August 1, 2023 • 47 mins
Organizer, Facilitator, Speaker and professional mentor to Kim Clark, Deborah L. Johnson, also known as "Rev D," is back again for another powerful episode of the Communicate Like You Give a Damn podcast. Not only does Rev D expound on her extensive experience with landmark cases in California supporting the DEI agenda, she also discusses the importance of what makes a good communicator in order for companies to see all that's possible when placing DEI at the forefront of their priorities. She also carefully proposes communicators to self-reflect and understand for themselves what their DEI journey is when attempting to depolarize and truly step into a company's vision.
About The Guest:
Rev Deborah L Johnson (Rev D) is a dynamic organizer, strategist, facilitator, public speaker, and spoken word artist, known for her ability to bring clarity to complex and emotionally charged issues. As an organizational consultant specializing in cultural diversity, she serves the public, private, non-profit, and military sectors. She is a successful co-litigant in two landmark California civil rights cases, including one setting precedent for the inclusion of sexual orientation in California’s Civil Rights Bill. For her social justice work, she has received numerous lifetime achievement awards.
Author of The Sacred Yes and Your Deepest Intent, Rev Deborah holds a BA from USC in Economics, an MBA from UCLA in Urban Land Economics/Real Estate Finance, a ministerial degree from the Holmes Institute, and an Honorary Doctor of Divinity from Agape University of Leadership and Transpersonal Studies. Her passion is building “The Beloved Community” and healing socio-political/cultural divides. Wherever she goes, including on the 3 shows of her RevDnow podcast channel, Rev Deborah’s message is one of transformation, inclusion, empowerment, and possibility.
A founding member of the Agape International Spiritual Center, Rev Deborah serves with Rev Michael Bernard Beckwith on the Leadership Council of the Association for Global New Thought.
Find Rev D Here:
About Kim:
Kim Clark (she/her) focuses her work on the communicator and content creator's role in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). She is the co-author of The Conscious Communicator: The fine art of not saying stupid sh*t, an Amazon #1 bestseller and the leading voice for DEI communications and social justice messaging for brands.
She speaks at conferences, writes custom workshops, writes inclusive communications guides, and consults with companies on all things related to diversity, equity, and inclusion communications. Kim is a member of the LGBTQ+ community, a cisgender woman, Native American (Muscogee Nation) and a mom of two kids with disabilities. These marginalized identities and the privileges that come with society seeing her as White motivate her daily for social change.
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Kim Clark (00:05):
Rev D, thank you so much for returning to
communicate like you give adamn. The podcast that is trying
to get communicators and allthose who do content and
communications in aninterpersonal setting to
understand our role andresponsibility in diversity,
equity and inclusion and andreally applying it to our daily
(00:27):
work. And you and I did apodcast already. And something
you said to me, after werecorded made it really clear
that there you're going to be areoccurring, like CNN
correspondent, as part of ourpodcast.
Unknown (00:45):
So thank you for coming back. And not everyone's going
to listen to the episodes,obviously, in order. So I would
love for you to introduceyourself, and then we'll get
into this new round of content Ithink people are gonna really
get a lot from so ReverendDeborah Johnson, also known as
Rev. D now, and alsoaffectionately known as Rev. D.
(01:07):
Please introduce yourself. Rev.
Rev. Deborah Johnson (01:10):
Well, thank you, Kim. It's a pleasure
to be back. I appreciate thework that you're doing in the
field as well.
Unknown (01:19):
Yes, I have been in the field of diversity for over four
decades, professionally. And mypassion is really about killing
divides. I've been all kinds ofclients from corporate, from
the fortune 500 corporateclients, to nonprofit
(01:39):
organizations, public sector,military. And I find that
although the environments aredifferent, there are certain
fundamentals that are going tobe true everywhere. And I've
been in the trenches with twolandmark court cases in the
(02:01):
state of California.
Oh, please, you can't leave ushang in there.
Tell us more.
Well, the first is a case thatwas won in 1984. That set
precedent for the inclusion ofsexual orientation in the
California Civil Rights Bill. Itwas actually the first to happen
(02:23):
anywhere in the nation, whichset the precedent to be able to
have things such as marriageequality. And then later in
2005, I was also a successful codefendant, this time, in a case
against the governor, our formergovernor in California, Gray
Davis, who signed into law onthe way out of his recall, the
(02:48):
domestic partnerships bill, andthere was a challenge to that.
And I was able to be part of thesuccessful keeping it in place,
which once again, helped to setthe precedent for marriage
equality. So what I'm hearing isthat for Black History Month, or
pride month, people should betelling your story, you should
(03:12):
be a part of the did you know,and you know about LGBTQ plus
history and theintersectionality as well of
your identities, you have avariety of identities that
really inform your work. And youjust gave us just a little tiny
sample size of that shows up inactual manifestation of not only
(03:35):
advancing visibility, but likeyou said, logbooks, precedents,
that has led to just the rightto be out. In general. Yes, sir.
Some companies actually would dothat, particularly when I worked
with various affinity groupswithin the same organization.
(03:55):
Apple, for example, was big withthat, were Appalam, the, the
LGBTQ group and the women'sgroup and their black affinity
group would all pull theirresources, you know, together
and and bring me in.
And now companies are investing.With bigger budgets. However, D
(04:18):
AI is still nowhere close towhere it needs to be. Because
we've seen this recently as werecord this in April of 2023,
mass layoffs, especially withinthe DEI field. So if companies
had truly put dei into place andembedded it across the
organizations, especially sincethe Great White awakening, from
the summer of 2020.
(04:40):
The embedding the practiceactually has not truly been
embraced as of yet because wewould not have seen the layoffs
at the scale that we have mostrecently. Now I want to get into
language, specifically becausethat's definitely what we talk
about here on this podcast, butthere's something that you left
me feeling and thinking
bout after, when we were donerecording the first episode that
(05:04):
I've got to dive into here. Yousaid, di doesn't have five
years.
And I went, just hold thatthought, I'm going to schedule
you for more time because I,we've got to share what you're
thinking about. When you saythat statement when you say D
(05:24):
doesn't have five years. Tell usmore. What are you talking about
there? What do you mean?
What I mean is that d AI happenswithin a broader cultural
context.
And the very legitimacy of theEI and what it stands for, is,
(05:47):
in fact, under attack,
the work of dei really followsand mirrors the work that we do
in the broader society, arounddemocracy and inclusion.
We don't have another five yearsto sit around in the United
(06:11):
States in particular, and justsee what happens in terms of
democracy.
