Presidential hopeful Ron Paul published four newsletters a month for 10 years.  That’s 48 newsletters a year—or close to 500 newsletters.  That’s a lot of content and a lot of work to go out in your name.  Why would you do that if you never read it—suggesting you really don’t care what it says.  Marketing 101 says that’s really stupid.  Or Paul is lying.

You may have heard that the newsletters were rife with racist propaganda.  Here’s the issue as outlined in the Washington Post Biography Fact Checker:  “The national media latched onto the issue during Paul’s 2008 presidential bid, after the New York Times and the New Republic highlighted derogatory statements about blacks and gays from the bulletins…The issue resurfaced as Paul moved to the front of the GOP pack in recent weeks.”    Paul has denied any knowledge of the existence of the racist content, saying “I never read the stuff.”

The stuff he is talking about is four monthly newsletters published by his company, Ron Paul and Associates, and included Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.   The newsletters included constant themes of racism against African Americans, Homosexuals and Jews.  While I prefer not to reprint them here (I hate perpetuating racism by repeating it), here’s a sampling of the awful things about which Paul said “I honestly do not know who wrote those things,” (to CNN in January 2008.)

Marketing 101

So for exercise sake, let’s step back from politics and the content of the newsletters, to strictly look at Paul’s statement that he never read and was unaware of the content going out in his name, from 1985 to the mid-90’s, through a marketing strategy lens.

As Director of Marketing, Communications & Business Development for Jewish Child & Family Services in Chicago, I am 100% accountable for everything that goes out the door, whether internally to employees, or externally to the public.  Strictly from a CYA perspective, somebody is ultimately accountable for the content that goes out to the public.  Somebody does the final proofing to make sure there were no typos, inaccuracies, or errors.  The CEO signs things that come from him, be they the “Message from the CEO” or communications to donors.

 Your print (and now increasingly online) publications are the vehicle to create your brand and position yourself as a thought leader in your field—they take too much time and expense not to have a pre-determined return on investment (ROI), usually to increase your connection to your constituents or followers, your clients and customers. 

In this case it’s not even Paul who says he doesn’t know who wrote the articles, no one seems to know who wrote them, including one suspect, Lew Rockwell, citing seven or eight free-lancers who wrote for the publications.  At a bare minimum it’s poor management and irresponsible, not good qualities for a Presidential candidate anyway.  

Things Happen as a Result of Specific Decisions

Janet Reno’s taking full responsibility for what happened in Waco Texas was the ultimate statement of accountability.  Daniel Mendelsohn, in his book “The Lost:  A Search for Six of Six Million,” said  “The Holocaust is so big, the scale of it is so gigantic, so enormous, that it becomes easy to think of it as something mechanical. Anonymous. But everything that happened, happened because someone made a decision.”  His book traces the specific people, decisions, that led to his family members’ deaths.  

Ron Paul Knew That

But, wait, it looks like I’m preaching to the choir.  Here’s Paul in a 1995 interview talking about his newsletters and their purpose and intent and how he uses them to spread is ideas to his followers.  Okay, maybe he’s senile and just forgot almost 10 years of his life.  Possible.   But, again, probably not a good quality for a Presidential candidate.

Any other Marketers?  Ever see a publication be created and distributed by magic (I wish!)?  Your boss ever give you free reign to write what you wanted, regardless of company image or branding?

Photo credit ibtimes.com

The short version of the review of Hop is that People Magazine gave Hop 3 (out of 4) stars and my son liked it.  It features a cute bunny and a cute leading man…something for the kids and for the moms…plus 100’s of adorable baby chicks.  How could you go wrong, right? 

But early on themes of engagement and inclusion, disparity, and feudalism started to bubble through. 

The first “cringe” moment was Carlos’ sad “Go on, enjoy your life of privilege” that he calls after EB (the Easter Bunny’s son, pre-ordained to fill the position when dad retires) as he hops off to go play, shouting “later” over his shoulder, in response to his father’s suggestion that it’s time to learn the family business.

Carlos, who speaks with an unmistakable Hispanic accent, is a giant yellow chic who runs the Easter Bunny factory, managing the day to day work of 100’s of yellow baby chicks, impeccably churning out millions of perfect chocolate bunnies, jelly beans, Easter baskets and more.  “Will we be ready for Easter?” asks the patriarchal Easter Bunny?  “Yes, boss,” answers Carlos, showing off the efficiencies and improvements he has implemented around the factory.  He clearly knows the business better than anyone, including the boss himself.

Yet when EB runs away to pursue his dream of becoming a professional drummer and Carlos suggests that perhaps he can fill in, he is brushed off without a moment’s consideration. 

“You need someone who knows the business to take his place,” hints Carlos. 

“But who could that be?” asks the Easter Bunny. 

