Dear Mrs. Obama,

Wow, what a cool appearance on I-Carly (debuted January 16, “iMeet the First Lady.” How exciting to use such a popular platform to spread the message about how important it is to support military families.  It was a brilliant marketing idea (I understand it was yours) to reach the 5.5 million people who watched the episode, making it the week’s top telecast with all kid and tween demos.  The show served as a great Public Service Announcement to support military families.

On the other hand, I’m sorry you couldn’t have put in a plug for anti-racism and healthy relationships—in particular non-violent resolution to conflict.  Without denigrating what you did and the positive message you spread, I’m wondering if you’ve watched the show lately.  While we (me, my husband and our 10 year old son) have watched the show for at least a couple of years, (and we didn’t want to miss seeing you) 2012 is the year we say goodbye.

Why? First, we can’t swallow the promotion of violence as the first resolution to conflict, particularly for young people beginning to explore love relationships.   It was the “iCan’t Take It” episode in September, at the outset of Season 5, that did it.  Freddie and Sam are getting closer, Carly hates being in the middle, Gibby gets revenge by telling Mrs. Benson, Freddie’s mom, and all hell breaks loose.  But for every conflict, Sam reacts violently.  She gets mad at Freddie, she kicks him.  She gets mad at Gibby, she pulls out a 3” section of hair and scalp.  Gibby threatens Mrs. Benson.   And it’s all supposed to be funny. 

But it’s not.  You know why?  Because teen-dating violence is real, and it’s not funny.  According to the Bureau of Justice teen dating violence statistics , about one in three high school students have been or will be involved in an abusive relationship.  The show is following tweens morphing into teens, puppy love, learning about relationships.  According to iCarly—lying, beating, punching and kicking is the way to go.  To which I say no. 

And I did, until all of the promo for iStill Pshycho, the much hyped follow-up to last year’s iPsycho, where Carly, Sam and Freddie are taken hostage by an over-zealous fan.  We hadn’t watched since September, Sam and Freddie are no longer a couple; so, let’s try it again, right?

Except that, aside from the fact that untreated mental illness is not funny (think Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords), the violence has escalated.  IPsycho features torture, sword fights, and possibly worse, passive inaction at the suffering of others.  Freddie is attacked while Sam and Carly idly watch eating cake.  “It was really good cake,” they explain.  Gibby makes it to the top of the chimney to get help for the others imprisoned inside, only to get stuck.  The neighborhood kids, seeing his plight, instead pelt him with tennis balls.  

But the subplot is what really got me…over the top racism.  T-Bo, the manager of the Groovy Smoothie shop and only African American character on the show (On the good side, I suppose, it looks like his character is being integrated more centrally into the show) is now renting a room from Mrs. Benson, Freddie’s over-protective mom.  But, it looks like to stay there, he is being forced to act “white.”  To act “Proper” is the term used in the plot summary.  But to act “proper,” he changes from his bright clothes into a suit and neatly secures his waist long dreadlocks before heading ‘home.’  He speaks in a formal voice, and has to learn to play Mahjong (Note—my 10 year old son says this last point undermines my argument that he’s forced to act white, as Mahjong is a 2,000 year old Chinese game.)  Why does he do this, the kids ask him? “If my mom sees how he really is,” answers Freddie, “she’d never let him in my house.” 

“Let’s all pretend T-Bo doesn’t have feelings,” he responds.

In the end, after riding a motorcycle through the door and saving Spencer (Carly’s older brother) and the kids from an eternity in hell, he’s allowed to be himself and stay at Mrs. Benson’s, but when he goes in to join the group hug—they recoil in disgust, not wanting to be touched by him.

So, Mrs. Obama, I understand that Sasha and Malia are fans of the show.  My question to you is, are these the lessons you are planning to teach them?  For me and my ten year old son, the answer is no.

Perhaps the real answer is watching together to talk about the issues.  “How could that have been resolved differently?”  “What would/could you have done in that situation?”

What are you and your kids doing together, and what are you talking about at the dinner table?