There is an eroding that'staking place at the very
infrastructures. And part of thedanger here in us talking about
language, is that there is sucha big move out right now, to do
(06:36):
misinformation, disinformation,to rewrite history, to not allow
the facts and the truth to comeout whether it's in the banning
of the books or what it is thatwe're allowed to say, in in
schools, the wanting to eraserace, as an issue that can even
(07:04):
be discussed, let alone definedor measured.
I could go on and on. But theculmination of these factors, is
leading to such a situationwhere the legitimacy of doing
this kind of work is veryfragile right now.
(07:34):
And what do we have to do to andwho do we need to be? I know
that's a big part of your work,is who do we need to be? And
what do we need to do to managethrough this fragility, and come
through to help people see thatthis work benefits them to the
ones who may be hesitant aboutit or trying to steer focus and
(07:59):
investment away from embeddingdei in organizations?
Well,
I think that there's a step thathas to happen before that.
And the step that I think thathas to happen before that is
that there needs to be
(08:21):
a real, honest, honestconversation within the d i
communities itself.
I keep saying that there arethese parallels, because there
are, the DEI doesn't just springout of nowhere. It is a reaction
and a response to what'shappening in the broader
(08:43):
society. Our corporations orcompanies are a microcosm of the
whole. And what we're attemptingto do in our businesses, is to
do things a little bitdifferently than how they're
being done in the broadersociety so that we can be more
inclusive so that we can becompetitive, so that we can, in
(09:07):
fact, have work environmentswhere everybody can flourish.
There is a way in which we wantto tell our stories, merely
within the context of thecorporate environment
without locating ourselveswithin the context of a broader
(09:30):
societal environment.
And taking a look at what'sgoing on in that broader
societal environment.
How are those issues playing outin our corporate environments?
And what's our contribution toit? Not just what is our
(09:57):
contribution to
making things better. But howWait, how may we inadvertently
been doing things that are atcross purposes? When we talk
about language, this is nodifferent than political
polling. Where, if you're tryingto sell a message, you have to
(10:22):
stop for a moment and ask, whatmessage? Are people hearing from
you? Not just, what do you thinkyou're saying? What is it that
they are hearing?
And? And are we picking theissues that really matter to
(10:46):
them? You know, are welanguaging it in the ways that
they can understand and perhapsbuy in and, and support us?
And I'm saying this very firmly,because I find in the DEI field,
we're operating almost like,we're right.
(11:09):
We're right, we have the rightmessage, we know what we're
doing. There's just somethingwrong with all of them that they
don't get it.
And what do I need to do to helpthem see the light and see
through my eyes.
(11:32):
But a good communicator
is going to learn how to seethrough the eyes of the ones
that they're talking to.
They're going to be taking thatinto consideration, and looking
to see where is there the commonground? Where might we have
(11:54):
divergent opinions,
but paying particular attentionto ways in which we may be at
cross purposes with ourselves?And just as in the social
political environment, thosecracks, those weaknesses get
(12:14):
exploited?
So for those who have the agendaof eradicating,
undermining, or at least
neutralizing
the work of Dei, because itserves their larger social
(12:39):
political agendas. Okay.
The pushback is not just aboutthe company, pushback is a
reflection of what's happeningin the broader society. Just
like the advocacy isn't justabout the company, the advocacy
is about what's happening in thebroader society.
(13:02):
And if we don't kind of wake upand smell the coffee,
and locate ourselves within thislarger context,
I'm really concerned that we'regoing to look up in a few years
and find that the fundings Notthere.
(13:26):
Not only is the funding notgoing to be there, but the
environment would have flippedso that we won't even be allowed
to have the conversationsanymore.
And that's all because D Ididn't work.
So they didn't feel the need tocontinue with the investment.
(13:51):
Not because it didn't worknecessarily.
You know, that's like saying
the voter registration laws orthe voting stuff didn't work.
No, it worked. It worked well.
We did not have a stolenelection. In fact, the last
presidential election was thesafest that we've ever had.
(14:15):
But just because you're doingwell, doesn't mean you're going
to be supported.
Just because you're doing welldoesn't mean you're going to be
liked.
If you're doing well flies inthe face of a broader agenda
that actually doesn't want youto be successful.
(14:42):
And I feel like we're not
coming to grips with that.
That there's this assumptionthat any kind of pushback is
just out of ignorance,
as opposed to strict
eject dismantling
(15:08):
How can communicators step up?
In this space? I look at theexperiment that I did with Chad
GPT, where I just basicallytyped in, right a company
diversity statement, and in lessthan 30 seconds, it spit out a
(15:29):
diverse commitment statement, adiversity statement that I could
apply to any company, becauseChachi Beatty just pulls from
what's out there. So what's outthere is what I see in the
results in that search. It saysInsert company name in the chat
GBT
version in less than 30 seconds.
(15:53):
putting together something thatI see a lot of companies have
spent, you know, many rewritesand many months in order to get
approved. And it's notmeaningful in any way, shape or
form. There's not a and wetouched on this. And the first
time that we talked where thereisn't a compelling vision, there
isn't a story of, of Dei, that'sbeen very well articulated. So
(16:15):
many of us are kind ofrudderless. And why we are doing
d i and it's the communicatorsthat can really tell that story
in a compelling way. And in aspecific way, that shift from
vague to specificity issomething I work with, with
clients all the time becausethey don't see it. So many
(16:36):
communicators, the vastmajority, I can't remember the
statistics lately, I know I'veseen them as high as 83% of the
roles of communications withinorganizations are taken by
people who look like me. And wedon't necessarily understand
what the eye is, we don'tactually know what that work is.
There's there's a greateducation, ramp and learning
(16:58):
curve for us to actually knowwhat that work is, in order for
us to go, Oh, now I get it, orat least I get it better than I
did yesterday, and two weeksbefore that, and three years
ago. So now the way I'm showingup in how I'm telling the story
and wanting to revamp and seeingthat the commitment statement is
(17:19):
too vague. It's a list ofactivities. It's like camp, if
you if you read, if you readlike a diversity report by most
companies, it's a list ofactivities that we want merit
badges for, rather thanmeaningful impact, to shift the
organization in a meaningful waywhere it benefits everybody. So
(17:45):
this storytelling, the languagethat we use the picture that we
can create the visit thatcompelling vision, but also
reporting on what we do what acommunicators need to shift, and
truly understand in our power ofthat language and storytelling
(18:07):
in order to step up in thiswork, and not end up.
Like you have warned us that wecan because of this strategic
dismantling that's going on inthe larger societal realm
(18:28):
there's a saying there's areason why God gave us two ears
and only one mouth.
Because we're supposed to listen
twice as much as we speak.
The
the
(18:50):
word I'm looking for.
