Why “brewing,” and not the implied “spontaneity” of a blog post?  Because the description above uses perfectly refined, planned, and politically neutral language that doesn’t really convey two episodes of what I believe to be unconscious bias on the part of two of the three lone white people in the room of otherwise 30+ African-Americans during the session. 

The first one was me (ouch!), one of three Caucasians and the “subject matter expert” leading the presentation.  Not sure who/how many caught what I would call my “gaffe” but here’s what happened.  I dove into the strategies and activities, without giving an overview of what we mean by Diversity and Inclusion in the Workplace.  As more general questions started right away, I realized immediately my unconscious assumption:  That because the audience was African American, OF COURSE everyone would know about Diversity and Inclusion in the workplace.  But, indeed, that field is just like any other area of expertise, you study it, there are best practices, there are academic studies….

Luckily, I had learned my lesson from the last time I had made fun of someone from another culture (now I’m being playful, even flirtatious, because I’m talking about my Brazilian-born husband in contrast to my Missouri-Jewishness) and had a batch of “Extra Slides” at the back of the file that had the “Business Case for Diversity and Inclusion” in place and ready to go.  There’s buried in here somewhere a 15 year overdue apology for making fun of my husband because when he was working on his MBA he occasionally would ask me to proof his presentations.  “But they’re 100 slides!” I’d protest. “No, it’s just the first 10,” he would say, “the rest are back-up.”  To which I would think, “Whatever.  No one in the United States does it that way.”

At any rate, thanks to following my lovely husband who didn’t know what he was doing, I was able to seamlessly (I’m pretty sure it was seamless to most) pull up the overview slides from another presentation I’ve given in the past,( presumably to white people—my commentary here) and give the overview with authority.

So then we went into my favorite part, Intercultural Communications.  It’s my favorite because I live and breathe it. I’m a marketer by profession, and specialize in communicating to people of different backgrounds.  Understanding the various communications styles, recognizing my own, and how all of these might be influenced by cultural and gender differences, is fascinating.

So here comes unconscious bias number two, from Philip* who was from one of the area’s larger Public Relations firms.  Philip was #2 Caucasian at the event, and his colleague Martha made the third and final (I think it’s important, just because I think my reactions to things were possibly influenced by being in the minority—which makes me hyper-conscious, curious if it’s typical when being in the minority to temper behavior, and of course curious about grave implications for that in the workplace, etc…)

Oh, we were talking about Philip.  So the conversation was about Communications Styles. “Direct,” which puts facts over people to divine truth and understanding, and “Indirect” which looks at feelings and relationships first. 

When I asked the group if Direct or Indirect was more prevalent in the workplace, all said “Indirect.” Which, as a Direct communicator I thought “are you kidding?  US Business norms are all about results and action, normed around a male, Western European communication style.  But, again, this is not about me….

So what I said was that it’s interesting to see how communications styles do seem to trend around culture and gender, so for example studies show that 50% to 80% of Hispanics tend to favor an Indirect communication style, or 50% to 80% of white men tend to favor Direct.

And that’s when Philip, in HR asked his question.   “But if it’s only 50% to 80% then really it’s not a statistic at all.  I tend to evaluate each person individually and build relationships with people one at a time.”

My gut thought was “like being colorblind.”  And the immediate reactive thought to that was (okay, that’s the problem, I knew something was wrong at the time, but it took me a good week to really think it through) the problem with the colorblind approach is that it is often the privilege of the majority culture to be color blind.  Because the structures of society, and certainly the USAmerican workplace, are normed around the majority culture.  So what I could have said was “That’s actually belies your white privilege, Philip, because as part of the majority culture you are not constantly reminded of your race or culture.”

But what I said was that while the trends shouldn’t supplant what’s in front of you, nor should groups be stereotyped by their dominant communication style, that it’s helpful as a framework to better understand one’s own style and to make sure that the reward bands—which people in the organization’s ideas and contributions are valued, are not being influenced by communication styles. 

Or, as Marti Barletta, accomplished expert in marketing to women, told me when I asked her the same question a few years ago, “you have to start somewhere, and because the commonalities to play out over a certain portion of the population, it gives you a starting place from which to operate.”

Luckily, Steve,* an HR Director at a major Chicago corporation (and African-American) then chimed in to say how effective it had been at his company when they did take into consideration the cultural implications of communication, and we moved on.

So, my 10 minutes is up (it morphed into 25…yikes!) and really this could have been summarized in three sentences:

1.  People of color are not inherently magnanimous experts on diversity, inclusion and pure, unbiased opinion.  In fact, thinking such continues to be an unconscious bias by either a.) Looking for approval from the other, or still operating from a framework of “white/majority” and everything else.
2. Claiming to be “colorblind” is a tenet of white/majority privilege, and is really only possible for someone from a majority culture.  And, seeing color or difference is natural, and does not equate to prejudice or racism.
3. If you are the invited speaker at a Professional Learning event, it’s okay to “stay on topic.” In other words, my handling of both situations, without publicly announcing the underlying bias, was okay, because the topic was diversity and inclusion in the workplace, not the underpinnings of racial inequity in society.

On that last one, though, while it may make me a great, consummate professional, it might not catapult me to ideological fame.  I’m reminded of seeing Gloria Steinem speak at an event in Chicago a number of years ago.  She espoused these amazing, controversial opinions, and had no qualms about calling it out like it was.  “She’s fabulous,” I remember thinking.  “I wish I could be in a position to say whatever I thought and have people listen.”

But that goes one further, to the idea that “when your mouth is open, your ears are closed.”  So maybe I’m not too far off.

What are the interactions that make you uncomfortable, that have you still thinking about them three weeks later?  Those are the ones to follow…

* Names changed

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?

