December 9, 2022 • 76 mins
In this two-part episode, we talk with Tina Lopes and Barb Thomas, the authors of Dancing on Live Embers: Challenging Racism in Organizations. Tina and Barb highlight how to utilize and improve organizational assessments to measure anti-racism efforts in non-profit and anti-sexual violence organizations.
You can learn more about Tina and the book at tinalopes.com. Other works from Barb can be found through Between the Lines Publications.
Learn More:
- PA Centered: Dancing on Live Embers with Tina Lopes and Barb Thomas –
- Part 1/Episode 8 - https://pacentered.podbean.com/e/8/
- Part 2/Episode 9 - https://pacentered.podbean.com/e/episode-8dancing-on-live-embers-with-tina-lopes-and-barb-thomas-%e2%80%93-part-2/
- PCAR’s Organizational Assessment (adapted from Dancing on Live Embers) - 2020 Org Assessment Blank Version found here: S:\Diversity\BACH Workgroup\Org Assessment\2020 Org Assessment Blank Version
- Racism in the Movement by PCAR’s Management Staff - https://pcar.org/blog/racism-movement
How the Mainstream Movement Against Gender-Based Violence Fails Black Workers and Survivors - https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2022/03/racism-domestic-violence-sexual-assault-movement-anti-me-too-black/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:08):
Welcome to PA Centered, a podcast designed to help listeners be a part
of the solution to end sexual harassment, abuse, and assault.
Each episode, we will take on a topic or current event to help
spark conversation and break down barriers to building communities free
from sexual violence. This is part two of the episode, Dancing on Live
(00:29):
Embers with Tina Lopez and Barb Thomas. If you haven't listened to part
one yet, we encourage you to go back and do so first.
This episode picks up right where we left off at the end of
episode one. Enjoy. Hi, I'm Tatiana Piper. I use she, her pronouns,
and I'm the Community Advocacy Coordinator at the Pennsylvania Coalition
(00:50):
Against Rape. I'll be your host today as we're joined by Tina Lopez and
Barb Thomas, the authors of Dancing on Live Embers, Challenging Racism and
Organizations. Welcome Tina and Barb. Thank you. Thanks so much, Tatiana.
I'm glad to be back with you. I'm so glad to have you back,
(01:12):
both of you back on PA Centered. If you haven't had a chance
to listen to episodes eight and nine, I highly encourage you to go
back and take a listen. In those two episodes, Barb and Tina discuss
the themes from the book and how white privilege and power show up
as obstacles in nonprofits and especially anti sexual violence organizations.
(01:36):
And on today's episode, Tina and Barb are here to talk about how
to utilize and improve organizational assessments to measure anti racism
efforts. First I want to say thank you both for authoring
such a incredible guiding book. The examples, resources, tools are a great
(01:59):
asset to organizations looking to improve and supplement their racial justice
work. One piece we found at PCAR helpful is section five,
the more tools and strategies section. So much so that when it was
time to find a tool to measure PCAR's progress towards becoming an anti
(02:20):
racist and inclusive organization, our building accountability and cultural
humility work group, leadership team, and board were able to work together
to adapt and implement the organizational checklist for racial equity, which
is on page 245, to fit our organization's structure and needs. And so
(02:41):
I know we want to take a minute just to
introduce our social identities before we dive into this conversation.
I, Tatiana, am a black cis woman, and I believe I pass it
to you all to introduce, Barb. Hi everybody. This is a real pleasure
(03:02):
to be back with you, Tatiana. I am a white cis woman
stumbling along trying to do anti racism work.
Perhaps we can talk about that a little later. Hello, Tatiana and everyone
listening. This is Tina Lopez. I'm really glad to be back because it's
(03:26):
a signal to me that the work that you're doing to advocate for
change in PCAR is working. So thanks for inviting us back.
I say that because as a racialized person, as we say in Canada,
or as you say in the States, a person of color,
I've been doing anti racism work for over 30 years and seeing how
(03:48):
quickly it often falls off the table. I'm also
learning a lot as a woman with many privileges. I have cis privilege.
I'm self identified as heterosexual and English is my first language.
And what I'm finding compelling in my work is
(04:11):
having conversations with people about how we have both privileges and experiences
of discrimination and oppression and the kinds of skills it takes to be
able to work from both those identities and dynamics. So
let's talk more about that too. I really appreciate that, Tina.
(04:33):
And I always welcome these conversations with both of you. I've learned
so much from you both over the years. I'm very grateful
for those opportunities. So diving into today's topic,
Tina, can you tell us what an organizational assessment should do and why
(04:56):
should organizations use them? I'm chuckling a bit, Tatiana, when I hear
that question. Mostly because the checklist, and as you say, we put one
in our book and we put one in there because it's one of
(05:17):
the most frequent requests that we had. Can you give us a checklist?
And we knew that there are lots of pros and cons to developing
tools like this. So the positive is that for people who are busy
and rushing and who want something that feels manageable and something that
(05:41):
will focus their work, an organizational checklist is a really helpful thing
because it identifies some key areas of work and it helps people who
sometimes, all of us feel overwhelmed at the thought of how do we
change our organizations. And so the tool is beneficial because it helps
(06:03):
to settle some of that anxiety and it offers some clear specific areas
of working. It is, however, at the back of our book for a
reason because there's so much work that needs to be done
at the individual level, at the interpersonal level, and at the systemic
(06:27):
level to prepare people to actually engage in the work that the organizational
assessment checklist point to. So there's lots to say about that,
but I'm going to let Barb add and then I'll probably come back
in. Well, I think also the checklist is useful
(06:48):
when we have a frame of mind of learning
and not of proving. And by that I mean Tina and I have
both been in organizations where the checklist is used
to tick things off, to prove to funders that they're woke and things
(07:14):
are good. And in the course of that, more harm is done
to racialized people in the organization who are actually trying to
get something done. So I would say that in the way that Tina identified
this, it's a bit of a double edged sword. It requires
(07:35):
an openness and a curiosity about really learning where racism is lodged
in the organization so that we can do something about it.
If that isn't the mindset, then actually harm can be done.
(07:55):
I don't know whether you want to say
more about that, Tina. I think we could wax a bit eloquent about
what not to do, but anyway, I just needed to say that that
needs to be the frame of reference, that it's gathering information.
White supremacy is the default. It takes everyday effort to keep racism
(08:18):
on the table as a project to dismantle.
And if people are thinking it's a quick fix,
then more people will be hurt in the organization as a result of
that. I'd love to add to that, if I may, Tatiana. Yes. So I
(08:42):
wish that we had stamped a handle with caution
on the organizational change checklist when it was published,
because we find people with really good intentions latching onto it and
using it in ways that actually do the opposite of what they're intending,
(09:06):
which is that it's being often used to reinforce
the privileges and advantages of whiteness and in ways that people
don't have some consciousness of. So what do I mean by that?
One of the ways in which our checklist is often used is that
(09:29):
it's sent to individuals in an organization and they're asked to respond,
and then the responses are collected. And that's actually a highly problematic
way to use this checklist, because there's no way to know how individuals
(09:49):
understood each of the items in the checklist to make sure they had
a shared understanding to look at who was responding and why.
So for example, one of the items in our checklist is
people in the organization feel supported and encouraged to speak up about
(10:11):
racism. It would be important to be able to
tell if the people who are saying, "Yes, we feel very supported"
experience the privileges and protections of whiteness in the organization,
and if the people who are saying no
are people of color. The other thing is that
(10:36):
these organizational assessments ideally should be used as a catalyst for
discussion, for education, rather than being sent to individuals. What we
were hoping is that these items on the checklist would be brought to
committee meetings, staff meetings, wherever the organization is gathering
(10:58):
to have a conversation about, so what do we think? So it's evident
who is speaking and why. And in the absence of that
really important factor or condition that Tina is talking about, what can
(11:19):
happen and what we've seen happen is that
people of color who feel invited to say actually,
no, I don't feel comfortable raising the fact that my supervisor treats
me differently than she treats or he treats
my white colleague are punished for saying that because the scores are not
(11:45):
as good on the results because it was never intended to gather information
in order to fix things. So it's, yes, stamped,
stamped, use with caution. I like that, Tina. Well, I think one thing
(12:09):
I'm hearing and picking up from you both is the intentionality for using
an assessment tool or checklist like this really needs to
be handled with care and needs to be
the impact of the questions that are asked and who they're being asked
(12:31):
of truly has to be considered before even going down the road of
do we or how do we measure our organizational
improvements or culture change? And so I've explained a bit
(12:54):
about PCAR's organizational assessment and as the authors of the original
assessment that we adapted from, how or in what ways could PCAR or
just similar racial justice assessments be even more useful, especially
(13:16):
tying in that intentionality pieces that we spoke about?
There's so much to say about that, Tatiana. It's a great question,
how to make these organizational assessment checklists more useful and more
(13:40):
effective. And you said a number of things. One of the things is
that you said as a way of measuring progress
and, you know, kudos to PCAR for asking to
do the assessment and for putting it in place. PCAR has got a racial
(14:04):
justice policy. It's made statements clearly that says
that it wants to function as an organization both internally and externally
in a way that addresses and dismantles racism. And so
(14:24):
my understanding is that this organizational change assessment was asked
for by leaders and some of the results
have now been captured. So the question then is how do you interpret
the results of the assessment? That's one of the key points to whether
(14:46):
or not you're measuring change is that when you conduct these assessments,
you're creating a bit of a benchmark of where we are at now.