The encouragement that I'msaying here
is not so much that we haven'tbeen saying enough in the eye.
We haven't been listening
enough in Dei.
(19:14):
We have to be listening
is the point that I'm making,
that
there's a tendency to want towrite off
those who are not in agreementor those who are not in
alignment,
(19:35):
to marginalize them in the sameway that dei people are there to
stop other people from beingmarginalized. So we're just kind
of playing tic for tat, in whoseturn it is to be marginalize is
(19:56):
what I'm saying
and
The D I work is not going to besuccessful unless you are in
partnership,
like real partnership.
Otherwise, it's not going towork.
(20:18):
And
the uplifting of themarginalized populations
should be a means to an ends,and not an end in and of itself.
And I think too often we havepositioned dei as though that is
(20:40):
the end, like uplift thesepeople
give them some opportunity, theend, like we've, we've, we've
done our work.
But the uplifting
is for the purpose of us allbeing together, and all being
(21:02):
included, which involves everyone.
And I'm not so sure that thevision of all D I really
includes every one,
we have gotten to the point,unfortunately, where the word
(21:25):
diversity, as a communicatorquite often becomes a code word
for non white.
Or, you know, anything otherthan white male, or anything
other than straight white male.
(21:50):
So this pushback, particularlywhen you are in an environment,
where
white, straight men are notperceiving themselves as
advantage,
(22:11):
not perceiving themselves asprivileged. Whether it's true or
not. But I'm saying is that theself perception is not that. And
there's no real conversationsgoing on anywhere
(22:31):
about that.
So we're doing this.
We're doing this, I believe, inour last conversation, I gave
the analogy of a family that isexpanding.
And if you have
(22:53):
a new baby that comes into thefamily, of course, the new baby
is going to get a lot ofattention. But the 12 year old,
the 13 year old is going to bewondering, well, what about me.
And then when they get 16 and17, it's not that they don't
love their five year old brotheror sister or or care about them.
(23:14):
But in their minds, they'refeeling as though somehow or
another, the parents attentionhas gotten siphoned off, and
that the younger brother orsister is favored.
So a lot of what I see labeledsometimes as racism.
(23:38):
I'm not saying that there isn'tsome of that in there.
But it could equally bedescribed as sibling rivalry.
It's sibling rivalry,
kind of this, who's favored?
Who's valued?
(24:04):
And has that been our message
in fact that
everybody's valued.
And that no one is actually moreimportant than another.
(24:24):
This is why I say that.
I think there have to be theseconversations within ourselves.
About what are we doing?
You know, what is our message?
What do people think that westand for?
(24:48):
And have we created a vision
that's big enough
to involve everyone
It's often a lack ofimagination.
And I was, you know that I'm inthe process of moving my dad out
(25:10):
of state, he, he's been in thesame place for 34 years, and
it's it his age, almost 77, thisis a big huge change. So
we were driving 14 hours, and Iwas watching a lot of traffic
coming on and off the freeway.And I had this thought of these
(25:31):
two cars that we were makingroom for the car that was coming
on. And then there was somebody,another car, who didn't lose
their space, I didn't lose myspace, I needed to move slow
down a little bit, in order tosafely have the person come in
front of me, the other person,you know, stayed at their speed,
there was just room. So when youhave an abundance mindset, di is
(25:54):
possible. Right? And thenwhatever we can systematize we
can put in structures andinstitutions and stuff, it
becomes probable.
But first, we start with thepossible it's possible. And I
know you're a big, you know, oneof your one of the things that
(26:14):
you really teach is about this,the power of possibility. And
being that place of possibility.In our, in our conversation
today as communicators reallybeing that place of possibility
for us to make room for anybodywho's entering and exiting. But
everybody still has their role.Everybody is still there, maybe
(26:37):
we have to adjust our speed alittle bit. However, we're all
there in order to get to wherewe want to go. And there's an
alignment there. You know,there's a story that you've told
me
a few times when you were doinga corporate diversity training
(26:57):
at a very large company. And yougot into this discussion, I
believe you were the trainer,and there's someone in the
audience that was kind ofchallenging you around the
marriage equality, conversation.Do you remember the story? Okay,
can you can you recite the storyfor folks, and it's that that
ending, aha, and how you
(27:22):
named the interaction, and themotivation of the audience
member, that you kind of, youput a name to it. And I think
it's incredibly profound andsomething that I think
communicators would benefit froman understanding that hesitancy,
even the pushback, etc, thatthey may be experiencing
(27:42):
specifically from leaders?
Well, it's interesting that youshould ask me about this. Um, I
just included it in one of mypodcasts. Within the last month
or two.
I did the podcast with Dr. AnitaSanchez, one of my colleagues,
(28:03):
and it was kind of a trip downmemory lane asking her did she
remember that moment? Because Iwas doing this work under her
banner, okay, or with herhusband. Their firm is called
scientists tennis. And I was oneof their associates for many,
many years. So we're at thislarge tech company, this
(28:27):
particular event happened inOregon, if I'm not mistaken,
everybody know, it was Colorado,in particular, because this was
when Colorado was the firststate to really get knee deep
into the marriage equalityissue.
This particular training waswith only management. So they
(28:53):
were coming in from all over theplace. At the time, my role
within the training was todiscuss issues in regards to the
LGBTQ community. As far asemployment goes, there was the
company was coming outsupportive of domestic
(29:13):
partnerships, and they werecoming out to be supportive of
whatever it was that needed tohappen within the broader
society to have therelationships between same sex
couples legitimize this wasmaking one particular manager
very, very uncomfortable, veryuncomfortable. And I noticed I
(29:36):
pick pardon, while he was astraight white male, middle
aged.
Yes
professed
Christian,
devout Christian by his own, youknow, definition, and his
(29:57):
frustration was frustrating me
So I knew enough to just stopfor a moment. And I did when I'm
suggesting I listened. So I juststepped back.
And I gave him the floor.
And I said,
(30:19):
what you just said was, youdon't have anything personally
against gay people, you wouldnever do anything to hurt or
harm, discriminate against them,hold them back, give them lesser
assignments on your teams, oranything like that.
(30:39):
You believe that people shouldbe able to be in whatever kind
of relationships that they wantto be in. But you cannot get
behind the company
endorsing domestic partnerships,because you feel that isn't an
encroachment upon yourunderstanding of marriage, which
(31:03):
is in the domain of a male and afemale, according to your
religious beliefs, that thispolicy goes up against your
religious belief. For thatreason, you'll cooperate with it
if you have to, but you can'treally wholeheartedly support
it. And because you don'tsupport it, you don't want to be
(31:26):
considered anti diversity.