“Me, boss,” says Carlos.

“You!?” the Easter Bunny responds, laughing uncontrollably at Carlos’ fantastic joke.  “Can you imagine the Easter Chick? A chick could NEVER be the Easter Bunny!”  Ouch.

At this point I thought there was a distinct Pro Engagement and Inclusion message.  Carlos clearly was a leader, hard worker, and with his strong accent in contrast to the patriarchal whiteness of the Boss, I felt the injustice of his situation.

But suddenly the propaganda machine swings into full gear, warning of the dangers of what would happen if minorities were allowed into leadership positions. 

The Easter Bunny leaves to search for his son.  Carlos stages a coup, taking over the factory. 

After years of careful attention to every detail of the factory, Carlos declares that now that he is in charge all of the kiddies will get baskets of dirt and worms.  Yellow furry bunny ears sprout from his head, two prominent front teeth pop out from his mouth, and his feet quadruple in size, as he becomes a gigantic fuzzy yellow evil monster rabbit-chick (you could argue this one for either side:  ANTI-if a minority gets in power they will destroy everything, or PRO-see what happens if someone is forced to emulate the majority population, just to be accepted?)

In the end, white privilege reigns.  EB and Fred, the human who befriends EB when he runs away—a white, male, 26ish out of work slacker, return to over throw Carlos, “save” the factory, and, after having demonstrated no effort or actual competency, take over as “co-Easter Bunnies,” one because he was born into the family, the other because he just “felt he’d be good at it.”

So in the end, when my son says, “did you like the movie?”   Where do I begin?

Did you see Hop?  What do you think?  More importantly, what did your kids think?

Just ask Ryan, who’s overweight, or Samantha who doesn’t quite know how to socialize—because of a developmental disability, or maybe not.  Kids know when they are different, but do they know how to make others feel included?

In honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day my mom, a 40 year veteran of teaching Religious Education at two reform Jewish congregations, asked me to be the “guest speaker” last weekend for her kindergarten class about the legacy of Dr. King.

I had 20 minutes, and they were 5.  In the world of “coulda, shoulda, woulda” could I have prepared more?  Should I have included more biographical information on Dr. King?  Would it have been better for her to have selected someone else?

Sure, but here’s what I say.  1.) Put your money where your mouth is.  If someone asks you to volunteer to speak about something about which you feel passionate (equitable society, combating prejudice, etc.) you say yes, and 2.) If adults will only remember three things that you tell them, kids will remember one.

The Government was denying people rights because of their skin color.  That was wrong.  Dr. King acted and fought for what was right.

Alright kids, what does Judaism say we are obligated to do when we see something wrong in the world?  “Fix it!” they shouted.  Lesson learned?  Hope so.  Lesson lasting?  Hope so too.

Here’s what we did in 20 minutes or less:

ACTIVITY 1:  “Same and Different”

EQUIPMENT NEEDED:  None

ROOM SET-UP:  Helpful to have two to three distinct corners, tables, or ‘bases’ within room where kids can go.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE:  We really don’t know anything about a person or what we might share in common with them, just by physical appearance.  Getting to know someone is what shows his or her character.  Judging before knowing is called prejudice, and might prevent a child from making a good friend.

HOW TO:  Select 4 to 6 questions that will allow the kids to self-select based on things called out by the leader.  Examples might be “boy or girl;” “oldest, middle, youngest, or only child;” “food preferences, such as liking fish or chocolate.”

“If you are the oldest child, go to table 1. If you are the youngest child, go to table 2. If you’re the middle child, table 3”

“If you are a boy, got to table 1; if you are a girl, go to table 2”

“If you are Jewish, go to table 1.”  (Also good to show that just because we are all the same, Jewish, doesn’t mean we all like the same things.)

“If you like to eat fish, go to table 1.  If you don’t like fish or you’re a vegetarian, go to table 2.”

Each time the kids were told to look at who was in their group.   Sometimes kids were similar or different based on physical characteristics. Sometimes all the kids were the same.  And sometimes kids found things in common with each other that they didn’t know just by looking.

“So what can you tell just by looking at someone?”  “Nothing!” answered one child.”

“How can you tell if you might be friends with someone?  “By what’s inside,” said another.

ACTIVITY 2:  Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes (VERY truncated version derived from hearing about the original experment)

EQUIPMENT NEEDED:  None

ROOM SET-UP:  Helpful to have two to three distinct corners, tables, or ‘bases’ within room where kids can be in the same room, but separated.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE:  Recognizing Institutional Bias and standing up against it, just like Dr. King.

“Everyone with blue eyes go to table one.  Everyone with Brown eyes go to table 2.”