And if we return to this assessment, and I think PCAR has a
plan to do that, how do you measure
if you have actually been doing work to shift
(15:08):
the ways in which the organization is functioning in these various areas
that have been itemized? So if we go back to the point that
I'm making about these assessment tools being used to establish a benchmark
of where things are at now, I would say it would be important
(15:30):
to not take this as individual responses, but to actually have conversations
as employee groups because one of the biggest
myths about equity or anti racism work or EDI work, whatever the language,
(15:52):
racial justice work, one of the biggest myths is that
your personal opinion about whether it's happening and how it's happening
and whether things are better or worse is
the most relevant factor. And actually that's a really dangerous
myth that is widely held, that individuals' personal opinions about these
(16:18):
things are a critical way of doing this work. We know from the
work of sexual violence that lots of people with lots of identities have
individual opinions about whether a survivor should be believed, about the
kinds of questions a survivor of sexual violence can or not to be
asked. And so it's similar with racism. Rather than relying on personal
(16:47):
opinion, I think these organizational assessment tools should be used to
determine what are the patterns that we're seeing in different parts of
our organization. So we look at these, some of the questions we've posed
in the organizational assessments are not just about how individuals think
(17:08):
things are happening, but they're about systemic practices.
So are supervisors in the way they're making decisions being consistent
or are there ways in which decision making by supervisors, managers or executives
are being differentially applied to people based on the bodies they're in?
(17:32):
And is there a correlation between what's happening to employees inside
the organization and what's happening to the people being served in programs?
So how do we use these tools to create organizational
patterns based on the informed gathering of evidence by people in different
(17:56):
parts of the organization? Well, that makes my brain
go in so many different directions, Tina, because I do think that one
of the things missing and just to kind of lay out the structure
of what is in your book and also what we adapted at PCAR is
(18:19):
it's a question and then it says no, working on it or yes.
And so that doesn't lend itself to getting those bits that you're talking
about is what are the factors that go into it? So
if we're talking about supportive supervision, it doesn't really take into
(18:44):
account the individuals or even the teams or departments experience of what
they're experiencing, how they're experiencing it and doesn't really give
us information on how to improve their experience
because it's not looking at those more detailed
(19:06):
systemic and patterns. So that makes so much sense to me.
Thank you, Tina, for that. I wanted to just reiterate something again that's
in the spirit of what Tina is saying.
If we think that this is going to be a quick fix because
(19:30):
we've put a couple of systems in place
and we need to be able to show progress,
then when we look at, for example, a situation where it says people
are supported for speaking about racism and racial equity in the workplace
(19:52):
and let's say half of the people say no
and a third of the people say yes
and somebody's in the middle, of course that's not going to be fixed
yet. Of course, racialized people are more likely to be labeled as troublemakers
(20:16):
and inconvenient people for raising the question of racism once again.
And maybe they've had to do it before and maybe they've experienced racism
15 times before they finally complained. That's not in there.
So there needs to be a mindset that this is humble work.
(20:40):
This is everyday work. This is not going to be fixed
quickly and the conversations that Tina is talking about are really,
really important for people to tease out the threads and the complexities
of how these things are happening and not happening and maybe it's a
(21:01):
little bit better than it was last year, yay, and maybe it's now
some other stuff is coming up that wasn't there before. And we need
to have that conversation and figure out how to do it without putting
racialized people, people of color at more risk.
(21:25):
In order to do that, which is so important, Barb of not putting
people of color at risk, you know, Tatiana, when you were reading out
the categories of no working on it and yes, which is the categories
available to people on the checklist, part of the reason I'm saying to
(21:46):
use this as a catalyst and not as an exact tool
is that, then what would happen is as people are answering these questions
and checking either the no, the yes, or the working on it,
the most significant question isn't to tally up the answers, but it's to
(22:07):
say, "Well, how do you know? What is the evidence you are using
and how is your own social identity affecting the evidence you're pointing
to?" That those are the critical parts of implementing conversations about
this tool if you are going to actually establish a meaningful way of
(22:32):
measuring how the organization is doing, how people even have that conversation
around a table in the different bodies they're in.
Actually practicing anti oppression or anti racism skills would mean
that you would be talking about how power is playing out
(22:55):
organizationally, socially, even in having a discussion about why you put
your check mark in a particular column. And I am a visual person,
so as you're talking, I'm kind of visualizing what that would look like,
especially what that would look like at an organization like PCAR. So that's
(23:21):
kind of the thing that I'm thinking is, you know, by going by
question and having folks meet who are saying no
to be in one space, folks that said working on it in another
space and folks that said yes in their
separate space and having those conversations to get out of, Well,
(23:45):
why is it yes for you or why is it working on it
or why is it no? What are your experiences? Where in the organization
do you fit? What's your level of leadership? What's your social identities?
Is that what you are imagining or feel could be best practice or
(24:09):
is there something different in how that could look for organizations, especially
sexual violence organizations? My mind is excited by the image you were
drawing because it wasn't the image in my mind, Tatiana. That's what I love
(24:30):
about these conversations is that it's not like there's only one way of
doing this. So I'm enjoying the fact that you had a very different
image in your head than the one I had.
Some of what I think we need to take into account in answering
that question is what Barb was pointing to earlier, how do we ensure
(24:54):
that the process does not paint a bull's eye on the chests of
people of color who are already at risk in having this conversation?
And so I imagine when you were talking about having people in different
spaces based on how they answered, I don't know if that was your
(25:16):
thinking, but one of the reasons for that that came to mind as
I was listening to you is that you would want to make it
a space where there's less risk to people based on the bodies they're in
to provide a rationalization for why they chose to put a check mark
(25:37):
the way they did. I was in a different place with this.
I was actually thinking, for example, of executive and senior leadership
teams having those conversations before they try and have them with staff,
because it's really important for people with organizational and hierarchical
(26:01):
power to be mindful about what they're asking
the people who report to them to do.
So I was thinking of that discussion happening first
by people who have the most power to do something with the results.
(26:22):
And for that, executive and senior leadership people who come together would
need to have that conversation with each other first. And I often in
organizations that I'm walking into in 2022, there aren't that many people
of color in senior leadership teams. And so I wouldn't want to put
(26:45):
the one or two, maybe if we're lucky, three people of color on
the spot to be away from or all by themselves.
But I think that what we would have to do is
lay the groundwork. So Barb and I often talk about how she as a
(27:07):
white woman, will assist white leaders to really
develop some competencies to think about how their whiteness as leaders
will have an impact on the conversation. Barb, would you like to say
something about that? Well, just what's coming to my mind right now,
(27:33):
I could speak about this a long time, but
in an organization that I was in last week,
there was a lot of rumor in the background about a woman who
had been fired. And she was a black woman and
(27:59):
she apparently, nobody's clear why she was fired,
but she was told, somebody told about her to the seniors and
she was fired. So there's a conversation in the organization now about what
(28:23):
happened there. And one of the things that happens is who gets the
benefit of the doubt when somebody reports something
and who does not get the benefit of the doubt. In fact, at the
first opportunity, the worst is thought. So in this organization that I
(28:44):
continue to work in, there are very mediocre white people
who look like me, who are making mistakes all the time and whose
mistakes are not being reported. And if they are being reported,
nothing is being done about them. So I think this is a thread
that goes under the skin of all of that we're talking about here.
(29:11):
And when we're talking about white leaders, we have to get them to
think about who they're giving the benefit of the doubt to
and whose mistakes get free passage. So that is one place that we
start, usually with a case or something that's happened recently, because
(29:33):
there's always something that's happened recently in an organization that
we can work with. So I don't know whether that's enough to start
with, Tina. I know, for example, that as a white person,
I get given the benefit of the doubt all the time.
And that is something that I can start with,
(29:56):
with a group of people. How do you know I'm telling you the
truth? You just like my face, you like the way I talk,
I kind of fit in with you. What are some of the ways
I fit in with you? How would I be talking if I didn't
fit in with you? And it's not a comfortable conversation, but I can
(30:19):
raise that question and keep smiling at people and then we have to
have the conversation. You know, you are saying that, Barb makes me think
about the importance there is for, if you're having Black, Indigenous and
(30:40):
other people of color staff, that their supervisor
needs to be armed with the ability to give the benefit of the
doubt, not just to their white staff, but to, as you all say, racialized
staff as well. And that they have to have that skill
(31:04):
in order to effectively supervise staff of color.
So I would go one step further as we do in the book.
And that is to say that if I'm a white supervisor,
a racialized or staff of color and white staff,
I need to anticipate the inequities that are already going on
(31:29):
in the lives of the racialized staff. And how those inequities and racial
injustice are affecting their ability to do their jobs and the working conditions
that they're working under. And if I'm not doing that,
and I'm treating everybody the same, then I'm actually contributing to the
(31:50):
racist environment that they're in. If you understand what I'm trying to
say. Tina, maybe you can explain it better.
Not better, but I think this is one of the places where you
and I often have conversations, Barb, because I get worried when I hear
you saying white people anticipating the inequities that indigenous Black
(32:14):
and people of color face. Because I don't think white people can be
trusted to do that skillfully and knowledgeably, though I really appreciate
what you're pointing to. And what I would invite instead
is for white leaders to look at the unearned advantages they confer on
(32:36):
other white people without noticing. I think that will point more clearly,
and that's an appropriate examination for white people, is to look at how
white advantage and whiteness and white supremacy is actually working already.
So I'm offering that as an adjustment to what you're saying,
(33:00):
partly because, you know, you and I have been doing this work for
a long time, I've yet to meet an overtly, staunchly, you know, deliberately
racist white person in leadership. Often there are people who genuinely
(33:21):
want to do the right thing, who when they make statements about
wanting to dismantle racism mean it, but then are really
naive or unprepared for what it really means,
and then start to read books about Indigenous people or Black people.
And that isn't actually the work that will be most productive,
(33:47):
because rather than, you know, trying to learn about how racism is operating,
it would be very helpful if white people were doing due diligence on
how whiteness is operating and has been and continues to
and how they and others are benefiting so that they can start to
(34:08):
interrupt that. Part of the reason I'm raising that is because,
you know, I was, you and I had a conversation, we were quite
moved by the racism in the movement blog or article that PCAR management
staff made on May 3, 2022. It's unusual to have the management staff
(34:32):
of an organization say things like, you know, PCAR is the oldest
state anti sexual violence coalition in the nation, and we see ourselves
in this article is a strong statement to make, and they go on
further in this article to say white staff, particularly those in management
(34:58):
and leadership positions, must be committed to and actively seek out a lifetime
of anti racism learning and actions. I remember
when I read that, being moved by it and feeling like
it was a hopeful position to take so publicly.