And he just,
it was like, somebody took the,the weight right off his
shoulders, and he to sit? Yes,yes, that's what I'm saying. And
I said, you know, I get it.
(31:47):
At this particular point intime, we were just in shock. And
all in Iraq, wasn't too longafter 911.
Supposedly, they had theseweapons of mass destruction that
nobody could find, right?
So I said to him, I get it.
(32:08):
I said, because there is noamount of training in the world,
to convince me that shot in allis okay. I am not against the
military. I don't want to doanything that's gonna hurt the
military. I'm fine with themilitary. But just because I
(32:29):
don't support all of my nation'sforeign policy. And I don't want
to be considered unpatriotic,for doing that.
And at this moment,
we both were standing. And wejust looked at each other, and
(32:50):
we migrated to each other, wehug and we both actually started
to cry.
Amazing, something broke, hedidn't change his mind. I didn't
change my mind. But the conflictstopped, because the conflicts
are never about differences.It's the polarization around the
(33:12):
differences.
And when we depolarize,
we could step into that visionthat we had of what the company
could be.
You saw him, you heard him, youvalued him. And you found that
connection with him.
(33:35):
And it's that listening, likeyou were talking about the two
years, one mouth, that's themain thing that I'm trying to
say is that everybody has to bevalued. And even just in your
analogy that you were makingabout on the road, and can we
(33:56):
make room for the new people whowere like coming in?
But can we also make sure thatthe ones that were already on
the road
are also feeling seen andvalued, like their journeys are
just as important?
(34:21):
As want everyone to take abreath for a second year,
because this is really big.
This is something that's goingto take some time to process. I
mean, every time I heard youhear you share that example, I
met another level of processwith that. Is it that example or
a different example of a timewhere you talk about making
(34:44):
space for fighting for theirright to believe what they
believe in? Oh, yeah.
You're speaking of a debate thatI was in at the
San Francisco club. This wasalso around the issue of
marriage equality.
(35:06):
This particular guy was a Muslimguy with seven children, a
Muslim leader. And let me bemore specific, we were clergy.
And he was very, very anti.
Same sex marriage, marriageequality.
So at the end of the whole thingI said to him, you know, I think
(35:30):
you're wrong, and you think I'mwrong. I said, this is clear. I
said, but that's not the realdifference between us. Our
stance on marriage equality,that's not our difference. I
said, Let me tell you what ourreal difference is. I said, our
real difference is that I willforever fight
(35:51):
for your right to say I'm wrong.
You just want to silence me.
That's what I told him.
I think this is another podcastepisode, talking about this. And
you were talking, you'realluding into it earlier of just
(36:13):
kind of this
power dynamic, the powerstruggle, you are putting your
fists together and having thempushed against each other. And
that it's it's a, it's a, it's ashifting of the power struggle
and the power dynamic, which wesee played out in corporations
at all levels. And I think whatthose two examples that you just
(36:35):
shared, are things that us ascommunicators really need to
take some time to really processand see where we are. Not making
space, not valuing
where we just want to powerforward, rather than bring
people with us is not part ofthe definition of leadership is
(36:58):
like, you know, turning aroundand looking to see if anyone's
behind you. Anything you want tospeak to that and your closing
thoughts.
I have a series out calledLetters from the infinite.
They're just these divinedownloads that I get in the form
of letters it's published bysounds true. And there is a
(37:20):
definition that's given of areligion. And what religious
edicts if there are any, likewhat those should be principles,
and I think it applies to Dei.
It said that any kind ofreligious laws should should be
(37:43):
like traffic laws.
They don't tell you where to go.
They just ensure that everybodycan arrive safely at their own
destination without interferingwith each other's journeys. Oh,
damn, this is good, keep going.
(38:06):
I'll say it again.
That I believe that dei shouldbe like this definition that was
given about religious laws, saidreligious laws should be like
traffic laws.
And this is what I think dineeds to be. It doesn't tell you
(38:28):
where to go.
It just ensures that each andevery person can arrived safely
at their destination
without interfering with eachother's journeys
(38:54):
take a breath with me listeners.
People are going to have somefeelings about we just what we
just talked about. And Iencourage folks to process them
to
you know, find support. You'vegot rev DS podcasts that you can
(39:16):
listen to. And her books. Tellus about those Rev.
Yes, so my podcast you can findon any podcast channel, under
REV D. Now I have a rev D nowchannel that has three podcasts
shows on it.
And by books you can findonline. The sacred Yes, and your
(39:41):
deepest intent, both in theletters from the infinite
series. And those are the kindsof books that you don't like,
right, you know, go from thebeginning. It's one of those
that you just kind of open upand just just see see where
you're led to see what needs tobe spoken to you in
In that moment, for sure, and Ido coaching,
(40:03):
you know, and as well as youknow, continual continual,
you know, consulting, as well asongoing training, because, you
know, when one time trainingdoesn't work, so you have to do
it on a regular basis, but alsoembedding it within our
communication policies andprocesses, our editorial
(40:24):
workflow, all of the things, oneof the other sayings that rev D
has is that,
and I've, you know, and to putcommunicators spin on it, it's
that, you know, whatever youwant is, the result has to be a
part of the process, which Ibelieve you shared in our first
podcast. So if you want dicommunications as a result, and
(40:45):
di Communications has to be apart of the process doesn't
magically happen without itintentionally built into our
systems and processes. So we'regonna keep talking, we're gonna
have you back as our ourcorrespondent, to, to di
communications, thank you foryour generous sharing, please
support Rev. D. And all that shedoes follow her, engage with
(41:08):
her. But don't, don't brush thisaway what you heard in this
podcast episode, specifically,or any, any, any, anytime that
you hear rev D speak, let it sitwith you, you get mad at it,
punch in the air about it.Because another one of her
sayings is, maybe we'll talkabout this in a future podcast,
(41:31):
but the whole idea of feel DL,he'll
and famous musicians have evenput that on a slide while they
are on concert and in tour. Andso this is something and Oprah,
you know, talked about itbecause of a young love and that
quoting you, during one of hermajor shows that she's done. So
(41:56):
it's out there in the world, butyou need to know that it's rev D
that talks about these things.And they're profound. And just
imagine I've been mentoring,I've been mentoring under her
for 20 years. We're recordingthis in April and 2023. And
we've known each other for 19years, it was April 2004. When
we first met, and I knew what Iwas getting into then, and I've
(42:19):
changed my life, you've changed1000s of lives. And then because
of that ripple effect, it hasimproved millions of lives. So
thank you for your work and yourlegacy.
