By Lynne Pederson, ALF Senior Fellow, Class XXXVII––
After the election, there was an editorial in the Huffington Post by Jamie Davis Smith. She wrote in part, “…Political scientist Ian Bremmer encouraged Biden voters to reach out to Trump supporters to show empathy. These suggestions enraged me. These calls for unity come from a place of privilege, and they’re coming from mostly straight, white, cisgender people who are financially secure. They may not have liked some of Trump’s policies, but they were not actively harmed by them. They likely never feared for their safety or well-being in Trump’s America. ….Before any attempt at “unity” can be made, there needs to be a reckoning, an acknowledgment that so many of Trump’s actions have been unconscionable and do not align with societal ideals that claim to value all life. Building bridges with people who share Trump’s views sends a clear message that you are willing to keep the peace at the expense of the dignity and well-being of those with less power and privilege….Indifference in the face of such cruelty does not deserve understanding, now or ever. Some fences cannot be mended.”
At first blush, many of us might agree with Ms. Smith’s sentiment, but upon further reflection, we know adopting such a posture fails to promote diversity or inclusion. While Ms. Smith’s assessment may be fair that the Trump campaign and administration highlighted our inconsistency on our values, character, honesty, and constitutional norms, we cannot deny that failure to advocate inclusion is how we reached such a divide. We cannot give in to anger or apathy. The antidote to injustice is progress – so let’s turn to action. Let’s not focus on who won. Or who lost. Or who is a Democrat or Republican. Or an immigrant. Or American. Let’s focus on how we bridge the gap.
So, how do we bridge the gap? Ironically, the answer is as old as we are. When we were very young, our parents told us not to hit our siblings or other children. They told us to use our words – to voice our frustrations or feelings. That advice still rings true today. To bridge the gap, we need to talk, share our story, listen to another’s point of view – to engage in meaningful dialogue.
The Dialogue
In the American Leadership Forum (ALF), we learn that dialogue is a superior method for highlighting our common ground and helping us understand our differences. Listening to others encourages us to consider different ways to approach controversial issues and create safe
spaces to work through complicated relationships, dynamics, and experiences. The goals of dialogue are relationship building, appreciation, and exploration of perspectives, and inclusion and collaboration. To create a safe space where people can come together in genuine regard for one another to build solutions. Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) strategies can use these spaces to build capacity for shared understanding for how racism and sexism shows up in working relationships and how structural discrimination is unknowingly infused in organizational habits and practices.
Recently I participated in a dialogue about current events. The group was made up of men and women of differing races, professions, political affiliations, religions, and ages. The goal was to find common ground on controversial topics like cancel culture, police brutality, abortion, the #MeToo movement, and education.
From the introductions, it was immediately evident many of us have had experiences in common. We were off to a good start. But as we delved into sensitive subjects, our contrasting views quickly came to light. Some divisions were as expected – they ran along gender lines, racial lines, religious lines, and political lines. So how did we bridge the gap? We suspended judgment. We listened. We inquired into opposing viewpoints. We sought to understand before seeking to be understood.
When we broached the topic of politics in sports, contrary views were expressed. While I expressed the belief that athletes taking a knee was an expression of free speech, another expressed they did not want to see activism during sporting events. Although my initial thoughts were how nice it must be to be so privileged that you don’t have to think about a problem because it doesn’t affect you and how is this different from when audiences were not concerned with the treatment of black musicians in the 60s after they performed? How have we not progressed? After fighting the feeling of offense and the urge to react, I made space to inquire why they held that position. The response surprised me. While my position did not change, the explanation made sense to me. The explanation provided was the belief that sports is not a place for politics. That watching sports is an activity engaged in to relax, to tune out the complexities of life.
I explained that the players did not have the luxury to tune out the complexities of racism. That athletes are using the platform available to them to draw attention to the fact that their brothers, fathers, sons, teammates, and themselves cannot relax when traveling to or from the stadium or a simple trip to the grocery store. That they want the people they know to be safe. While we agreed with the message, we differed on the forum in which that message should be communicated. They believed that depending on your perspective, one may or may not agree with the message. While many of us may agree with the NBA’s support of BLM, would we feel the same way if the NHL supported the proud boys?