(35:23):
Yes. And then, you know, and kudos for management for doing that in
a publicly posted blog. And then as with all of us,
you know, I critique myself as a person with heterosexual privilege about
where I then start to fall down in the work.
And in looking at that blog, some of the actions that were being
(35:47):
given as examples of how PCAR is doing that,
I found a little disappointing. And it's not because I don't think there
was sincere desire to live up to the statement,
but it's because I think we remain at the awareness level in this
(36:07):
work. So, you know, there's a lot of items there about listening to
black leaders, which is important and signing a letter.
But what you and I have been trying to do in the organizational
assessment is to insist that there are commitments made by leaders,
(36:28):
not just to awareness building, but to actually focus specific
areas of internal change work that they can be held accountable for.
And so I'm hoping that the white leaders don't just demonstrate that they
(36:50):
care about indigenous black and people of color, but that they are willing
to be held accountable for how white advantages are still operating.
Thank you, Tina, so much for that call to action. There's something,
so there's such, you have such an ability to give a call to action
(37:15):
in the form of grace that is truly a gift. And I'm so
grateful to be able to be in a space and witness it. And so thank
you, Tina. You know, one thing that we
have definitely talked and hit on is the importance of centering
(37:39):
Black indigenous and other people of color in this work, not just as
a form of being anti racist, but in the
steps towards becoming anti racist because there does,
when we do things without intentionality, or we do things without thinking
(38:00):
them truly through, there is the risk in racial justice work to cause
harm, especially to those at the center of the margins. And so one
thing I know that, when we developed our
assessment, or more so adapt our assessment from yours is that we didn't
(38:20):
include our take into account people's social identities.
Our thought process at the time was we didn't want people's answers to
be able to be identified by their social identities.
But it now feels like a misstep or
a place where we should have reached out
(38:44):
for help on that on that piece. Is there an importance to including
people's social identities? I just want to say that that wasn't an oversight
on your part. I think, you know, we're always learning about the gaps
in in this book that we publish. We didn't do it either in
(39:07):
our book. So here we are learning as we go and reflecting on
a shortcoming in our own practice, which I'm grateful
we're having this conversation because I would do it differently. You know,
(39:28):
the next time so... The three columns that you use in yours are
the three columns we have in ours, and we have no
space in there for differentiating social identities in that.
But I guess just a thought in response to your and maybe it's
(39:53):
not a direct answer to your question. When we collect the data as
sort of written slips of paper, the identities are erased and they get
homogenized in the way that we've been talking about.
So if we are to differentiate and also create safety
(40:18):
for people most at risk in the organization,
then obviously the ways that we use this
assessment tool need to be much more creative than we've been with it.
And how that gets done in whether it's, you know, racialized staff getting
(40:45):
together, white staff getting together after the kind of
senior management work that Tina also talked about.
How we organize this so that we're getting that
(41:05):
specificity and not increasing the risk I think is a really important conversation.
At the risk of, you know, repeating myself and maybe
being a little bit defensive about the org assessment, I confess it's at
(41:30):
the back of the book because there's so much work to be done
beforehand. And the many sections in the book before section five
really outline the kind of work that leaders whether they're in boards of
education or sexual violence centers or, you know, a federal department
(41:54):
or a small little brave women's organization somewhere in a rural town,
that there is work to be done that,
to in order to be equipped to do this work.
So at PCAR you do so much to
educate people in the field, right, about sexual
(42:20):
violence prevention. There are all the resources on the PCAR website that
are educational because we need to learn how
to analyze what is happening that is putting survivors of sexual violence
at further risk and harm, even in the systems that are set up
(42:42):
to support, right, and how we replicate, how we internalize the very
oppression that we're trying to challenge. So with racism it's no different.
And I want to actually hold up the work that you,
Tatiana and Jackie and others at PCAR did in creating a fantastic rubric
(43:07):
that brought together some of the insights from
sexual violence work and racial violence work. That is a tool that I
think leaders could use well. So just to say to the question that
you're asking about, you know, should we get people to self identify when
(43:33):
completing the organizational assessment tool? I don't think that that would,
that's the conclusion I'm hoping people will take.
What we were doing is saying that is a barrier to accurately interpreting
(43:54):
or understanding the implications of the results. But the fix isn't to get
people to self identify. The fix is to have people
in different parts of the organization particularly those with the most
organizational power, to have the necessary, discomforting conversations
(44:23):
with each other about the implications of the items in that organizational
checklist. Many senior leaders genuinely and sincerely make statements about
wanting to dismantle racism, seeing the connections between
(44:44):
sexual violence work and addressing racism, poverty, classism, right? This
is known now. And senior leaders will genuinely say we want to do
this work and invite people in and hire people into the organization whose
job description says you will educate and raise issues around
(45:09):
racial justice slash EDI slash anti racism. And I want to pause and
say, wait a minute, those are three very different terms.
So before you put out that job description or you put out a
policy or you make a statement, it would be worthwhile having a discussion
about which term you are choosing and why.
(45:31):
Because in the same way that sexual violence work requires an analysis
of how men are privileged and people who self identify or
the gendering of gender based violence and how that gets replicated in institutions,
(45:52):
we have to do the same thing with racism.
So when senior leaders genuinely invite people, the really
consistent and troubling thing that happens is then people start to take
them at their word and give them the feedback they are asking for
about how are we doing, how are we doing in being a racism
(46:16):
free organization or addressing this. And then lo and behold, they hear
things that are really, don't make them feel good.
They get feedback that is hard to hear. And so what we often
see, what I'm seeing in three or four organizations that I'm working with
currently, senior leaders start to blame the messenger, so the people who
(46:41):
are telling them things are broken in their organization get diagnosed as
having some problems, they are seen as not competent, they get painted as
the problem. Or people who are seen as
(47:01):
causing, as John Lewis said, making good trouble, doing actually what they
need to be doing to fulfill not just their job responsibilities but their
commitment to stopping gender based violence by raising these questions
(47:21):
get punished in different ways. And so when that starts to happen in
an organization, people who believed that there was a possibility for making
change and then see people around them being punished for doing it,
it's a worse betrayal than being in an organization where leaders don't
(47:46):
even mention wanting to do anti racism work.
It's debilitating, and I speak as a person who has experienced racism all
my life and who's been working in organizations in good faith,
genuinely trying to create solidarity with white people to do this work.
(48:10):
And when I see that actually people are not living up to their
word as leaders, or worse still finding other people of color who are
willing to make things more palatable and bringing them forward, those kinds
of wounds hurt not just the organization but the movement.
(48:34):
And so I am saying let's not go for
the things that put individuals at risk like self identifying, let's actually
build in some norms and expectations of people to do the hard work
of looking at if we're inviting this, what is this going to cost
(48:55):
me? What is this going to cost the leadership team? What is this
going to cost the organization? Thank you, Tina. The thing that I'm
thinking about, because a lot of times when we do or have trainings
or resources geared towards anti racism, we often get the folks who
(49:22):
have been on the receiving end of that repercussions.
And really I think what you described was trauma
or vicarious trauma for those as bystanders. And I guess my question
(49:43):
for you both is how can, for those listening, how can they heal
from those traumas from racism that they're experiencing in that
institutional betrayal that you spoke of? I'm pausing because there's so
(50:16):
much heartbreak in your question, Tatiana. Yeah, you're putting your finger
on the psychological, spiritual, emotional, physical impacts of standing
(50:42):
up and naming and the consequences of the punishment that happens,
the having to experience it 24 hours, seven days a week,
(51:03):
shopping on the transit, getting groceries, walking through the doors at
work, and then on top of that often getting hired
to do the work and then on top of that
being isolated, critiqued for how we do the work.
(51:25):
And so I don't want to rush to an answer of healing without
taking a moment to really let it sink in
what the costs are of having to show up as
(51:46):
particularly indigenous people and black people. I don't experience anti
black racism. I'm a person of colour of South Asian descent.
It's very clear to me that there are different costs to you as
a black woman, Tatiana, than there are to me.
We both experience racism, but I don't experience anti black racism.
(52:11):
I would begin a conversation with you there by just
acknowledging that some of the healing needs to happen amongst us and with
us and by us. And I wish that more organisations would recognise that
and make resources available to us so that we can do that work.
(52:35):
In the spaces that we need and we choose rather than having to
do them in the context of an organizational initiative where everyone is
just brought in because there are definitely differential costs and impacts.
I'd love to say more about that, but I really want to make
(52:56):
sure that when you're speaking about bystanders and the impact of bystanders
that, you know, I really find it important to listen to Barb when
she's talking about as a white person making choices that are different
so that we don't as indigenous and black and racialized people have to
(53:17):
bear the brunt. And so I'm just going to invite that
as well. I was in a meeting yesterday
to begin an advisory committee for a dismantling systemic racism project
in an organisation that I'm working in. And
(53:42):
there were three white people, myself included in the room, and they were
all seasoned indigenous and black people who had tried
in very many ways to move the organisation through an indigenous circle,
through a coalition of racialized workers. And it was an honour that they
(54:08):
came together for this day because it takes a lot
to hope again that this time there might be, it might be less
damaging and it might be less painful. And so
one of the things that I found myself doing yesterday
(54:31):
was listening and asking questions and trying to identify the areas where
we might work and what conversations about race and colonialism
and white supremacy we needed to have in the organisation. And
(54:55):
we were only together for a day. We were only getting to know
each other again for the day. And so I felt like part of
my role was just to slow things down
so that we could all listen to each other and take in
all the wisdom, the pain, the struggle to
(55:22):
hope again, the need for white people to step up, the continual ways
that white obliviousness to our privilege and the way we were using it
(55:46):
was painful and contributed to the extra work that these people had to
do. So I would say that there are conversations that I can have
with white leaders that I need to have with white leaders.