Well, thank you, Kim. And
you know, I'm not saying I havethe answer. I'm not saying that
(42:40):
any one person has the answer.What I'm saying is that we need
to engage in the conversation.
I love the way that Lynne twistputs it. Another one of my
colleagues who also has endorsedmy work. She says the problem is
not our on answered questions.It's our unquestioned answers.
(43:12):
So much that I have to processthrough just this conversation.
On ongoing Oh, Rev. D, thank youso much. Thank you for being
back and for gifting yourknowledge. We have a transcribed
dinner conversation that Iturned into an article, and we
will put it in the show notes.It's talking about understanding
(43:35):
the DEI backlash. And so y'allneed to go a little deeper on
this work. So we're going toinclude a link to that article
for you to learn more. And Ihave done trainings and speaking
engagements based on thatarticle, people are like, talk
to us more about what that lookslike and feels like and I bring
that article and reference itthroughout and turn it into a
(44:00):
real you know, in real life kindof experience for people to work
through because we have to havethese conversations. We have to
talk about this. The fastest wayis through, not under not
running away, not blocking
the facet and it's only forwardfrom here. Thank you rev D for
leading this work and for thelast several decades of leading
(44:23):
this work and all the differentways that you have my pleasure.
Take care
Rev D, thank you so much for returning to
communicate like you give adamn. The podcast that is trying
to get communicators and allthose who do content and
communications in aninterpersonal setting to
understand our role andresponsibility in diversity,
equity and inclusion and andreally applying it to our daily
(00:27):
work. And you and I did apodcast already. And something
you said to me, after werecorded made it really clear
that there you're going to be areoccurring, like CNN
correspondent, as part of ourpodcast.
Unknown (00:45):
So thank you for coming back. And not everyone's going
to listen to the episodes,obviously, in order. So I would
love for you to introduceyourself, and then we'll get
into this new round of content Ithink people are gonna really
get a lot from so ReverendDeborah Johnson, also known as
Rev. D now, and alsoaffectionately known as Rev. D.
(01:07):
Please introduce yourself. Rev.
Rev. Deborah Johnson (01:10):
Well, thank you, Kim. It's a pleasure
to be back. I appreciate thework that you're doing in the
field as well.
Unknown (01:19):
Yes, I have been in the field of diversity for over four
decades, professionally. And mypassion is really about killing
divides. I've been all kinds ofclients from corporate, from
the fortune 500 corporateclients, to nonprofit
(01:39):
organizations, public sector,military. And I find that
although the environments aredifferent, there are certain
fundamentals that are going tobe true everywhere. And I've
been in the trenches with twolandmark court cases in the
(02:01):
state of California.
Oh, please, you can't leave ushang in there.
Tell us more.
Well, the first is a case thatwas won in 1984. That set
precedent for the inclusion ofsexual orientation in the
California Civil Rights Bill. Itwas actually the first to happen
(02:23):
anywhere in the nation, whichset the precedent to be able to
have things such as marriageequality. And then later in
2005, I was also a successful codefendant, this time, in a case
against the governor, our formergovernor in California, Gray
Davis, who signed into law onthe way out of his recall, the
(02:48):
domestic partnerships bill, andthere was a challenge to that.
And I was able to be part of thesuccessful keeping it in place,
which once again, helped to setthe precedent for marriage
equality. So what I'm hearing isthat for Black History Month, or
pride month, people should betelling your story, you should
(03:12):
be a part of the did you know,and you know about LGBTQ plus
history and theintersectionality as well of
your identities, you have avariety of identities that
really inform your work. And youjust gave us just a little tiny
sample size of that shows up inactual manifestation of not only
(03:35):
advancing visibility, but likeyou said, logbooks, precedents,
that has led to just the rightto be out. In general. Yes, sir.
Some companies actually would dothat, particularly when I worked
with various affinity groupswithin the same organization.
(03:55):
Apple, for example, was big withthat, were Appalam, the, the
LGBTQ group and the women'sgroup and their black affinity
group would all pull theirresources, you know, together
and and bring me in.
And now companies are investing.With bigger budgets. However, D
(04:18):
AI is still nowhere close towhere it needs to be. Because
we've seen this recently as werecord this in April of 2023,
mass layoffs, especially withinthe DEI field. So if companies
had truly put dei into place andembedded it across the
organizations, especially sincethe Great White awakening, from
the summer of 2020.
(04:40):
The embedding the practiceactually has not truly been
embraced as of yet because wewould not have seen the layoffs
at the scale that we have mostrecently. Now I want to get into
language, specifically becausethat's definitely what we talk
about here on this podcast, butthere's something that you left
me feeling and thinking
bout after, when we were donerecording the first episode that
(05:04):
I've got to dive into here. Yousaid, di doesn't have five
years.
And I went, just hold thatthought, I'm going to schedule
you for more time because I,we've got to share what you're
thinking about. When you saythat statement when you say D
(05:24):
doesn't have five years. Tell usmore. What are you talking about
there? What do you mean?
What I mean is that d AI happenswithin a broader cultural
context.
And the very legitimacy of theEI and what it stands for, is,
(05:47):
in fact, under attack,
the work of dei really followsand mirrors the work that we do
in the broader society, arounddemocracy and inclusion.
We don't have another five yearsto sit around in the United
(06:11):
States in particular, and justsee what happens in terms of
democracy.
There is an eroding that'staking place at the very
infrastructures. And part of thedanger here in us talking about
language, is that there is sucha big move out right now, to do
(06:36):
misinformation, disinformation,to rewrite history, to not allow
the facts and the truth to comeout whether it's in the banning
of the books or what it is thatwe're allowed to say, in in
schools, the wanting to eraserace, as an issue that can even
(07:04):
be discussed, let alone definedor measured.
I could go on and on. But theculmination of these factors, is
leading to such a situationwhere the legitimacy of doing
this kind of work is veryfragile right now.
(07:34):
And what do we have to do to andwho do we need to be? I know
that's a big part of your work,is who do we need to be? And
what do we need to do to managethrough this fragility, and come
through to help people see thatthis work benefits them to the
ones who may be hesitant aboutit or trying to steer focus and
(07:59):
investment away from embeddingdei in organizations?
Well,
I think that there's a step thathas to happen before that.
And the step that I think thathas to happen before that is
that there needs to be
(08:21):
a real, honest, honestconversation within the d i
communities itself.
I keep saying that there arethese parallels, because there
are, the DEI doesn't just springout of nowhere. It is a reaction
and a response to what'shappening in the broader
(08:43):
society. Our corporations orcompanies are a microcosm of the
whole. And what we're attemptingto do in our businesses, is to
do things a little bitdifferently than how they're
being done in the broadersociety so that we can be more
inclusive so that we can becompetitive, so that we can, in
(09:07):
fact, have work environmentswhere everybody can flourish.