“Most DEI strategies are driven by leaders who decide how the support should look instead of asking what support is wanted or needed. Companies are continuing the status quo by leaving the solution up to their diversity, equity, and inclusion team, which are not very diverse or clear on what equity and inclusion look like for your employees of color.”
After sharing differing perspectives, we agreed police brutality is a problem that needs to be addressed. I cannot say whether or not their perspective changed about athletes kneeling, but we listened to each other and learned. I can say the next time I watched a football game, I did think about how watching the game could be more relaxing when I only thought about the action in front of me, even when my team lost.
I had a few takeaways from this dialogue. I learned that reconciliation and understanding can emerge when people with different lived experiences come together to share and learn from one another; that kind, honest, virtuous people can hold beliefs that can feel offensive because they haven’t considered their position from the perspective of a minority; and that having the courage to hear the positions and beliefs of those you may find hurtful or can be instructive, even liberating. I learned that discomfort of the others in the cohort was just as indispensable as my own discomfort. I learned that although women have been socialized to be agreeable, smile, and show a little leg, that the importance of speaking and standing in your truth and sharing your experiences moves the conversation forward. For dialogues such as these were the origins of the MeToo and Black Lives Matter movement. These global movements started as a dialogue – as people sharing their experiences in the hopes of paving a path to equal treatment.
Overall I believe the dialogue was successful. The group gained a new understanding of why others hold positions contrary to our own. And that understanding tempers the frustration and exasperation we have for opposing positions that appear inhumane or irrational. Seeking that understanding makes the pursuit of common ground more attainable. The dialogue was successful because the participants were willing to be vulnerable, courageous, empathic, and gracious.
Conclusion
We have learned a great deal about ourselves over the past four years, albeit much of it unpleasant. We learned that we live in an age when a significant swath of Americans get their information through social media or partisan outlets like Fox and Breitbart. We learned propaganda could be crowdsourced and false news spreads farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than the truth – six times faster. We learned we are gullible, vulnerable to demagoguery, and willing to embrace outlandish conspiracy theories. And while all of this stirs outrage and helplessness in us, we have also learned that in the face of an overwhelming set of problems: a pandemic; ongoing racial brutality enacted by the police and by ordinary citizens; political movements steeped in white supremacy; a crumbling infrastructure exacerbated by climate change; and an ever-widening gap between the haves and the have nots, that there is still a greater push for equality. We learned through the Black Lives Movement, the largest and most diverse impromptu demonstration in American history, that we are no longer willing to ignore the centuries of violent dehumanization of Black people in this country. We also learned through these protests that we are not alone – our call for equality reverberated around the world. Most importantly, we have learned that failure to engage in courageous dialogue creates a great divide, and impedes our pursuit of equity.
We need to do better than sending an email or hiring more people of color. The old approach to DEI has shown to be ineffective – successful strategies require more than recruitment and quotas. People of color remain underrepresented and still feel unheard and undervalued, even after being hired. So make an honest, in-depth review of your policies, procedures, compensation, and promotion structures. Ask yourself if you are aware of or understand the needs of your employees of color? Are you holding employees who are creating or fostering an environment of bias accountable? Are you holding yourself or your leadership accountable? Are you asking your employees what you can do or what they need? Are you listening to them?
Most DEI strategies are driven by leaders who decide how the support should look instead of asking what support is wanted or needed. Companies are continuing the status quo by leaving the solution up to their diversity, equity, and inclusion team, which are not very diverse or clear on what equity and inclusion look like for your employees of color. Organizations need to develop an approach that is driven by the very people they are attempting to support. If your DEI team or leadership lacks the understanding or empathy to lean into these dialogues, look to bring in someone who can.
Using dialogue can propel your organization along the path to equity. The practice of the art of transformative dialogue is a key tool that should be included in every DEI strategy. And it should be engaged in regularly, methodically, and continuously.
Lynne Pederson (Class XXXVII) is an organizational leader focusing on diversity, inclusion, equity and belonging. Lynne graduated from University of California, Santa Barbara with a B.A. in political science; and from Golden Gate University, School of Law with a LLM with a concentration on labor and employment law.
This essay is part of a series of contributions by Lynne Pederson on race equity in the workplace.