(56:07):
And it's tricky because in the same way that Tina said before,
you can't know in your white body what somebody else's experience is.
I as a white person who have a stake
in an equitable organisation that doesn't divide me from people I care about
(56:30):
and work alongside and I have to speak up
humbly and to engage conversations humbly and to continually
(56:51):
ask questions and listen when I don't know. And a lot of the
time I don't know. All I know is
that my silence is an exercise of white
privilege. My silence is an exercise of white privilege and so
(57:18):
I start with that. I want to pick up on something there because
I want to explore this question that you're asking about healing Tatiana
with real humility because I don't feel like I really have an answer.
(57:41):
I don't. What I want to do is explore some
of the questions that arise for me as we're thinking about that
and part of the reason I wanted Barb to talk about
the role of white people is that part of what I would like
(58:01):
to see organisations do is put the onus on white people to do
more of the work and give us the space to do
more of our healing. There's been a real inequity
and the point I was trying to make earlier is that we live
the impact of racism in our personal lives, in our social lives,
(58:23):
in our political lives, in our culture, there isn't an aspect of any
place where we go where it's not alive and
shaping our experiences and so to have to do it, to have to
experience it at work and then to do the heavy lifting
(58:44):
of dismantling it is so problematic in so many ways and I want to be
cautious here because I don't, you know, sometimes Indigenous, Black and
people of colour get anxious when I say things like that because many
employment opportunities that have been made available to us are under the
(59:07):
conditions that we will do that work. Dismissing all the other knowledge
and skills that we bring and assuming that that is the most useful
way we can contribute to the organisation which is, you know, such a
manifestation of racism and so, you know, when Barb is speaking about white
(59:33):
people silence making it more dangerous for us because then
we have to speak up because we don't have a choice.
We either speak up or we suffer the consequences or we feel we're
betraying others who are experiencing the racism and if we're given a voice
(59:55):
then we should use it. There are many ways in which I feel
like we get just squeezed in these vice grips of, if you're in
the belly of an organisation and you're Indigenous or Black or a person
of colour there are triple pressures to do something
(01:00:16):
because you're in the organisation, speak up to benefit those who need the
services. Speak up on behalf of those who are new to the organisation and
are innocent enough that they don't know what's going to come at them
and speak up because how can you look yourself in the mirror?
(01:00:38):
And so we experience these huge pressures from our communities, from ourselves
and I think that part of our healing is to
put some of that pressure where it belongs
on white people in the organisation, to have the organisation actually begin
(01:01:03):
to quantify and compensate appropriately the work that we have to do
and the differential costs because of the bodies that we're in and to
actually have a monetary figure for that. Many organisations have women's
(01:01:23):
committees, have all kinds of initiatives that are viewed as good but then
when you want to have a committee that's looking at, that gives Indigenous
people a place to come together as Indigenous people, there are questions
raised, do we have the resources, how come that happens on paid time?
(01:01:45):
I'm going on and on but I'm wanting to broaden this question of
healing from the many good things to be said about how we heal
spiritually and emotionally and psychologically in many ways but I want
to, because this is a conversation about organizational assessments
(01:02:05):
and the internal work that has to happen
organizationally, I want to be very explicit and clear
that in the same way as we understand the supports that are necessary
for survivors of sexual violence to heal is a long term,
differentially resourced process, that that same analysis needs to come
(01:02:29):
into as we explore response to the question that you've posed about it,
Tatiana. Absolutely. I think the important thing that's been brought up
throughout our conversation today is the role of leaders, senior leaders
(01:02:55):
in not just organizational assessments but just in the scope of doing and
becoming an anti racist organisation. So Barb, what are some ways
(01:03:16):
that you feel are crucial roles of those senior leaders to,
I feel like we've hit on a lot
of them thus far but are there some other roles of senior leaders?
I think that once again Tina has talked about the desire of most
(01:03:42):
senior leaders in the organisations that we work, many of these are white
women and they're white women who are progressive
around feminist issues for example and who have fought a really good fight
for the liberation of women, who have a good analysis of patriarchy and
(01:04:06):
who see themselves on the underside of that power.
And Tina referred to earlier the trick of
recognizing that you may be on the underside of one kind of power
and on the oversight of another kind of power. So in this case
(01:04:27):
there is a lot of work for white women leaders to do,
because that's mostly what I'm dealing with, I'm dealing with more white
women than I am with white men, to
look at their roles as activists around patriarchy
(01:04:52):
and try to think about what that looks like then when they are
part of the white spaces and the white supremacy that is oppressing other
people. And so that means sitting with a lot of discomfort
and a different image of yourself. That is what's required
(01:05:15):
by those of us trying to do this work is to enlarge the
image of ourselves not just as fighters for the rights of women
but to undo, to sit in to notice when our whiteness
(01:05:37):
is preventing us from doing the right thing when the woman is Black
or indigenous or brown woman. And so that work
I think is ongoing and I mean in this little tool that we
also have just before our little checklist is a one pager on group
(01:06:06):
dynamics and racial equity work. And there's a column on white people and
I think that it's important for us as white people, white women in
many cases to look at how often we get to be observers,
the ones who listen to and weigh the evidence of whether racism is
(01:06:27):
really happening or not. That we have to be convinced that racism
and other forms of oppression that we don't
experience are actually happening. That we assume that anti racism education
is an opportunity to learn about racialized people
rather than about our own whiteness and what impact it's having.
(01:06:49):
And how can we learn to expect that we're going, if we're lucky,
we're going to be challenged on what we're not picking up
and what we're not seeing. I mean I've been lucky to have Tina
(01:07:11):
who does this with me in a very loving way.
If you're not in relationship, if you're not in relationship with somebody
who's going to take the effort to do that with you,
why would they take the effort to do that with you?
So building relationships, building relationships with people who are actually
(01:07:34):
experiencing the racism, loving relationships so that you have a stake,
you can see the stake and that you are more likely to be
challenged. So anyway I invite people to take a look at that list
too. That's some of the work that we as white people
(01:07:54):
have to do. It's ongoing. It doesn't stop people.
It's still happening here in this body. Good grief.
I remember distinctly when that list emerged and it emerged after a session
(01:08:16):
in which Indigenous, Black and racialized people had to suffer
through listening to white people speak in ways that were really harmful
(01:08:37):
because the training initiative or the education or the presentations, whatever
you want to call the interventions to build different awareness or knowledge
about racism and anti racism, seemed to happen with an assumption that white
(01:08:58):
people can say and do and ask anything. So
that page that Barb is pointing listeners to emerge from that as a
way of trying to make really explicit, the differential costs
(01:09:19):
and the differential ways in which white people benefit.
So you asked a question, Tatiana, about what do senior leaders need to
keep in mind. I would invite three things.
One is that if you say that your organization
(01:09:40):
wants to identify, name explicitly and then tackle
the ways racism is definitely happening in your organization is to remember
that you are inviting, you are actually inviting
(01:10:03):
people around you to subject you to scrutiny. I think senior leaders often
miss that and it's so bewildering to me.
You know, they will say we want to do this and then they'll even say
we want to consult and then when their actions are subjected to an
(01:10:25):
appropriate level of scrutiny are so upset and distressed.
So I'm a bit bewildered by that and I just want to remind
all of us as leaders that when we're saying we want to tackle
this type of work, of doing anti oppression work,
(01:10:46):
we are saying that we are inviting that level of scrutiny
and to be really conscious of that. The second thing I want to say
is that where I've learned a lot about this is in having to
be accountable for my heterosexual privilege. I learned a lot about what
(01:11:08):
it means to be subjected to that kind of scrutiny
because I've wanted to have people look at, you know, look at how
much I want to be in there and fighting heterosexism and
all the books I've read. But actually my job, as I was saying
(01:11:31):
earlier, is to look at, "Oh look at that, look how I just
got a benefit that I didn't have to work for just because I'm
heterosexual". And so I would say to senior leaders, your main job is
to look at how you're benefiting on a daily moment to moment basis
from the very form of privilege that you're probably oblivious to, which
(01:11:56):
is why those folks that are saying you missed it are pissing you
off so much. And I know because I've been subjected to it.
It's not easy, but that's what we're inviting.
And the third thing I want to say to senior leaders,
if you want to do this work, and I believe
there is a real desire in many organizations that had somehow got away
(01:12:22):
with not looking at this until 2020. Okay, I'm going to be good
and not embellish on that, but let me just say,
if there are sincere effort being made now
in organizations to address racism, what I want to say to senior leaders
(01:12:44):
is make sure that the biggest risks of doing this work are on
you and not on the frontline people or the people most vulnerable.
So the way you know that you are doing this work well is
if you are the one most at risk. Tina, that's a bumper sticker.
(01:13:10):
Let's get the t shirts. I know someone with a cricket machine that
would be so happy to make that into a t shirt.
But that is absolutely extremely powerful. And a really great
point to make Tina. Thank you. So as we
(01:13:37):
wrap up today in this conversation, which I feel like we could keep
going and explore all the many avenues that
this conversation can lead us to. Is there
anything that you all would like to share
(01:14:00):
with our audience as the most critical piece
to ensuring racial equity within an organization? I think it's hard to
follow what Tina just said. But I think
(01:14:28):
going even beyond the, it's the inviting in, invite in scrutiny,
make, create conditions where people can tell you what's going on.
If you don't know what's going on, and you probably don't,
(01:14:49):
if you're white at the top of the organization,
you have to create those conditions where people can tell you
and not suffer reprisals. I would invite senior leaders to do, begin the
work themselves often in organizations, racial justice, anti racism, ED
(01:15:12):
equity, diversity inclusion work is often assumed to be the work of frontline
or program staff, which is one of the biggest reasons it remains
in place. So my suggestion is that senior leaders take it up as
their work first, that they actually have some meaningful ways for boards
(01:15:36):
of directors to hold them accountable with clear measures for how they as
senior managers are doing the work, rather than relying on program staff
and frontline staff to provide that evidence. That would be my invitation.