There is a way in which we wantto tell our stories, merely
within the context of thecorporate environment
without locating ourselveswithin the context of a broader
(09:30):
societal environment.
And taking a look at what'sgoing on in that broader
societal environment.
How are those issues playing outin our corporate environments?
And what's our contribution toit? Not just what is our
(09:57):
contribution to
making things better. But howWait, how may we inadvertently
been doing things that are atcross purposes? When we talk
about language, this is nodifferent than political
polling. Where, if you're tryingto sell a message, you have to
(10:22):
stop for a moment and ask, whatmessage? Are people hearing from
you? Not just, what do you thinkyou're saying? What is it that
they are hearing?
And? And are we picking theissues that really matter to
(10:46):
them? You know, are welanguaging it in the ways that
they can understand and perhapsbuy in and, and support us?
And I'm saying this very firmly,because I find in the DEI field,
we're operating almost like,we're right.
(11:09):
We're right, we have the rightmessage, we know what we're
doing. There's just somethingwrong with all of them that they
don't get it.
And what do I need to do to helpthem see the light and see
through my eyes.
(11:32):
But a good communicator
is going to learn how to seethrough the eyes of the ones
that they're talking to.
They're going to be taking thatinto consideration, and looking
to see where is there the commonground? Where might we have
(11:54):
divergent opinions,
but paying particular attentionto ways in which we may be at
cross purposes with ourselves?And just as in the social
political environment, thosecracks, those weaknesses get
(12:14):
exploited?
So for those who have the agendaof eradicating,
undermining, or at least
neutralizing
the work of Dei, because itserves their larger social
(12:39):
political agendas. Okay.
The pushback is not just aboutthe company, pushback is a
reflection of what's happeningin the broader society. Just
like the advocacy isn't justabout the company, the advocacy
is about what's happening in thebroader society.
(13:02):
And if we don't kind of wake upand smell the coffee,
and locate ourselves within thislarger context,
I'm really concerned that we'regoing to look up in a few years
and find that the fundings Notthere.
(13:26):
Not only is the funding notgoing to be there, but the
environment would have flippedso that we won't even be allowed
to have the conversationsanymore.
And that's all because D Ididn't work.
So they didn't feel the need tocontinue with the investment.
(13:51):
Not because it didn't worknecessarily.
You know, that's like saying
the voter registration laws orthe voting stuff didn't work.
No, it worked. It worked well.
We did not have a stolenelection. In fact, the last
presidential election was thesafest that we've ever had.
(14:15):
But just because you're doingwell, doesn't mean you're going
to be supported.
Just because you're doing welldoesn't mean you're going to be
liked.
If you're doing well flies inthe face of a broader agenda
that actually doesn't want youto be successful.
(14:42):
And I feel like we're not
coming to grips with that.
That there's this assumptionthat any kind of pushback is
just out of ignorance,
as opposed to strict
eject dismantling
(15:08):
How can communicators step up?
In this space? I look at theexperiment that I did with Chad
GPT, where I just basicallytyped in, right a company
diversity statement, and in lessthan 30 seconds, it spit out a
(15:29):
diverse commitment statement, adiversity statement that I could
apply to any company, becauseChachi Beatty just pulls from
what's out there. So what's outthere is what I see in the
results in that search. It saysInsert company name in the chat
GBT
version in less than 30 seconds.
(15:53):
putting together something thatI see a lot of companies have
spent, you know, many rewritesand many months in order to get
approved. And it's notmeaningful in any way, shape or
form. There's not a and wetouched on this. And the first
time that we talked where thereisn't a compelling vision, there
isn't a story of, of Dei, that'sbeen very well articulated. So
(16:15):
many of us are kind ofrudderless. And why we are doing
d i and it's the communicatorsthat can really tell that story
in a compelling way. And in aspecific way, that shift from
vague to specificity issomething I work with, with
clients all the time becausethey don't see it. So many
(16:36):
communicators, the vastmajority, I can't remember the
statistics lately, I know I'veseen them as high as 83% of the
roles of communications withinorganizations are taken by
people who look like me. And wedon't necessarily understand
what the eye is, we don'tactually know what that work is.
There's there's a greateducation, ramp and learning
(16:58):
curve for us to actually knowwhat that work is, in order for
us to go, Oh, now I get it, orat least I get it better than I
did yesterday, and two weeksbefore that, and three years
ago. So now the way I'm showingup in how I'm telling the story
and wanting to revamp and seeingthat the commitment statement is
(17:19):
too vague. It's a list ofactivities. It's like camp, if
you if you read, if you readlike a diversity report by most
companies, it's a list ofactivities that we want merit
badges for, rather thanmeaningful impact, to shift the
organization in a meaningful waywhere it benefits everybody. So
(17:45):
this storytelling, the languagethat we use the picture that we
can create the visit thatcompelling vision, but also
reporting on what we do what acommunicators need to shift, and
truly understand in our power ofthat language and storytelling
(18:07):
in order to step up in thiswork, and not end up.
Like you have warned us that wecan because of this strategic
dismantling that's going on inthe larger societal realm
(18:28):
there's a saying there's areason why God gave us two ears
and only one mouth.
Because we're supposed to listen
twice as much as we speak.
The
the
(18:50):
word I'm looking for.
The encouragement that I'msaying here
is not so much that we haven'tbeen saying enough in the eye.
We haven't been listening
enough in Dei.
(19:14):
We have to be listening
is the point that I'm making,
that
there's a tendency to want towrite off
those who are not in agreementor those who are not in
alignment,
(19:35):
to marginalize them in the sameway that dei people are there to
stop other people from beingmarginalized. So we're just kind
of playing tic for tat, in whoseturn it is to be marginalize is
(19:56):
what I'm saying
and
The D I work is not going to besuccessful unless you are in
partnership,
like real partnership.
Otherwise, it's not going towork.
(20:18):
And
the uplifting of themarginalized populations
should be a means to an ends,and not an end in and of itself.
And I think too often we havepositioned dei as though that is
(20:40):
the end, like uplift thesepeople
give them some opportunity, theend, like we've, we've, we've
done our work.
But the uplifting
is for the purpose of us allbeing together, and all being
(21:02):
included, which involves everyone.
And I'm not so sure that thevision of all D I really
includes every one,
we have gotten to the point,unfortunately, where the word
(21:25):
diversity, as a communicatorquite often becomes a code word
for non white.
Or, you know, anything otherthan white male, or anything
other than straight white male.
