what you said needs to be taken apart ASAP. The company isn’t blameless, and it certainly wasn’t colorblind in its hiring and advancement practices, as you imply.”

I’d probably miss the rest of the meeting trying to get the right comment into the chat, because it’s so easy for *me* to say problematic things, too.

Thank you for sharing the details of this experience for us to walk through. It’s important I not shy away or fumble when I hear something like this; every instance of racism I see, I must challenge. Practicing and planning give me a solid place to launch from.

[Shannon Brescher Shea]

>>> I love to watch cooking shows but I can’t learn how to cook just by watching, I have to get in the kitchen and do it. My first attempt may not be palatable, or even edible. I have to make sure I taste before serving others.

The cooking metaphor is so relevant to me because I remember feeling befuddled when I first started cooking. What do you mean, I can’t learn it from a book? I have to learn by doing?! I have to be okay with screwing up and ‘wasting’ time and not having it come out right the first time? And so much of that uncertainty and learning by doing is relevant in our walk in anti-racism too. We have to be willing to have faith to try because otherwise we won’t get better. We have to be willing to listen to other people’s input and know that they have fundamentally different perspectives from us and lived expertise – expertise that when it comes to race, white people almost always undercut in Black people. We have to be able to pick ourselves up and try again, even when it’s bad or embarrassing.

>>In what ways was the comment problematic?

The comment at hand was problematic because it denies any past prejudice, therefore implying that if there were not Black and brown people in positions of leadership it was because they weren’t qualified. The use of the term “candidates were purple” minimizes and delegitimizes people’s legitimate concerns about racism through a really dismissive tone. It basically says, “There were no problems with race and we picked whoever was the most qualified” – which clearly isn’t true. It also rhetorically sets up the idea that any efforts to fix the inequality problem are choosing them because of their race (and therefore suggesting it isn’t because they’re qualified).

>>How do you think that comment landed on Black and Brown employees?

I think it would have landed hard and painfully. It denies their lived experiences and implies that either he doesn’t think they are qualified or they are qualified but in spite of their race and background.

>>How would you address the comment? Would you type something in the chat or address another way? or both?

I would type something in the chat, as it sounds like it was too large of a meeting to be able to interrupt. I would probably type something somewhat briefly in the chat and then follow-up by email with the person who made it to provide more context.

>>If you would type a comment in the chat, be specific and share here.

“I’d like to draw attention to a comment that [so and so] has made. The comment that the company didn’t care ‘whether candidates were purple, just as long as they were qualified’ minimizes the lived experience of people who have experienced racism in this workplace. It also erases past racism and structural inequalities, suggesting that only qualifications determined the current makeup of our workplace. In light of our ongoing diversity efforts, we need to look at our past with a critical and truthful eye.”

>>Would it be anonymous or under your name and why?

It would be under my name. Anonymity would make it so people couldn’t follow up for more information or context. It would remove a lot of the learning opportunities that everyone could have collectively. In addition, anonymity also makes it so no one actually takes responsibility for the comment and it’s easier to ignore.

[Shara Cody]

I appreciate your example of what you would say in the chat and that you wouldn’t remain anonymous. The way you specified the comment and who made it could be really important when there are multiple speakers or lots of discussion.

[Julia Tayler]

Zoom meetings have added an extra layer to work meetings. I would like to say that I would immediately type something strongly worded and to the point but in reality – probably not. Some meetings, as someone else mentioned, are planned out and move along at dictated pace. By the time I got my act together we could be two more speakers in or have moved on to something else. Working on being reflexive and direct without the snark is a big part of what I’m working on. The snark factor was a big part of my responses and has been a challenge to get in the backseat.

In what ways was the comment problematic? It was dismissive of the prejudice that black and brown people have endured and also implied that the company hadn’t hired more black and brown people because they weren’t qualified.

I think that comment was extremely hurtful to any black or brown people that heard it. It certainly didn’t make them think that the company was moving in the right direction.

As I mentioned above I wouldn’t have said anything at the time but would have crafted an e-mail under my name that I would have sent. I would also mention it to my direct supervisor.

[Christin Spoolstra]

I get what you mean about removing snark from our gut reactions… it’s one I’m still actively pursuing. I see you concluded you wouldn’t say anything in the moment because of that struggle – if you had your snark under control would you choose to say something in the moment? Or is it something else leading you to that decision?

[Julia Tayler]

I think another issue for me is the fear of losing my job or embarrassing myself if it was the big boss. After all these years I’m still working on standing up for myself and others with people who are in a power position. Lace on race has helped me but the walking has been slow. A real marathon.