Well Tina, Barb, it has been an honor
(01:15:58):
and a privilege to talk to you both about
organizational assessments, culture change, healing and moving forward.
That's all the time that we have today. But thanks for listening to
this episode of PA Center to find PCARS adapted organizational checklist
(01:16:23):
and the resources mentioned on this podcast visit www.pcar.org/resources/podcast.
Any views or opinions expressed on PA Centered by staff or their guests
(01:16:44):
are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of PCAR
or PCARS funders.
Welcome to PA Centered, a podcast designed to help listeners be a part
of the solution to end sexual harassment, abuse, and assault.
Each episode, we will take on a topic or current event to help
spark conversation and break down barriers to building communities free
from sexual violence. This is part two of the episode, Dancing on Live
(00:29):
Embers with Tina Lopez and Barb Thomas. If you haven't listened to part
one yet, we encourage you to go back and do so first.
This episode picks up right where we left off at the end of
episode one. Enjoy. Hi, I'm Tatiana Piper. I use she, her pronouns,
and I'm the Community Advocacy Coordinator at the Pennsylvania Coalition
(00:50):
Against Rape. I'll be your host today as we're joined by Tina Lopez and
Barb Thomas, the authors of Dancing on Live Embers, Challenging Racism and
Organizations. Welcome Tina and Barb. Thank you. Thanks so much, Tatiana.
I'm glad to be back with you. I'm so glad to have you back,
(01:12):
both of you back on PA Centered. If you haven't had a chance
to listen to episodes eight and nine, I highly encourage you to go
back and take a listen. In those two episodes, Barb and Tina discuss
the themes from the book and how white privilege and power show up
as obstacles in nonprofits and especially anti sexual violence organizations.
(01:36):
And on today's episode, Tina and Barb are here to talk about how
to utilize and improve organizational assessments to measure anti racism
efforts. First I want to say thank you both for authoring
such a incredible guiding book. The examples, resources, tools are a great
(01:59):
asset to organizations looking to improve and supplement their racial justice
work. One piece we found at PCAR helpful is section five,
the more tools and strategies section. So much so that when it was
time to find a tool to measure PCAR's progress towards becoming an anti
(02:20):
racist and inclusive organization, our building accountability and cultural
humility work group, leadership team, and board were able to work together
to adapt and implement the organizational checklist for racial equity, which
is on page 245, to fit our organization's structure and needs. And so
(02:41):
I know we want to take a minute just to
introduce our social identities before we dive into this conversation.
I, Tatiana, am a black cis woman, and I believe I pass it
to you all to introduce, Barb. Hi everybody. This is a real pleasure
(03:02):
to be back with you, Tatiana. I am a white cis woman
stumbling along trying to do anti racism work.
Perhaps we can talk about that a little later. Hello, Tatiana and everyone
listening. This is Tina Lopez. I'm really glad to be back because it's
(03:26):
a signal to me that the work that you're doing to advocate for
change in PCAR is working. So thanks for inviting us back.
I say that because as a racialized person, as we say in Canada,
or as you say in the States, a person of color,
I've been doing anti racism work for over 30 years and seeing how
(03:48):
quickly it often falls off the table. I'm also
learning a lot as a woman with many privileges. I have cis privilege.
I'm self identified as heterosexual and English is my first language.
And what I'm finding compelling in my work is
(04:11):
having conversations with people about how we have both privileges and experiences
of discrimination and oppression and the kinds of skills it takes to be
able to work from both those identities and dynamics. So
let's talk more about that too. I really appreciate that, Tina.
(04:33):
And I always welcome these conversations with both of you. I've learned
so much from you both over the years. I'm very grateful
for those opportunities. So diving into today's topic,
Tina, can you tell us what an organizational assessment should do and why
(04:56):
should organizations use them? I'm chuckling a bit, Tatiana, when I hear
that question. Mostly because the checklist, and as you say, we put one
in our book and we put one in there because it's one of
(05:17):
the most frequent requests that we had. Can you give us a checklist?
And we knew that there are lots of pros and cons to developing
tools like this. So the positive is that for people who are busy
and rushing and who want something that feels manageable and something that
(05:41):
will focus their work, an organizational checklist is a really helpful thing
because it identifies some key areas of work and it helps people who
sometimes, all of us feel overwhelmed at the thought of how do we
change our organizations. And so the tool is beneficial because it helps
(06:03):
to settle some of that anxiety and it offers some clear specific areas
of working. It is, however, at the back of our book for a
reason because there's so much work that needs to be done
at the individual level, at the interpersonal level, and at the systemic
(06:27):
level to prepare people to actually engage in the work that the organizational
assessment checklist point to. So there's lots to say about that,
but I'm going to let Barb add and then I'll probably come back
in. Well, I think also the checklist is useful
(06:48):
when we have a frame of mind of learning
and not of proving. And by that I mean Tina and I have
both been in organizations where the checklist is used
to tick things off, to prove to funders that they're woke and things
(07:14):
are good. And in the course of that, more harm is done
to racialized people in the organization who are actually trying to
get something done. So I would say that in the way that Tina identified
this, it's a bit of a double edged sword. It requires
(07:35):
an openness and a curiosity about really learning where racism is lodged
in the organization so that we can do something about it.
If that isn't the mindset, then actually harm can be done.
(07:55):
I don't know whether you want to say
more about that, Tina. I think we could wax a bit eloquent about
what not to do, but anyway, I just needed to say that that
needs to be the frame of reference, that it's gathering information.
White supremacy is the default. It takes everyday effort to keep racism
(08:18):
on the table as a project to dismantle.
And if people are thinking it's a quick fix,
then more people will be hurt in the organization as a result of
that. I'd love to add to that, if I may, Tatiana. Yes. So I
(08:42):
wish that we had stamped a handle with caution
on the organizational change checklist when it was published,
because we find people with really good intentions latching onto it and
using it in ways that actually do the opposite of what they're intending,
(09:06):
which is that it's being often used to reinforce
the privileges and advantages of whiteness and in ways that people
don't have some consciousness of. So what do I mean by that?
One of the ways in which our checklist is often used is that
(09:29):
it's sent to individuals in an organization and they're asked to respond,
and then the responses are collected. And that's actually a highly problematic
way to use this checklist, because there's no way to know how individuals
(09:49):
understood each of the items in the checklist to make sure they had
a shared understanding to look at who was responding and why.
So for example, one of the items in our checklist is
people in the organization feel supported and encouraged to speak up about
(10:11):
racism. It would be important to be able to
tell if the people who are saying, "Yes, we feel very supported"
experience the privileges and protections of whiteness in the organization,
and if the people who are saying no
are people of color. The other thing is that
(10:36):
these organizational assessments ideally should be used as a catalyst for
discussion, for education, rather than being sent to individuals. What we
were hoping is that these items on the checklist would be brought to
committee meetings, staff meetings, wherever the organization is gathering
(10:58):
to have a conversation about, so what do we think? So it's evident
who is speaking and why. And in the absence of that
really important factor or condition that Tina is talking about, what can
(11:19):
happen and what we've seen happen is that
people of color who feel invited to say actually,
no, I don't feel comfortable raising the fact that my supervisor treats
me differently than she treats or he treats
my white colleague are punished for saying that because the scores are not
(11:45):
as good on the results because it was never intended to gather information
in order to fix things. So it's, yes, stamped,
stamped, use with caution. I like that, Tina. Well, I think one thing
(12:09):
I'm hearing and picking up from you both is the intentionality for using
an assessment tool or checklist like this really needs to
be handled with care and needs to be
the impact of the questions that are asked and who they're being asked
(12:31):
of truly has to be considered before even going down the road of
do we or how do we measure our organizational
improvements or culture change? And so I've explained a bit
(12:54):
about PCAR's organizational assessment and as the authors of the original
assessment that we adapted from, how or in what ways could PCAR or
just similar racial justice assessments be even more useful, especially
(13:16):
tying in that intentionality pieces that we spoke about?
There's so much to say about that, Tatiana. It's a great question,
how to make these organizational assessment checklists more useful and more
(13:40):
effective. And you said a number of things. One of the things is
that you said as a way of measuring progress
and, you know, kudos to PCAR for asking to
do the assessment and for putting it in place. PCAR has got a racial
(14:04):
justice policy. It's made statements clearly that says
that it wants to function as an organization both internally and externally
in a way that addresses and dismantles racism. And so
(14:24):
my understanding is that this organizational change assessment was asked
for by leaders and some of the results
have now been captured. So the question then is how do you interpret
the results of the assessment? That's one of the key points to whether
(14:46):
or not you're measuring change is that when you conduct these assessments,
you're creating a bit of a benchmark of where we are at now.
And if we return to this assessment, and I think PCAR has a
plan to do that, how do you measure
if you have actually been doing work to shift
(15:08):
the ways in which the organization is functioning in these various areas
that have been itemized? So if we go back to the point that
I'm making about these assessment tools being used to establish a benchmark
of where things are at now, I would say it would be important
(15:30):
to not take this as individual responses, but to actually have conversations
as employee groups because one of the biggest
myths about equity or anti racism work or EDI work, whatever the language,
(15:52):
racial justice work, one of the biggest myths is that
your personal opinion about whether it's happening and how it's happening
and whether things are better or worse is
the most relevant factor. And actually that's a really dangerous
myth that is widely held, that individuals' personal opinions about these
(16:18):
things are a critical way of doing this work. We know from the
work of sexual violence that lots of people with lots of identities have
individual opinions about whether a survivor should be believed, about the
kinds of questions a survivor of sexual violence can or not to be
asked. And so it's similar with racism. Rather than relying on personal
(16:47):
opinion, I think these organizational assessment tools should be used to
determine what are the patterns that we're seeing in different parts of
our organization. So we look at these, some of the questions we've posed
in the organizational assessments are not just about how individuals think
(17:08):
things are happening, but they're about systemic practices.