(21:50):
So this pushback, particularlywhen you are in an environment,
where
white, straight men are notperceiving themselves as
advantage,
(22:11):
not perceiving themselves asprivileged. Whether it's true or
not. But I'm saying is that theself perception is not that. And
there's no real conversationsgoing on anywhere
(22:31):
about that.
So we're doing this.
We're doing this, I believe, inour last conversation, I gave
the analogy of a family that isexpanding.
And if you have
(22:53):
a new baby that comes into thefamily, of course, the new baby
is going to get a lot ofattention. But the 12 year old,
the 13 year old is going to bewondering, well, what about me.
And then when they get 16 and17, it's not that they don't
love their five year old brotheror sister or or care about them.
(23:14):
But in their minds, they'refeeling as though somehow or
another, the parents attentionhas gotten siphoned off, and
that the younger brother orsister is favored.
So a lot of what I see labeledsometimes as racism.
(23:38):
I'm not saying that there isn'tsome of that in there.
But it could equally bedescribed as sibling rivalry.
It's sibling rivalry,
kind of this, who's favored?
Who's valued?
(24:04):
And has that been our message
in fact that
everybody's valued.
And that no one is actually moreimportant than another.
(24:24):
This is why I say that.
I think there have to be theseconversations within ourselves.
About what are we doing?
You know, what is our message?
What do people think that westand for?
(24:48):
And have we created a vision
that's big enough
to involve everyone
It's often a lack ofimagination.
And I was, you know that I'm inthe process of moving my dad out
(25:10):
of state, he, he's been in thesame place for 34 years, and
it's it his age, almost 77, thisis a big huge change. So
we were driving 14 hours, and Iwas watching a lot of traffic
coming on and off the freeway.And I had this thought of these
(25:31):
two cars that we were makingroom for the car that was coming
on. And then there was somebody,another car, who didn't lose
their space, I didn't lose myspace, I needed to move slow
down a little bit, in order tosafely have the person come in
front of me, the other person,you know, stayed at their speed,
there was just room. So when youhave an abundance mindset, di is
(25:54):
possible. Right? And thenwhatever we can systematize we
can put in structures andinstitutions and stuff, it
becomes probable.
But first, we start with thepossible it's possible. And I
know you're a big, you know, oneof your one of the things that
(26:14):
you really teach is about this,the power of possibility. And
being that place of possibility.In our, in our conversation
today as communicators reallybeing that place of possibility
for us to make room for anybodywho's entering and exiting. But
everybody still has their role.Everybody is still there, maybe
(26:37):
we have to adjust our speed alittle bit. However, we're all
there in order to get to wherewe want to go. And there's an
alignment there. You know,there's a story that you've told
me
a few times when you were doinga corporate diversity training
(26:57):
at a very large company. And yougot into this discussion, I
believe you were the trainer,and there's someone in the
audience that was kind ofchallenging you around the
marriage equality, conversation.Do you remember the story? Okay,
can you can you recite the storyfor folks, and it's that that
ending, aha, and how you
(27:22):
named the interaction, and themotivation of the audience
member, that you kind of, youput a name to it. And I think
it's incredibly profound andsomething that I think
communicators would benefit froman understanding that hesitancy,
even the pushback, etc, thatthey may be experiencing
(27:42):
specifically from leaders?
Well, it's interesting that youshould ask me about this. Um, I
just included it in one of mypodcasts. Within the last month
or two.
I did the podcast with Dr. AnitaSanchez, one of my colleagues,
(28:03):
and it was kind of a trip downmemory lane asking her did she
remember that moment? Because Iwas doing this work under her
banner, okay, or with herhusband. Their firm is called
scientists tennis. And I was oneof their associates for many,
many years. So we're at thislarge tech company, this
(28:27):
particular event happened inOregon, if I'm not mistaken,
everybody know, it was Colorado,in particular, because this was
when Colorado was the firststate to really get knee deep
into the marriage equalityissue.
This particular training waswith only management. So they
(28:53):
were coming in from all over theplace. At the time, my role
within the training was todiscuss issues in regards to the
LGBTQ community. As far asemployment goes, there was the
company was coming outsupportive of domestic
(29:13):
partnerships, and they werecoming out to be supportive of
whatever it was that needed tohappen within the broader
society to have therelationships between same sex
couples legitimize this wasmaking one particular manager
very, very uncomfortable, veryuncomfortable. And I noticed I
(29:36):
pick pardon, while he was astraight white male, middle
aged.
Yes
professed
Christian,
devout Christian by his own, youknow, definition, and his
(29:57):
frustration was frustrating me
So I knew enough to just stopfor a moment. And I did when I'm
suggesting I listened. So I juststepped back.
And I gave him the floor.
And I said,
(30:19):
what you just said was, youdon't have anything personally
against gay people, you wouldnever do anything to hurt or
harm, discriminate against them,hold them back, give them lesser
assignments on your teams, oranything like that.
(30:39):
You believe that people shouldbe able to be in whatever kind
of relationships that they wantto be in. But you cannot get
behind the company
endorsing domestic partnerships,because you feel that isn't an
encroachment upon yourunderstanding of marriage, which
(31:03):
is in the domain of a male and afemale, according to your
religious beliefs, that thispolicy goes up against your
religious belief. For thatreason, you'll cooperate with it
if you have to, but you can'treally wholeheartedly support
it. And because you don'tsupport it, you don't want to be
(31:26):
considered anti diversity.
And he just,
it was like, somebody took the,the weight right off his
shoulders, and he to sit? Yes,yes, that's what I'm saying. And
I said, you know, I get it.
(31:47):
At this particular point intime, we were just in shock. And
all in Iraq, wasn't too longafter 911.
Supposedly, they had theseweapons of mass destruction that
nobody could find, right?
So I said to him, I get it.
(32:08):
I said, because there is noamount of training in the world,
to convince me that shot in allis okay. I am not against the
military. I don't want to doanything that's gonna hurt the
military. I'm fine with themilitary. But just because I
(32:29):
don't support all of my nation'sforeign policy. And I don't want
to be considered unpatriotic,for doing that.
And at this moment,
we both were standing. And wejust looked at each other, and
(32:50):
we migrated to each other, wehug and we both actually started
to cry.
Amazing, something broke, hedidn't change his mind. I didn't
change my mind. But the conflictstopped, because the conflicts
are never about differences.It's the polarization around the
(33:12):
differences.
And when we depolarize,
we could step into that visionthat we had of what the company
could be.
You saw him, you heard him, youvalued him. And you found that
connection with him.