“Now, what if the teacher said I’ve got lots of juice, but today only the kids with blue eyes can have more juice.  There’s no juice for the brown-eyed kids, even though I have plenty.  Is that fair?”

“NO!” shouted the kids.

“Well that’s exactly what happened with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  In his case it was actually the United States Government, not just the teacher, who was being unfair and not sharing everything that was available with all of the people.”

“And what does Judaism teach us that we have to do if we see something wrong in the world?”

“We have to fix it” said Emily, “just like Martin Luther King.”

(this post originally ran 5/4/10, but I always thought the re-imaged photo at the end was under-appreciated.  Hope you enjoy it)

So from this ad am I to understand that if I chew Trident Wite I’m 35% more likely to get out of a speeding ticket?

Is that only true for beautiful white women?  What if I’m a black man?

Actually, according to KJ Novak in his article “Disparity and Racial Profiling in Traffic Enforcement,” “Minorities are significantly less likely to receive formal sanction than majorities, suggesting officers are using traffic violations for pretextual stops.”  In other words, blacks may be less likely to get a ticket if pulled over, but that’s because statistics show that so many more blacks than whites are pulled over due to racial profiling.  (Hence the phrase DWB…Driving While Black.”)

I will not deny getting out of a few tickets in my day, but this ad seems poorly thought out–ultimately aimed at a narrow, privileged few, while potentially alienating many.

Am I wrong?  Would the ad below work too?

The photo above is from a 2006 article from the London Evening Standard about an black man, Edmond Taylor, who was convicted for a traffic incident, even though the white culprit was caught on video.  Taylor was eventually cleared.  Maybe it would have been quicker if he was chewing Trident White?

What do you think?

Quick.  Gut answer.  If you see an African American and a Caucasian person debating Affirmative Action, which side of the fence  would you imagine each is on?

As students prepare to return to college for the fall, an article on NPR last week explored “Affirmative Action:  How Far Have We Come?” reflecting on the case of white student Jennifer Gratz, who in 2003 filed the first law suit presented before the Supreme Court claiming she was denied entry because of discrimination under the University of Michigan’s Affirmative Action policy.

As might be expected, NPR staff writing the article consulted both African American and Caucasian thought leaders for their opinions on the subject.  Note that the races of the pundits were not acknowledged, but what was interesting is that the black commentator, John McWhorter, argued against Affirmative Action, while the white commentator, Tim Wise, was for it.

For those that know McWhorter and Wise’s work, it’s actually not surprising.  McWhorter is known for his criticism of welfare and how “therapeutic alienation transformed welfare into a multigenerational dependence program.”  Wise writes extensively about White Privilege, and has said “The denial of racism is a form of racism itself.”

So why did I note their race as related to their ideas in the story?  Because it didn’t jive with that unconscious idea of what blacks and whites SHOULD think about Affirmative Action.  Indeed, at least from this 2002 study by Harris Interactive for the journal American Demographics, 80% of whites and 71% of Hispanics are against the special preference given by Affirmative Action; and 84% of blacks think that Affirmative Action is still necessary.

Two days later, thinking about the article, an image of “Shoulder Pads,” so popular in the 80’s, popped into my mind.  My tailored jackets with their big puffy epaulettes still hang in the closet, ready for duty.  Drawers hold shoulder pads since cut out, but saved, just in case, for their reappearance.

“Be free!  Get rid of them!” coached my college girlfriend.   Even my 9 year old son says “Shoulder pads are out of style, mommy.”

And so are two-dimensional ideas about race and race relations.  It’s hard to remember this when political pundits and TV personalities grab more and more attention with outrageous and divisive opinions and the public dialogue on everything from Supreme Court nominees to immigration to personal scandal is increasingly polarized.

But back at home, in real life, you get a lot farther by noticing that things don’t always match what you thought about “the way things are,” that people will not answer a certain way, simply because of their race.

Like huge shoulder pads, perhaps it’s time to get rid of outdated, clichéd views of race.  The first step, sometimes, is recognizing they are outdated (a skill that can be learned and practiced).

Any things or ideas you’re hanging onto?

Photo credit:  Philadelphia Weekly: Style

Dear Frank DeFord, meet your new friend, Pro Football Hall of Famer Lawrence Taylor, accused of raping a 16-year-old girl.  Perhaps he knows your other friend Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, accused of sexually assaulting a 20 year-old girl, who you defended as just “boys being boys” in your editorial on NPR last week.

Okay, in fairness, Roethlisberger was cleared of all charges and DeFord didn’t literally say boys will be boys (read the full article here, and listener commentary here).  He questioned the logic of Roethlisberger’s suspension following the charge, saying “let the thugs play,” ultimately minimizing the ‘badness’ of his behavior by suggesting “at least he wasn’t packing a firearm.”