Dave Barry was always able to just take vacation and run old columns.  For me, I’m entering a new world that is based in economic disparity and developmental disabilities–absolutely at the top of the engagement and inclusion/social exclusion list, but new territory that hasn’t quite gelled.  So in the meantime, I’m periodically re-running posts that were personal favorites.  After all, how can you not love a FULL-SCALE replica of an Easter Island Head, on someone’s lawn next to the Wendy’s in a little town in Wisconsin…

(from June 25, 2008)  I’ve been pondering this issue of “Cultural Tourism,” and realize that the better term for what I am talking about, experiencing and appreciating other cultures in a way to diminish prejudice, is more accurately named Urban Anthropology.  A tourist, by definition, is “someone who is traveling for pleasure.”  It is a passive view from the outside, with no commitment to learning or change, hence the perhaps valid criticism of it’s ineffectiveness as a meaningful tool to combat racism.

Urban Anthropologists, on the other hand, “look at how people living in diverse communities cope with current social and cultural changes.  They study the kinds of social relationships and patterns of social life unique to cities.” (per Rosa Cabrera, Center for Cultural Understanding and Change at The Field Museum.)  Plus, anthropologists get to do “ethnography” and “participant observation,” where they become part of the ‘culture’ they are ‘studying’ and participate in activities along with the culture they are observing and learning about.

It’s along those lines that my son L and I took off with another of his 7 year old friends on a road trip from Chicago to Ephraim, WI, to see the Norwegian Fyr Bal festival and experience what I think of as real “Americana.”

We saw a statue of Romeo the Killer Elephant in Delavan, WI (according to roadsideamerica.com he trampled 8 people to death but was spared because he was sad after the loss of his female companion, but the statue in town square just identified him as a symbol of Delavan’s history as the Circus capital of the Midwest in the late 1800’s), we then saw an exact, full-scale replica of an Easter Island head on someone’s lawn in New Berlin, WI, where we also happened upon a rummage sale with Pokemon Cards on sale for 50 cents, had Ice Cream Sundae’s in Two Rivers, which claims to have invented them, and took our picture with the World’s Largest Grandfather Clock, before settling into Ephraim for the fish boil and bonfire ceremonies that are a tradition for this festival (we stayed at the Trollhaugen Lodge, which of course had statues of trolls all around, and had breakfast at a restaurant with goats on the roof-real, live goats who graze on the grass covered roof of Al Johnson’s Swedish Restaurant).

You have to really like this type of thing to thoroughly relish stretching a four hour drive into eight hours, with all of our stops and using the county highways and side roads (wind surfing with your hand out the window while speeding through farm fields along a two-lane county highway is pure freedom!).  At any rate, this is a polite way of saying it was just me and the boys, because anyone else might spontaneously combust.  Granted, I planned the trip out, had detailed directions from AAA, knew we would only drive during the day, and had covered basic safety issues, but other than that had no apprehension that we would not be welcome or that we would face any safety concerns out of the ordinary. And my expectations along those lines were fully met.

Which makes me wonder.  Is this a universal experience, or is the fact that I am fearless throughout this entire trip an indicator of my white privilege?  I’m left with a nagging feeling it is–the idea that as a white person I can go anywhere.  But what am I saying if I believe minorities should be afraid of taking this same road trip?  I set out to discover true Americana in small town America, but am left wondering if that is an oxymoron, and if this was at the end of the day, completely ‘white’ Americana not only showing the divide in our day to day experiences, but also acknowledging the deeper need to understand our possibly separate experiences of growing up in the same country.

(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?

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

Yes, I stayed nearby to make sure he didn’t get burned on the stove, but that isn’t the point of the story.

The point does tie into his problem with math, and the need to learn his multiplication tables.  And all of this ties into teaching children good intercultural skills.

Did you catch that word?  It was teach.  Dillon was able to cook his own meal because I have involved him in the process of cooking for years now.  He has stood side-by-side, helped mix, been allowed to dig his thumbs all the way through the eggs and get mess on the floor before mastering cracking them into a bowl. 

And, he’ll learn his multiplication tables when he studies his flashcards and memorizes them.

None of this is an accident, and none of it is by osmosis.  It’s a combination of setting an example, but mostly  by explicitly giving lessons and teaching.

I was reminded this by reading the article “Bigotry, Blindness and Basketball” by Kristin Howerton that was cross-posted on loveisntenough (formerly Anti-Racist Parent).

In the post, Howerton talks about taking her kids, who are black, to a basketball program where another child, who is white,  said out loud that he didn’t want to hold her son’s hand because he was black.  Luckily her sons didn’t hear this, and had a great time at practice.

When Howerton approached her, the mom of the other child became defensive, saying she didn’t believe her child would say that, because they had taught him to be colorblind.  And that there was the problem.  In teaching one to be colorblind, we in essence are saying “Don’t talk about race.  It’s bad to notice.”

I  could be wrong, but I bet you will never hear a parent of color say “I raise my children to be color blind, to not see the color of a person’s skin.”  For someone of color, living in a majority white culture, I imagine it’s impossible not to be reminded constantly of your color.  It’s the privilege of someone white, against which much of US society is normed, to say “I don’t notice color.”  Well, of course not, if all discourse is normed around you (aka me)!

So setting an example and teaching about intercultural communications with our children is critical.  Just as a child can learn to cook and do his math equations, he can learn language and reflection on social justice. 

Our children may mortify us by what they say at times, but look at how to use it to open an dialogue.  If a child doesn’t want to hold hands with someone who is different and you swear you didn’t teach him that, know that he/she got it from somewhere.  And if you don’t like what he/she has learned, then provide the language that you hope will guide his/her ideas as he/she grows.