(33:35):
And it's that listening, likeyou were talking about the two
years, one mouth, that's themain thing that I'm trying to
say is that everybody has to bevalued. And even just in your
analogy that you were makingabout on the road, and can we
(33:56):
make room for the new people whowere like coming in?
But can we also make sure thatthe ones that were already on
the road
are also feeling seen andvalued, like their journeys are
just as important?
(34:21):
As want everyone to take abreath for a second year,
because this is really big.
This is something that's goingto take some time to process. I
mean, every time I heard youhear you share that example, I
met another level of processwith that. Is it that example or
a different example of a timewhere you talk about making
(34:44):
space for fighting for theirright to believe what they
believe in? Oh, yeah.
You're speaking of a debate thatI was in at the
San Francisco club. This wasalso around the issue of
marriage equality.
(35:06):
This particular guy was a Muslimguy with seven children, a
Muslim leader. And let me bemore specific, we were clergy.
And he was very, very anti.
Same sex marriage, marriageequality.
So at the end of the whole thingI said to him, you know, I think
(35:30):
you're wrong, and you think I'mwrong. I said, this is clear. I
said, but that's not the realdifference between us. Our
stance on marriage equality,that's not our difference. I
said, Let me tell you what ourreal difference is. I said, our
real difference is that I willforever fight
(35:51):
for your right to say I'm wrong.
You just want to silence me.
That's what I told him.
I think this is another podcastepisode, talking about this. And
you were talking, you'realluding into it earlier of just
(36:13):
kind of this
power dynamic, the powerstruggle, you are putting your
fists together and having thempushed against each other. And
that it's it's a, it's a, it's ashifting of the power struggle
and the power dynamic, which wesee played out in corporations
at all levels. And I think whatthose two examples that you just
(36:35):
shared, are things that us ascommunicators really need to
take some time to really processand see where we are. Not making
space, not valuing
where we just want to powerforward, rather than bring
people with us is not part ofthe definition of leadership is
(36:58):
like, you know, turning aroundand looking to see if anyone's
behind you. Anything you want tospeak to that and your closing
thoughts.
I have a series out calledLetters from the infinite.
They're just these divinedownloads that I get in the form
of letters it's published bysounds true. And there is a
(37:20):
definition that's given of areligion. And what religious
edicts if there are any, likewhat those should be principles,
and I think it applies to Dei.
It said that any kind ofreligious laws should should be
(37:43):
like traffic laws.
They don't tell you where to go.
They just ensure that everybodycan arrive safely at their own
destination without interferingwith each other's journeys. Oh,
damn, this is good, keep going.
(38:06):
I'll say it again.
That I believe that dei shouldbe like this definition that was
given about religious laws, saidreligious laws should be like
traffic laws.
And this is what I think dineeds to be. It doesn't tell you
(38:28):
where to go.
It just ensures that each andevery person can arrived safely
at their destination
without interfering with eachother's journeys
(38:54):
take a breath with me listeners.
People are going to have somefeelings about we just what we
just talked about. And Iencourage folks to process them
to
you know, find support. You'vegot rev DS podcasts that you can
(39:16):
listen to. And her books. Tellus about those Rev.
Yes, so my podcast you can findon any podcast channel, under
REV D. Now I have a rev D nowchannel that has three podcasts
shows on it.
And by books you can findonline. The sacred Yes, and your
(39:41):
deepest intent, both in theletters from the infinite
series. And those are the kindsof books that you don't like,
right, you know, go from thebeginning. It's one of those
that you just kind of open upand just just see see where
you're led to see what needs tobe spoken to you in
In that moment, for sure, and Ido coaching,
(40:03):
you know, and as well as youknow, continual continual,
you know, consulting, as well asongoing training, because, you
know, when one time trainingdoesn't work, so you have to do
it on a regular basis, but alsoembedding it within our
communication policies andprocesses, our editorial
(40:24):
workflow, all of the things, oneof the other sayings that rev D
has is that,
and I've, you know, and to putcommunicators spin on it, it's
that, you know, whatever youwant is, the result has to be a
part of the process, which Ibelieve you shared in our first
podcast. So if you want dicommunications as a result, and
(40:45):
di Communications has to be apart of the process doesn't
magically happen without itintentionally built into our
systems and processes. So we'regonna keep talking, we're gonna
have you back as our ourcorrespondent, to, to di
communications, thank you foryour generous sharing, please
support Rev. D. And all that shedoes follow her, engage with
(41:08):
her. But don't, don't brush thisaway what you heard in this
podcast episode, specifically,or any, any, any, anytime that
you hear rev D speak, let it sitwith you, you get mad at it,
punch in the air about it.Because another one of her
sayings is, maybe we'll talkabout this in a future podcast,
(41:31):
but the whole idea of feel DL,he'll
and famous musicians have evenput that on a slide while they
are on concert and in tour. Andso this is something and Oprah,
you know, talked about itbecause of a young love and that
quoting you, during one of hermajor shows that she's done. So
(41:56):
it's out there in the world, butyou need to know that it's rev D
that talks about these things.And they're profound. And just
imagine I've been mentoring,I've been mentoring under her
for 20 years. We're recordingthis in April and 2023. And
we've known each other for 19years, it was April 2004. When
we first met, and I knew what Iwas getting into then, and I've
(42:19):
changed my life, you've changed1000s of lives. And then because
of that ripple effect, it hasimproved millions of lives. So
thank you for your work and yourlegacy.
Well, thank you, Kim. And
you know, I'm not saying I havethe answer. I'm not saying that
(42:40):
any one person has the answer.What I'm saying is that we need
to engage in the conversation.
I love the way that Lynne twistputs it. Another one of my
colleagues who also has endorsedmy work. She says the problem is
not our on answered questions.It's our unquestioned answers.
(43:12):
So much that I have to processthrough just this conversation.
On ongoing Oh, Rev. D, thank youso much. Thank you for being
back and for gifting yourknowledge. We have a transcribed
dinner conversation that Iturned into an article, and we
will put it in the show notes.It's talking about understanding
(43:35):
the DEI backlash. And so y'allneed to go a little deeper on
this work. So we're going toinclude a link to that article
for you to learn more. And Ihave done trainings and speaking
engagements based on thatarticle, people are like, talk
to us more about what that lookslike and feels like and I bring
that article and reference itthroughout and turn it into a
(44:00):
real you know, in real life kindof experience for people to work
through because we have to havethese conversations. We have to
talk about this. The fastest wayis through, not under not
running away, not blocking
the facet and it's only forwardfrom here. Thank you rev D for
leading this work and for thelast several decades of leading
(44:23):
this work and all the differentways that you have my pleasure.
Take care
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.