So are supervisors in the way they're making decisions being consistent
or are there ways in which decision making by supervisors, managers or executives
are being differentially applied to people based on the bodies they're in?
(17:32):
And is there a correlation between what's happening to employees inside
the organization and what's happening to the people being served in programs?
So how do we use these tools to create organizational
patterns based on the informed gathering of evidence by people in different
(17:56):
parts of the organization? Well, that makes my brain
go in so many different directions, Tina, because I do think that one
of the things missing and just to kind of lay out the structure
of what is in your book and also what we adapted at PCAR is
(18:19):
it's a question and then it says no, working on it or yes.
And so that doesn't lend itself to getting those bits that you're talking
about is what are the factors that go into it? So
if we're talking about supportive supervision, it doesn't really take into
(18:44):
account the individuals or even the teams or departments experience of what
they're experiencing, how they're experiencing it and doesn't really give
us information on how to improve their experience
because it's not looking at those more detailed
(19:06):
systemic and patterns. So that makes so much sense to me.
Thank you, Tina, for that. I wanted to just reiterate something again that's
in the spirit of what Tina is saying.
If we think that this is going to be a quick fix because
(19:30):
we've put a couple of systems in place
and we need to be able to show progress,
then when we look at, for example, a situation where it says people
are supported for speaking about racism and racial equity in the workplace
(19:52):
and let's say half of the people say no
and a third of the people say yes
and somebody's in the middle, of course that's not going to be fixed
yet. Of course, racialized people are more likely to be labeled as troublemakers
(20:16):
and inconvenient people for raising the question of racism once again.
And maybe they've had to do it before and maybe they've experienced racism
15 times before they finally complained. That's not in there.
So there needs to be a mindset that this is humble work.
(20:40):
This is everyday work. This is not going to be fixed
quickly and the conversations that Tina is talking about are really,
really important for people to tease out the threads and the complexities
of how these things are happening and not happening and maybe it's a
(21:01):
little bit better than it was last year, yay, and maybe it's now
some other stuff is coming up that wasn't there before. And we need
to have that conversation and figure out how to do it without putting
racialized people, people of color at more risk.
(21:25):
In order to do that, which is so important, Barb of not putting
people of color at risk, you know, Tatiana, when you were reading out
the categories of no working on it and yes, which is the categories
available to people on the checklist, part of the reason I'm saying to
(21:46):
use this as a catalyst and not as an exact tool
is that, then what would happen is as people are answering these questions
and checking either the no, the yes, or the working on it,
the most significant question isn't to tally up the answers, but it's to
(22:07):
say, "Well, how do you know? What is the evidence you are using
and how is your own social identity affecting the evidence you're pointing
to?" That those are the critical parts of implementing conversations about
this tool if you are going to actually establish a meaningful way of
(22:32):
measuring how the organization is doing, how people even have that conversation
around a table in the different bodies they're in.
Actually practicing anti oppression or anti racism skills would mean
that you would be talking about how power is playing out
(22:55):
organizationally, socially, even in having a discussion about why you put
your check mark in a particular column. And I am a visual person,
so as you're talking, I'm kind of visualizing what that would look like,
especially what that would look like at an organization like PCAR. So that's
(23:21):
kind of the thing that I'm thinking is, you know, by going by
question and having folks meet who are saying no
to be in one space, folks that said working on it in another
space and folks that said yes in their
separate space and having those conversations to get out of, Well,
(23:45):
why is it yes for you or why is it working on it
or why is it no? What are your experiences? Where in the organization
do you fit? What's your level of leadership? What's your social identities?
Is that what you are imagining or feel could be best practice or
(24:09):
is there something different in how that could look for organizations, especially
sexual violence organizations? My mind is excited by the image you were
drawing because it wasn't the image in my mind, Tatiana. That's what I love
(24:30):
about these conversations is that it's not like there's only one way of
doing this. So I'm enjoying the fact that you had a very different
image in your head than the one I had.
Some of what I think we need to take into account in answering
that question is what Barb was pointing to earlier, how do we ensure
(24:54):
that the process does not paint a bull's eye on the chests of
people of color who are already at risk in having this conversation?
And so I imagine when you were talking about having people in different
spaces based on how they answered, I don't know if that was your
(25:16):
thinking, but one of the reasons for that that came to mind as
I was listening to you is that you would want to make it
a space where there's less risk to people based on the bodies they're in
to provide a rationalization for why they chose to put a check mark
(25:37):
the way they did. I was in a different place with this.
I was actually thinking, for example, of executive and senior leadership
teams having those conversations before they try and have them with staff,
because it's really important for people with organizational and hierarchical
(26:01):
power to be mindful about what they're asking
the people who report to them to do.
So I was thinking of that discussion happening first
by people who have the most power to do something with the results.
(26:22):
And for that, executive and senior leadership people who come together would
need to have that conversation with each other first. And I often in
organizations that I'm walking into in 2022, there aren't that many people
of color in senior leadership teams. And so I wouldn't want to put
(26:45):
the one or two, maybe if we're lucky, three people of color on
the spot to be away from or all by themselves.
But I think that what we would have to do is
lay the groundwork. So Barb and I often talk about how she as a
(27:07):
white woman, will assist white leaders to really
develop some competencies to think about how their whiteness as leaders
will have an impact on the conversation. Barb, would you like to say
something about that? Well, just what's coming to my mind right now,
(27:33):
I could speak about this a long time, but
in an organization that I was in last week,
there was a lot of rumor in the background about a woman who
had been fired. And she was a black woman and
(27:59):
she apparently, nobody's clear why she was fired,
but she was told, somebody told about her to the seniors and
she was fired. So there's a conversation in the organization now about what
(28:23):
happened there. And one of the things that happens is who gets the
benefit of the doubt when somebody reports something
and who does not get the benefit of the doubt. In fact, at the
first opportunity, the worst is thought. So in this organization that I
(28:44):
continue to work in, there are very mediocre white people
who look like me, who are making mistakes all the time and whose
mistakes are not being reported. And if they are being reported,
nothing is being done about them. So I think this is a thread
that goes under the skin of all of that we're talking about here.
(29:11):
And when we're talking about white leaders, we have to get them to
think about who they're giving the benefit of the doubt to
and whose mistakes get free passage. So that is one place that we
start, usually with a case or something that's happened recently, because
(29:33):
there's always something that's happened recently in an organization that
we can work with. So I don't know whether that's enough to start
with, Tina. I know, for example, that as a white person,
I get given the benefit of the doubt all the time.
And that is something that I can start with,
(29:56):
with a group of people. How do you know I'm telling you the
truth? You just like my face, you like the way I talk,
I kind of fit in with you. What are some of the ways
I fit in with you? How would I be talking if I didn't
fit in with you? And it's not a comfortable conversation, but I can
(30:19):
raise that question and keep smiling at people and then we have to
have the conversation. You know, you are saying that, Barb makes me think
about the importance there is for, if you're having Black, Indigenous and
(30:40):
other people of color staff, that their supervisor
needs to be armed with the ability to give the benefit of the
doubt, not just to their white staff, but to, as you all say, racialized
staff as well. And that they have to have that skill
(31:04):
in order to effectively supervise staff of color.
So I would go one step further as we do in the book.
And that is to say that if I'm a white supervisor,
a racialized or staff of color and white staff,
I need to anticipate the inequities that are already going on
(31:29):
in the lives of the racialized staff. And how those inequities and racial
injustice are affecting their ability to do their jobs and the working conditions
that they're working under. And if I'm not doing that,
and I'm treating everybody the same, then I'm actually contributing to the
(31:50):
racist environment that they're in. If you understand what I'm trying to
say. Tina, maybe you can explain it better.
Not better, but I think this is one of the places where you
and I often have conversations, Barb, because I get worried when I hear
you saying white people anticipating the inequities that indigenous Black
(32:14):
and people of color face. Because I don't think white people can be
trusted to do that skillfully and knowledgeably, though I really appreciate
what you're pointing to. And what I would invite instead
is for white leaders to look at the unearned advantages they confer on
(32:36):
other white people without noticing. I think that will point more clearly,
and that's an appropriate examination for white people, is to look at how
white advantage and whiteness and white supremacy is actually working already.
So I'm offering that as an adjustment to what you're saying,
(33:00):
partly because, you know, you and I have been doing this work for
a long time, I've yet to meet an overtly, staunchly, you know, deliberately
racist white person in leadership. Often there are people who genuinely
(33:21):
want to do the right thing, who when they make statements about
wanting to dismantle racism mean it, but then are really
naive or unprepared for what it really means,
and then start to read books about Indigenous people or Black people.
And that isn't actually the work that will be most productive,
(33:47):
because rather than, you know, trying to learn about how racism is operating,
it would be very helpful if white people were doing due diligence on
how whiteness is operating and has been and continues to
and how they and others are benefiting so that they can start to
(34:08):
interrupt that. Part of the reason I'm raising that is because,
you know, I was, you and I had a conversation, we were quite
moved by the racism in the movement blog or article that PCAR management
staff made on May 3, 2022. It's unusual to have the management staff
(34:32):
of an organization say things like, you know, PCAR is the oldest
state anti sexual violence coalition in the nation, and we see ourselves
in this article is a strong statement to make, and they go on
further in this article to say white staff, particularly those in management
(34:58):
and leadership positions, must be committed to and actively seek out a lifetime
of anti racism learning and actions. I remember
when I read that, being moved by it and feeling like
it was a hopeful position to take so publicly.
(35:23):
Yes. And then, you know, and kudos for management for doing that in
a publicly posted blog. And then as with all of us,
you know, I critique myself as a person with heterosexual privilege about
where I then start to fall down in the work.