Photo Credits:  Mrs. Obama on iCarly, Lisa Rose/Nickelodeon, T-Bo in Suit from Robs I-Carly blog, and T-Bo as himself, Sodahead

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

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.”

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

There’s a catch phrase in the environmental movement that says “Think Globally.   Act Locally.”  Global advertisers might be well served by doing  the reverse.

Of course companies selling internationally need to localize their messages to appeal to regional and national markets.  But they must also think globally. 

You have to assume that any ad, no matter how/where it’s targeted, can and will be seen by anyone, anywhere.

So, while Yum Brands (owner of KFC) pulled the ad in Australia, they seem to attribute the problem not to the content of the ad itself, but that  

“a KFC commercial being shown on Australian television has apparently caused offence, particularly in the United States, after a copy of the commercial was reproduced online without KFC’s permission.”

Indeed comments following the first ad, above, have said “you dont understand cricket or Austrialian Culture.”  Okay, so maybe you could give that one the benefit of the doubt, albeit a poor choice.

But, clearly not when coupled with this ad below, from Korea, featuring black, West Indian “savages” soothed by their civilized Korean captive, when he magically produces fried chicken for all.

Just a note about the ad content–while the lesson is that advertisers should anticipate response from anywhere to any ad, regardless of target market, that doesn’t excuse racist content to begin with. 

What do you think?

WIXX (101.1FM) rightly decided to stop airing a peculiar 1950s ballad about a love-struck Native American couple after listeners complained about the banter surrounding the song, “Running Bear.” Listeners told Menominee tribal member Richie Plass, a Native American activist, that whooping and inappropriate comments regarding Native Americans accompanied the song, which aired regularly on Fridays on “Murphy in the Morning” until last week.

Another recent event that screamed cultural ignorance was the students who dressed as the KKK to create a film for a history class in Lumpkin County, and caused concern and fear when they walked through the cafeteria at their school.  One response of the school district (in addition to putting the teacher on leave while the incident is investigated) was to “review all class films for approval before proceeding.”

I would love to create a “tool kit” sort of dialogue box that would be required any time an incident like this happens.  As the Greenbay editorial says, ignorance should no longer be an excuse for perpetuating stereotypes.  That said, the dialogue following an event like this usually gets stopped at”what were they thinking,” or in a contrast between “you’re racist” and “you’re too sensitive.” (If you’re not sure what I mean, read through the comments following reporting of any incident of this kind.)

And in the end, the solution is usually “we will never do this again.”  That sounds good–public institutions, media, etc. should not be perpetuating racism. 

But the unfortunate side is that in the absence of good, deep facilitated dialogue to understand the origins of the stereotype, the different cultural perspectives and how we can learn from this incident, we end up silenced. 

And it was silence and complicity that allowed racism to grow in the first place.

What conversations are you not having?

Intercultural Talk was delighted to catch up with Dr. Charlton McIlwain following his ‘appearance’ on DoctorRadio on Sirius/XM Radio earlier this week, talking about “Teaching Kids about Race.” 

1.  What are the top three pointers you have for parents when teaching kids about race?

2.  Does how one talks about race with their children change based on the race of the parents, e.g. will (should?) African-Americans teach it differently than Caucasians?  If a family is multi-racial, will that make it different?

That’s a good question. I think my first reaction would be to say no – that how one talks about race with children should be the same no matter your racial/ethnic background. That being said, it is certainly likely that the content of what one talks about will be quite different. When we look at the historical underpinnings of race and racism people of different backgrounds have played very different roles and groups of people have been affected differently. Thus, a white parent speaking to his or her children may find themselves explaining to their children what role other whites had in something like slavery, or having to answer a question like, “Why do Black people think I’m a racist because I’m White?” On the other hand, a  Black parent may find him or herself addressing comments or questions like, “Why are White people prejudiced? or Why are there so few people that look like me on Television or in my school textbook? A multiracial family may find themselves having to address all of these and more! The truth is, everyone from all backgrounds should probably confront all of these types of questions and issues, but some may be more salient than others depending on one’s background.
 