[Jessie Lee]

I like how how you focus on the importance of feedback to developing our anti-racism praxis. If I’m not commenting, I’m not putting anything of myself out there to receive feedback on. I have many blind spots that will never become apparent to me if I don’t get feedback from someone else who sees them.

In what ways was the comment problematic?

It’s a deflection from the question of why there aren’t more people of color in leadership positions. It perpetuates the belief that white people are blameless as long as we pretend together that people of color are not treated any differently than white people. It perpetuates the lie that any absence of people of color in leadership positions must be boil down to qualifications and not have anything to do with white supremacy.

How do you think that comment landed on Black and Brown employees?

I’d imagine it was unsurprising, insulting, disappointing, exhausting, possibly anxiety-provoking. It communicated that this person is fragile and dangerous because they could use their power against employees of color if/when their ego is challenged. It send the message that you should tiptoe around this person or risk being a target of additional discrimination.

How would you address the comment?

Honest answer? I would probably also type and erase, type and erase, type and erase in the chat, and then default to “How do you think what you just said lands on Black and Brown employees?” I’d like to say I would make it publicly under my name, but I’m sure I would have to talk myself into that, which means I have more weeding and rooting to attend to…

I recently had a similar experience where a problematic comment was made about disability in a state-provided virtual training. A setting was enabled so that all questions were privately directed only to the people on the panel, but there was no option to be anonymous. I was definitely tempted to be anonymous, but I had a little Lace on my shoulder telling me to live out loud, so that’s what I did. In that moment I also had to tell myself not to be attached to outcome and to say the thing that needed to be said. The language we use here for the concepts we cover was so helpful in a moment where reflexive action was called for.

This is a helpful exercise, Clare. In thinking through what I would/should do, I’m noticing all of the little calculations and what ifs that my decisions of what to say hinge on. It’s like a risk analysis… what is the risk of this person blowing up, how might Black and Brown people receive me asking this question, what is the best chance of using this comment as a starting point for fruitful dialogue, and yes, how might I be received by (insert different people here) for saying it in this way etc. But that’s not full respect living. That’s me tangling up my response with predicted outcome. My response needs to be the same regardless of what the outcome may be. Potential outcome should not factor into my decision making as much as it does.

[Christin Spoolstra]

such a great point about divorcing myself from the outcome! If I dive into what my fears are, they are generally about the person’s response, but as long as my actions aren’t setting up for further harm to bipoc, then the outcome isn’t a focus of my praxis

[Michelle Wicks Cypher]

First – I love the analogy of watching cooking shows versus practicing cooking. It is so true. In terms of your story from work, I have had many versions of the – “we didn’t care if candidates were purple”… It is programmatic because it dehumanizes those who have been left out. It also implies that there were no non white people who were qualified and that the only way to diversify is to accept people “less qualified”.

For me, a POC has qualities that a white person doesn’t – because they had to work harder to get where they are. Those qualities are great qualities for any position.

It is also problematic because it deflects – it doesn’t address the issue at hand, but deflects and put blame elsewhere. Maybe it is true that no POC applied for a particular position – so then the question is why? And what can we do to encourage someone of color to want to apply and to feel comfortable applying. It is looking for the easy way out and not a willingness to do the work needed to change. It’s like how I feel our church often is – we are accepting as long as you come and and are like me – we don’t want to actually change anything that would attract someone who is different than me to want to come.

How do I think the comment landed on Black and Brown employees? I think they felt dismissed and ignored, yet again. I think they felt like, see this diversity and inclusion thing is more of the same performative crap and no real change is going to come out of it. It looks good on paper, but is meaningless. At least, that is how I think I would feel if it was me.

I believe I would have responded in the chat, and it wouldn’t occur to me to do it anonymously. I believe my response in chat would have been something along the lines of. “what are we going to do different moving forward so that we attract diversity in the candidates and how are we going to deal with our implicit biases that can cause us to unconsciously see a candidate as less qualified?” I probably would not have directly called out the comment as problematic but would want to move beyond the deflection and cop out to a solution.

In one of the neighborhood FB groups a Hispanic women asked about diversity on the school board as she was considering running. Several people commented on how they don’t care what race or color a candidate is, they just vote for the one who is qualified. Several people, myself included, pointed out that part of what made a diverse school board a more qualified school board is because someone of Hispanic background can understand the perspective of our many Hispanic students in a way that a white person just cannot. I did not point out the super privileged perspective of her comment, although others did. And that being Hispanic is in and of itself a qualification as we have a large group of Hispanic students and they deserve representation as much (or more, honestly) as the white students.

I know this space had helped me see how being “color blind” or ignoring race is a bad thing and a dehumanizing attitude and comes from that white privileged perspective.

[Author]

Replies