And in looking at that blog, some of the actions that were being
(35:47):
given as examples of how PCAR is doing that,
I found a little disappointing. And it's not because I don't think there
was sincere desire to live up to the statement,
but it's because I think we remain at the awareness level in this
(36:07):
work. So, you know, there's a lot of items there about listening to
black leaders, which is important and signing a letter.
But what you and I have been trying to do in the organizational
assessment is to insist that there are commitments made by leaders,
(36:28):
not just to awareness building, but to actually focus specific
areas of internal change work that they can be held accountable for.
And so I'm hoping that the white leaders don't just demonstrate that they
(36:50):
care about indigenous black and people of color, but that they are willing
to be held accountable for how white advantages are still operating.
Thank you, Tina, so much for that call to action. There's something,
so there's such, you have such an ability to give a call to action
(37:15):
in the form of grace that is truly a gift. And I'm so
grateful to be able to be in a space and witness it. And so thank
you, Tina. You know, one thing that we
have definitely talked and hit on is the importance of centering
(37:39):
Black indigenous and other people of color in this work, not just as
a form of being anti racist, but in the
steps towards becoming anti racist because there does,
when we do things without intentionality, or we do things without thinking
(38:00):
them truly through, there is the risk in racial justice work to cause
harm, especially to those at the center of the margins. And so one
thing I know that, when we developed our
assessment, or more so adapt our assessment from yours is that we didn't
(38:20):
include our take into account people's social identities.
Our thought process at the time was we didn't want people's answers to
be able to be identified by their social identities.
But it now feels like a misstep or
a place where we should have reached out
(38:44):
for help on that on that piece. Is there an importance to including
people's social identities? I just want to say that that wasn't an oversight
on your part. I think, you know, we're always learning about the gaps
in in this book that we publish. We didn't do it either in
(39:07):
our book. So here we are learning as we go and reflecting on
a shortcoming in our own practice, which I'm grateful
we're having this conversation because I would do it differently. You know,
(39:28):
the next time so... The three columns that you use in yours are
the three columns we have in ours, and we have no
space in there for differentiating social identities in that.
But I guess just a thought in response to your and maybe it's
(39:53):
not a direct answer to your question. When we collect the data as
sort of written slips of paper, the identities are erased and they get
homogenized in the way that we've been talking about.
So if we are to differentiate and also create safety
(40:18):
for people most at risk in the organization,
then obviously the ways that we use this
assessment tool need to be much more creative than we've been with it.
And how that gets done in whether it's, you know, racialized staff getting
(40:45):
together, white staff getting together after the kind of
senior management work that Tina also talked about.
How we organize this so that we're getting that
(41:05):
specificity and not increasing the risk I think is a really important conversation.
At the risk of, you know, repeating myself and maybe
being a little bit defensive about the org assessment, I confess it's at
(41:30):
the back of the book because there's so much work to be done
beforehand. And the many sections in the book before section five
really outline the kind of work that leaders whether they're in boards of
education or sexual violence centers or, you know, a federal department
(41:54):
or a small little brave women's organization somewhere in a rural town,
that there is work to be done that,
to in order to be equipped to do this work.
So at PCAR you do so much to
educate people in the field, right, about sexual
(42:20):
violence prevention. There are all the resources on the PCAR website that
are educational because we need to learn how
to analyze what is happening that is putting survivors of sexual violence
at further risk and harm, even in the systems that are set up
(42:42):
to support, right, and how we replicate, how we internalize the very
oppression that we're trying to challenge. So with racism it's no different.
And I want to actually hold up the work that you,
Tatiana and Jackie and others at PCAR did in creating a fantastic rubric
(43:07):
that brought together some of the insights from
sexual violence work and racial violence work. That is a tool that I
think leaders could use well. So just to say to the question that
you're asking about, you know, should we get people to self identify when
(43:33):
completing the organizational assessment tool? I don't think that that would,
that's the conclusion I'm hoping people will take.
What we were doing is saying that is a barrier to accurately interpreting
(43:54):
or understanding the implications of the results. But the fix isn't to get
people to self identify. The fix is to have people
in different parts of the organization particularly those with the most
organizational power, to have the necessary, discomforting conversations
(44:23):
with each other about the implications of the items in that organizational
checklist. Many senior leaders genuinely and sincerely make statements about
wanting to dismantle racism, seeing the connections between
(44:44):
sexual violence work and addressing racism, poverty, classism, right? This
is known now. And senior leaders will genuinely say we want to do
this work and invite people in and hire people into the organization whose
job description says you will educate and raise issues around
(45:09):
racial justice slash EDI slash anti racism. And I want to pause and
say, wait a minute, those are three very different terms.
So before you put out that job description or you put out a
policy or you make a statement, it would be worthwhile having a discussion
about which term you are choosing and why.
(45:31):
Because in the same way that sexual violence work requires an analysis
of how men are privileged and people who self identify or
the gendering of gender based violence and how that gets replicated in institutions,
(45:52):
we have to do the same thing with racism.
So when senior leaders genuinely invite people, the really
consistent and troubling thing that happens is then people start to take
them at their word and give them the feedback they are asking for
about how are we doing, how are we doing in being a racism
(46:16):
free organization or addressing this. And then lo and behold, they hear
things that are really, don't make them feel good.
They get feedback that is hard to hear. And so what we often
see, what I'm seeing in three or four organizations that I'm working with
currently, senior leaders start to blame the messenger, so the people who
(46:41):
are telling them things are broken in their organization get diagnosed as
having some problems, they are seen as not competent, they get painted as
the problem. Or people who are seen as
(47:01):
causing, as John Lewis said, making good trouble, doing actually what they
need to be doing to fulfill not just their job responsibilities but their
commitment to stopping gender based violence by raising these questions
(47:21):
get punished in different ways. And so when that starts to happen in
an organization, people who believed that there was a possibility for making
change and then see people around them being punished for doing it,
it's a worse betrayal than being in an organization where leaders don't
(47:46):
even mention wanting to do anti racism work.
It's debilitating, and I speak as a person who has experienced racism all
my life and who's been working in organizations in good faith,
genuinely trying to create solidarity with white people to do this work.
(48:10):
And when I see that actually people are not living up to their
word as leaders, or worse still finding other people of color who are
willing to make things more palatable and bringing them forward, those kinds
of wounds hurt not just the organization but the movement.
(48:34):
And so I am saying let's not go for
the things that put individuals at risk like self identifying, let's actually
build in some norms and expectations of people to do the hard work
of looking at if we're inviting this, what is this going to cost
(48:55):
me? What is this going to cost the leadership team? What is this
going to cost the organization? Thank you, Tina. The thing that I'm
thinking about, because a lot of times when we do or have trainings
or resources geared towards anti racism, we often get the folks who
(49:22):
have been on the receiving end of that repercussions.
And really I think what you described was trauma
or vicarious trauma for those as bystanders. And I guess my question
(49:43):
for you both is how can, for those listening, how can they heal
from those traumas from racism that they're experiencing in that
institutional betrayal that you spoke of? I'm pausing because there's so
(50:16):
much heartbreak in your question, Tatiana. Yeah, you're putting your finger
on the psychological, spiritual, emotional, physical impacts of standing
(50:42):
up and naming and the consequences of the punishment that happens,
the having to experience it 24 hours, seven days a week,
(51:03):
shopping on the transit, getting groceries, walking through the doors at
work, and then on top of that often getting hired
to do the work and then on top of that
being isolated, critiqued for how we do the work.
(51:25):
And so I don't want to rush to an answer of healing without
taking a moment to really let it sink in
what the costs are of having to show up as
(51:46):
particularly indigenous people and black people. I don't experience anti
black racism. I'm a person of colour of South Asian descent.
It's very clear to me that there are different costs to you as
a black woman, Tatiana, than there are to me.
We both experience racism, but I don't experience anti black racism.
(52:11):
I would begin a conversation with you there by just
acknowledging that some of the healing needs to happen amongst us and with
us and by us. And I wish that more organisations would recognise that
and make resources available to us so that we can do that work.
(52:35):
In the spaces that we need and we choose rather than having to
do them in the context of an organizational initiative where everyone is
just brought in because there are definitely differential costs and impacts.
I'd love to say more about that, but I really want to make
(52:56):
sure that when you're speaking about bystanders and the impact of bystanders
that, you know, I really find it important to listen to Barb when
she's talking about as a white person making choices that are different
so that we don't as indigenous and black and racialized people have to
(53:17):
bear the brunt. And so I'm just going to invite that
as well. I was in a meeting yesterday
to begin an advisory committee for a dismantling systemic racism project
in an organisation that I'm working in. And
(53:42):
there were three white people, myself included in the room, and they were
all seasoned indigenous and black people who had tried
in very many ways to move the organisation through an indigenous circle,
through a coalition of racialized workers. And it was an honour that they
(54:08):
came together for this day because it takes a lot
to hope again that this time there might be, it might be less
damaging and it might be less painful. And so
one of the things that I found myself doing yesterday
(54:31):
was listening and asking questions and trying to identify the areas where
we might work and what conversations about race and colonialism
and white supremacy we needed to have in the organisation. And
(54:55):
we were only together for a day. We were only getting to know
each other again for the day. And so I felt like part of
my role was just to slow things down
so that we could all listen to each other and take in
all the wisdom, the pain, the struggle to
(55:22):
hope again, the need for white people to step up, the continual ways
that white obliviousness to our privilege and the way we were using it
(55:46):
was painful and contributed to the extra work that these people had to
do. So I would say that there are conversations that I can have
with white leaders that I need to have with white leaders.
(56:07):
And it's tricky because in the same way that Tina said before,
you can't know in your white body what somebody else's experience is.
I as a white person who have a stake
in an equitable organisation that doesn't divide me from people I care about
(56:30):
and work alongside and I have to speak up
humbly and to engage conversations humbly and to continually
(56:51):
ask questions and listen when I don't know. And a lot of the
time I don't know. All I know is
that my silence is an exercise of white
privilege. My silence is an exercise of white privilege and so
(57:18):
I start with that. I want to pick up on something there because
I want to explore this question that you're asking about healing Tatiana
with real humility because I don't feel like I really have an answer.