The point of DeFord’s commentary was that while these kinds of behaviors were reprehensible, the real problem was not with the actions of the athletes, but with fans who expected athletes to be good role models.  “To what earthly benefit is it to suspend Roethlisberger?  Does it teach little, impressionable children a lesson?”

I hope it teaches children that our society values all of its members, and that our cultural value system demands a 0% tolerance for violence against women.

DeFord is a decorated sportscaster, sportswriter, and author.  But, in the world of intercultural communications and inclusion, his tone hearkens of a Northern European, anglo, male sense of privilege that disregards the experience of anyone who falls outside of that ‘norm.’   

Take that disregard to an institutional level and you have college campuses that excuse illegal behavior from athletes and a legal justice system that blames the victim.

How ironic that the title of one of DeFord’s books is The Entitled.

What do you think?  How do our reactions to current events belie our values and unconscious biases?  Does it look pretty?

Photo credits:  Talyor, Chicago Tribune; DeFord and Roethlisberger, NPR

I need to go take a shower.

I just caught myself talking to my husband’s kindly Indian colleague over the phone like he was an idiot, plus I read this article by Tim Wise “Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black,” and realized I am guilty. (This is a must read!)

One, because looking at actual numbers I had assumed the tea party was inconsequential, and two, because, between me, you, the lamppost and my conscience, I would have been scared last week when I had to walk through a dispersing crowd at a Tea Party rally in Spokane, had the group been black.

It was ironic that just next door to the Spokane Convention Center where the Tea Party Rally was held was the Doubletree Hotel, where the SIETAR USA conference was being held.  SIETAR, the Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research was talking about living and working in an intercultural world (I was in town for the latter).

On my way to dinner I had to walk alone through the crowd of mostly older, white men and women, dressed in blue jeans and American flags, carrying signs condemning Obama and his policies.  My dramatic protest?  I said “no thank you” when offered their printed propaganda.  Ooohh, you are so brave!

Using the Peggy McIntosh model, White Privilege is questioning why moderate Muslim leaders don’t vocally condemn fanatical Muslims, while standing quietly aside and disassociating myself from radical White Christians.

But this is also a good “wake-up call.”  While I strive to be aware of my own cultural orientation, biases and communication style, it is said that when under stress we revert to those first learned.  

In other words, when faced with the day to day challenges of life (balancing work, family, health, economy, etc.) or events more dramatic, we might revert to our “natural” or first learned communication tendencies, and forget our intercultural yearnings.

Shwooh—I guess the good news is that I’ve realized all of this before leaving my house this morning.  Good thing I haven’t done anything stupid like publicizing my unconscious bias on a public blog or something.

Anything you want to come clean about?  How does recognizing your unconscious gut responses make you a better person?

Photo credit flickr Rachid Lamzah

My colleague was conducting a training during a “train the trainer” session this week on Intent and Impact, the idea being that in communications, sometimes our Intent does not equal the Impact we intended.  For example:

 “That sweater you’re wearing is really interesting” (intended as compliment).  Unexpected impact:  “You hate it don’t you?” (Spontaneous reaction:  heard as a catty, back-handed insult.)

The idea in that case to help maneuver out of that moment of discomfort is to assume positive intent on the part of the speaker, and use it as an opportunity to ask for clarification before jumping to conclusions.

Sarita, who is a brilliant, vivacious woman of Philippine and Pakistani descent, then went on to share an example of when she had used this approach.

“I was traveling back to LA after conducting an out of town training, and I had been upgraded to First Class.  I was sitting next to a businessman, who was Caucasian, and we started chatting.  He asked me if I traveled in First Class often….”

She continued, saying they talked about what she did (intercultural communications training), were discussing business and getting along famously when he said, “You know, if I close my eyes and just listen to you I don’t even know you’re a minority.”

Sarita started to break it down for the train the trainer group, and explain how she chose to try to diffuse this, but the rest of the group stopped her.  We couldn’t justify under any condition that this gentleman had ‘positive intent.’

That said, I do believe this gentleman thought he was paying Sarita a compliment.  Unfortunately he was doing it through an ethnocentric, privileged lens.  In essence he was saying “people of color can’t achieve success in their own right, only in how well they do something compared to how a white person would do it.”

Ignorance may have been bliss 50 years ago, but not anymore.  Want to keep up in a global, multicultural world?  Better brush up (or get started) on knowing your own culture is just an option.  An option among a plethora of successful, thriving cultures around the world. 

 Perhaps Sarita could have responded by politely giving him a copy of Peggy McIntosh’s “White Privilege:  Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.”, with the added point: “I can, if I choose to, sit in First Class without being asked how I got there.”

 What do you think?  Have you been on either end of this conversation?  How have you responded?

Photo Credit:  Simpliflying