3.  How might parents avoid passing along their own unconscious bias when talking to kids about race?

Being able and willing to recognize them when they come up. Be willing to point out and talk about those biases when they are expressed by their children. Try to impress on children that when they express some bias or prejudice, the object is not simply to not say it or express it again. It’s to think through why those biases may or may not be true, hurtful, harmful, etc.. In this way kids learn to be aware of and be able to police their own biases and expressions rather than merely censoring them.

4.  Any tips for helping children respond if they are the recipients of a racist remark (or does even asking this question set up a defensiveness going in for the child) 

Try to teach them that they should not respond in kind. Try to teach them that they should not accept or internalize the underlying prejudices and sentiments of the remark. Try to teach them that in many cases they should seek out an ally – a parent, teacher, principal – who will be able to talk to the person who made the remark.

5.  What question am I missing? What final advice might you provide for parents?

I would say that point one under question one is by far the most important thing. Make sure you are willing, and that your children know you are willing to talk about race and racial issues any time – before something happens, after something happens, if nothing happens…

Dr. McIlwain is an Associate Professor of Media, Culture & Communication at New York University.  His expertise, research and teaching focus on race and media and racial discourse in the United States.  Intercultural Talk ( @cultureguru) recommends keeping up with him @cmcilwain) and @smcaliendo and their Project on Race in Political Communication on Twitter.

Any additional tips you would share?  What’s worked for you?  What hasn’t?

Your 7 year old child who is white hesitates to shake someone’s hand who is African-American.   Your first grader tells another student she’s “a lesbian with her sister.”  You were there.  You weren’t there.  You are the most open, anti-racist, multicultural person you know.  Where did your child get this from?

I’ve seen stories about these moments (remember the children’s summer camp that was asked to leave the Country Club pool last summer).  These articles rightly so express the pain of the child/parent, who is black, and astonishment, denial and/or defensiveness of the offender or offender’s parents who are white. 

But what seems missing is the doorway to learning that this opens for the white child.  Without discussion, what the white child may glean is A) they’ve talked about race, B.) all the adults have freaked out, and, C) by the transitive theory in math, where if A=B and B=C then A=C…then talking about race freaks people out so don’t ever do it again.

And that, my friend, is the perfect formula for passing unconscious bias, prejudice, and funky racial dynamics onto the next generation.

Just as we would help our children learn to read, write, add and subtract, we need to teach them intercultural competence.  It’s generally not taught in school, and it’s something we might want to frame in the home anyway, right up there with morals and beliefs.

So we have to talk, even when it’s hard.

In the hand shaking incident referenced above, it was MY reaction that was wrong…the more Dillon refused to shake hands the more anxious and insistent I got.  I got nervous thinking “he’s going to think Dillon’s resisting because he’s black.”  He didn’t, but I think our mutual friend who introduced us did.   

The better answer (now with the luxury of months to think about it) might have been “Sorry, he has a touchy germ issue—it goes over really well when he shouts ‘No!’ at the sweet Jewish ladies who try to hand him cookies at synagogue on Saturdays!”  In fact at the time he wouldn’t even eat sandwiches if I had touched them. 

On the lesbian name calling (yes, that was my son, too).  It was more practical…and brief–we haven’t even explained heterosexual relationships yet, let alone homosexual ones–  1.)  You generally don’t have a relationship with someone in your own family whether you like boys or girls (a la the Sister reference); and some people are lesbians, and that’s okay, it’s just a natural way of being, so you wouldn’t want to use that as though it was an insult, because there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just different.

Most of these discussions are hard because they have to do more with our own “hang-ups.”  I’m hyper-aware of racial inequities, privilege and unconscious bias, but as an adult tend to lean toward “politically correct,” gender/race neutral language (aka euphemisms)—which doesn’t work with children who need simple, specific, actionable language.

All I know is when his class discussed war and the military in Social Studies and the topic of homosexuals in the military came up, Dillon said all of the other children giggled at the word homosexual.  He was the one who pointed out that the US policy was discriminatory.  You go, Dillon!

Will I get it wrong?  Probably.  Will I have a chance to notice that and try again?  As long as I’m a mom.

What has your child said that mortified you?  What did you do?

Photo credit:  Stuff White People Do