(57:41):
I don't. What I want to do is explore some
of the questions that arise for me as we're thinking about that
and part of the reason I wanted Barb to talk about
the role of white people is that part of what I would like
(58:01):
to see organisations do is put the onus on white people to do
more of the work and give us the space to do
more of our healing. There's been a real inequity
and the point I was trying to make earlier is that we live
the impact of racism in our personal lives, in our social lives,
(58:23):
in our political lives, in our culture, there isn't an aspect of any
place where we go where it's not alive and
shaping our experiences and so to have to do it, to have to
experience it at work and then to do the heavy lifting
(58:44):
of dismantling it is so problematic in so many ways and I want to be
cautious here because I don't, you know, sometimes Indigenous, Black and
people of colour get anxious when I say things like that because many
employment opportunities that have been made available to us are under the
(59:07):
conditions that we will do that work. Dismissing all the other knowledge
and skills that we bring and assuming that that is the most useful
way we can contribute to the organisation which is, you know, such a
manifestation of racism and so, you know, when Barb is speaking about white
(59:33):
people silence making it more dangerous for us because then
we have to speak up because we don't have a choice.
We either speak up or we suffer the consequences or we feel we're
betraying others who are experiencing the racism and if we're given a voice
(59:55):
then we should use it. There are many ways in which I feel
like we get just squeezed in these vice grips of, if you're in
the belly of an organisation and you're Indigenous or Black or a person
of colour there are triple pressures to do something
(01:00:16):
because you're in the organisation, speak up to benefit those who need the
services. Speak up on behalf of those who are new to the organisation and
are innocent enough that they don't know what's going to come at them
and speak up because how can you look yourself in the mirror?
(01:00:38):
And so we experience these huge pressures from our communities, from ourselves
and I think that part of our healing is to
put some of that pressure where it belongs
on white people in the organisation, to have the organisation actually begin
(01:01:03):
to quantify and compensate appropriately the work that we have to do
and the differential costs because of the bodies that we're in and to
actually have a monetary figure for that. Many organisations have women's
(01:01:23):
committees, have all kinds of initiatives that are viewed as good but then
when you want to have a committee that's looking at, that gives Indigenous
people a place to come together as Indigenous people, there are questions
raised, do we have the resources, how come that happens on paid time?
(01:01:45):
I'm going on and on but I'm wanting to broaden this question of
healing from the many good things to be said about how we heal
spiritually and emotionally and psychologically in many ways but I want
to, because this is a conversation about organizational assessments
(01:02:05):
and the internal work that has to happen
organizationally, I want to be very explicit and clear
that in the same way as we understand the supports that are necessary
for survivors of sexual violence to heal is a long term,
differentially resourced process, that that same analysis needs to come
(01:02:29):
into as we explore response to the question that you've posed about it,
Tatiana. Absolutely. I think the important thing that's been brought up
throughout our conversation today is the role of leaders, senior leaders
(01:02:55):
in not just organizational assessments but just in the scope of doing and
becoming an anti racist organisation. So Barb, what are some ways
(01:03:16):
that you feel are crucial roles of those senior leaders to,
I feel like we've hit on a lot
of them thus far but are there some other roles of senior leaders?
I think that once again Tina has talked about the desire of most
(01:03:42):
senior leaders in the organisations that we work, many of these are white
women and they're white women who are progressive
around feminist issues for example and who have fought a really good fight
for the liberation of women, who have a good analysis of patriarchy and
(01:04:06):
who see themselves on the underside of that power.
And Tina referred to earlier the trick of
recognizing that you may be on the underside of one kind of power
and on the oversight of another kind of power. So in this case
(01:04:27):
there is a lot of work for white women leaders to do,
because that's mostly what I'm dealing with, I'm dealing with more white
women than I am with white men, to
look at their roles as activists around patriarchy
(01:04:52):
and try to think about what that looks like then when they are
part of the white spaces and the white supremacy that is oppressing other
people. And so that means sitting with a lot of discomfort
and a different image of yourself. That is what's required
(01:05:15):
by those of us trying to do this work is to enlarge the
image of ourselves not just as fighters for the rights of women
but to undo, to sit in to notice when our whiteness
(01:05:37):
is preventing us from doing the right thing when the woman is Black
or indigenous or brown woman. And so that work
I think is ongoing and I mean in this little tool that we
also have just before our little checklist is a one pager on group
(01:06:06):
dynamics and racial equity work. And there's a column on white people and
I think that it's important for us as white people, white women in
many cases to look at how often we get to be observers,
the ones who listen to and weigh the evidence of whether racism is
(01:06:27):
really happening or not. That we have to be convinced that racism
and other forms of oppression that we don't
experience are actually happening. That we assume that anti racism education
is an opportunity to learn about racialized people
rather than about our own whiteness and what impact it's having.
(01:06:49):
And how can we learn to expect that we're going, if we're lucky,
we're going to be challenged on what we're not picking up
and what we're not seeing. I mean I've been lucky to have Tina
(01:07:11):
who does this with me in a very loving way.
If you're not in relationship, if you're not in relationship with somebody
who's going to take the effort to do that with you,
why would they take the effort to do that with you?
So building relationships, building relationships with people who are actually
(01:07:34):
experiencing the racism, loving relationships so that you have a stake,
you can see the stake and that you are more likely to be
challenged. So anyway I invite people to take a look at that list
too. That's some of the work that we as white people
(01:07:54):
have to do. It's ongoing. It doesn't stop people.
It's still happening here in this body. Good grief.
I remember distinctly when that list emerged and it emerged after a session
(01:08:16):
in which Indigenous, Black and racialized people had to suffer
through listening to white people speak in ways that were really harmful
(01:08:37):
because the training initiative or the education or the presentations, whatever
you want to call the interventions to build different awareness or knowledge
about racism and anti racism, seemed to happen with an assumption that white
(01:08:58):
people can say and do and ask anything. So
that page that Barb is pointing listeners to emerge from that as a
way of trying to make really explicit, the differential costs
(01:09:19):
and the differential ways in which white people benefit.
So you asked a question, Tatiana, about what do senior leaders need to
keep in mind. I would invite three things.
One is that if you say that your organization
(01:09:40):
wants to identify, name explicitly and then tackle
the ways racism is definitely happening in your organization is to remember
that you are inviting, you are actually inviting
(01:10:03):
people around you to subject you to scrutiny. I think senior leaders often
miss that and it's so bewildering to me.
You know, they will say we want to do this and then they'll even say
we want to consult and then when their actions are subjected to an
(01:10:25):
appropriate level of scrutiny are so upset and distressed.
So I'm a bit bewildered by that and I just want to remind
all of us as leaders that when we're saying we want to tackle
this type of work, of doing anti oppression work,
(01:10:46):
we are saying that we are inviting that level of scrutiny
and to be really conscious of that. The second thing I want to say
is that where I've learned a lot about this is in having to
be accountable for my heterosexual privilege. I learned a lot about what
(01:11:08):
it means to be subjected to that kind of scrutiny
because I've wanted to have people look at, you know, look at how
much I want to be in there and fighting heterosexism and
all the books I've read. But actually my job, as I was saying
(01:11:31):
earlier, is to look at, "Oh look at that, look how I just
got a benefit that I didn't have to work for just because I'm
heterosexual". And so I would say to senior leaders, your main job is
to look at how you're benefiting on a daily moment to moment basis
from the very form of privilege that you're probably oblivious to, which
(01:11:56):
is why those folks that are saying you missed it are pissing you
off so much. And I know because I've been subjected to it.
It's not easy, but that's what we're inviting.
And the third thing I want to say to senior leaders,
if you want to do this work, and I believe
there is a real desire in many organizations that had somehow got away
(01:12:22):
with not looking at this until 2020. Okay, I'm going to be good
and not embellish on that, but let me just say,
if there are sincere effort being made now
in organizations to address racism, what I want to say to senior leaders
(01:12:44):
is make sure that the biggest risks of doing this work are on
you and not on the frontline people or the people most vulnerable.
So the way you know that you are doing this work well is
if you are the one most at risk. Tina, that's a bumper sticker.
(01:13:10):
Let's get the t shirts. I know someone with a cricket machine that
would be so happy to make that into a t shirt.
But that is absolutely extremely powerful. And a really great
point to make Tina. Thank you. So as we
(01:13:37):
wrap up today in this conversation, which I feel like we could keep
going and explore all the many avenues that
this conversation can lead us to. Is there
anything that you all would like to share
(01:14:00):
with our audience as the most critical piece
to ensuring racial equity within an organization? I think it's hard to
follow what Tina just said. But I think
(01:14:28):
going even beyond the, it's the inviting in, invite in scrutiny,
make, create conditions where people can tell you what's going on.
If you don't know what's going on, and you probably don't,
(01:14:49):
if you're white at the top of the organization,
you have to create those conditions where people can tell you
and not suffer reprisals. I would invite senior leaders to do, begin the
work themselves often in organizations, racial justice, anti racism, ED
(01:15:12):
equity, diversity inclusion work is often assumed to be the work of frontline
or program staff, which is one of the biggest reasons it remains
in place. So my suggestion is that senior leaders take it up as
their work first, that they actually have some meaningful ways for boards
(01:15:36):
of directors to hold them accountable with clear measures for how they as
senior managers are doing the work, rather than relying on program staff
and frontline staff to provide that evidence. That would be my invitation.
Well Tina, Barb, it has been an honor
(01:15:58):
and a privilege to talk to you both about
organizational assessments, culture change, healing and moving forward.
That's all the time that we have today. But thanks for listening to
this episode of PA Center to find PCARS adapted organizational checklist
(01:16:23):
and the resources mentioned on this podcast visit www.pcar.org/resources/podcast.
Any views or opinions expressed on PA Centered by staff or their guests
(01:16:44):
are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of PCAR
or PCARS funders.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.