Asking A Favor

28 Comments

1. Navigating Anti-Racism: A Starter for People Between the Extremes
   Or “How To Be Anti-Racist Without Being a Jerk*
   *With apologies to Ibram X. Kendi”

   Introduction—why another book about being anti-racist?

   We decided to offer this small book because we think we have a somewhat different approach to the subject-matter, one that we hope will allow people of good will to navigate the increasingly choppy waters of tribal discord.

   We live in a time of social change, much of it positive. We especially recognize and celebrate the practical and symbolic progress toward equality. Many people point to the 2008 election of President Obama, the 2015 Obergfell v. Hodges Supreme Court recognition of gay marriage, and the very public rejection of racist behaviors and institutions that animate protest movements and viral messaging on social media as signs of progress.

   That said, America is finally coming to terms with the reality that a far-too-substantial portion of our population is composed of White Christian Nationalists—a belief system that goes well beyond prejudice against people of color. It includes anti-Semitism and bigotries against Islam and various other religions, as well as a healthy dose of misogyny. When this book talks about being “anti-racist,” it’s shorthand for combatting that expansive distaste for the “other” to which we’re referring.

   What, exactly, is racism, as we are using that term? It is the belief that identity trumps individuality and behavior—the belief that people who share a skin color or religion share essential characteristics that distinguish “them” from “us.” (We use the term identify in its political sense: the tendency of people of a particular gender, religion, race, social background, social class or other identifying factors to develop political agendas that are based upon these identities.) It is a worldview that fails to see people as people—individuals who deserve to be approached and evaluated as individuals. There are certainly cultural and regional differences among Americans, but humans of every color and faith and gender can and do vary from delightful to annoying to truly damaged and/or deplorable. Racism is denial of that reality, accompanied by a belief in the inherent superiority of one’s own “tribe.” Such a worldview is racist whether people harboring such beliefs are members of the majority or part of a marginalized group, whether they act on those beliefs or not, and whether or not they are fully conscious of the fact that they harbor such beliefs.

   Recognition of the persistence and outsized influence of White Supremacist ideology, and the emergence of efforts to combat it, are welcome. It’s a truism that you cannot solve a problem of which you are unaware, and many, if not most Americans were unaware of the extent and persistence of these attitudes until the election of an African-American President brought them to the surface. The rise of anti-racism efforts is very welcome. We also recognize, however, that all culture clashes prompt excesses and oversimplifications. Well-meaning—and not so well-meaning—people too often engage in “virtue signaling”—performances meant to signal moral superiority– in situations in which thoughtful, civil discussions would be more productive.

   Speaking of productivity–this is intended to be a book about getting the job done, moving the needle, being effective. If you are an activist who is determined to make the perfect the enemy of the good, if your goal is to garner attention, to feel morally superior, to curry favor with this or that constituency—if you believe that your particular experiences or insights entitle you to set the agenda irrespective of the setbacks your behavior might trigger or the harm that could be caused by hasty or unfair accusations– this isn’t a book for you.

   It isn’t only physicians who must abide by the admonition: do no harm. Our goal in this little book is to help Americans move toward a fair and equitable society while doing no harm—or at least as little harm as possible. We are firmly convinced that progress toward a more fair and equitable society will be retarded, rather than advanced, by shaming, “cancelling” or self-righteous denunciations, and that social justice is more likely to result from educational interventions communicated with kindness and civility.

   Rather obviously, this isn’t a book for those who have bought into the myths of White Christian Supremacy. We are aware that we aren’t going to change the minds or hearts of those who are convinced of their own innate superiority. This is also not a book for people who see racism and bigotry in every offhand remark. It is meant to be a helpful guide for people who recognize the pervasiveness and immorality of both personal prejudice and structural racism, people who don’t see themselves as culture warriors, but who do want to be effective allies in the effort to right systemic wrongs—and who are uncertain of the (often-shifting) terms upon which today’s battles are being fought. This book is for the majority of people who find themselves in the broad, uncharted territory between the more extreme anti-racist activists and America’s increasingly vocal White Supremacists.

   Americans are currently awash in advice about how to be an ally—how to combat racism, how to see stereotypical assumptions that underlie seemingly neutral acts and comments, how to investigate one’s own biases and beliefs. Much of that advice is important and useful. There are fewer admonitions—okay, we haven’t seen any—about summoning the courage required to support people who are the target of overblown, unfair and/or unsupported accusations of bigotry. (Those situations aren’t as rare as we’d all like to believe.) Paradoxically, the orgies of condemnation that all too often become part of efforts to combat racism and “cancel” the racists can end up actually impeding progress– creating circular firing squads that silence or antagonize would-be allies. Insisting on fair play helps avoid the angry reactions to unjustified accusations that can end up disrupting organizations and movements and retarding efforts to move us toward a fairer, more equitable society. We need to understand and remember that there are meaningful differences between ignorance, micro-aggressions, and bad behaviors—and that even bad behavior does not automatically equal “bad person.”

   In short, in this little book, we hope to provide readers with tools to: (1) understand the sometimes-bewildering vocabulary of the anti-racist movement; (2) identify and avoid pernicious stereotypes; (3) distinguish between inadvertent offenses and more harmful and deeply-rooted attitudes; and (4) recognize the most effective ways to deal with both the inadvertent offenses and more intentional displays of prejudice.

   In other words, how to be anti-racist without being a jerk.

   I. A New (And Growing) Vocabulary

   There is a substantial generational divide within American society when it comes to efforts by well-meaning people to combat racism, and nowhere is that divide more obvious than in the use and misuse of terminology. Language evolves over time, and words mean different things to people who did and did not grow up with a computer in their pocket and constant interactions with others via social media platforms. If you are a millennial or part of Gen Z, you should know that older people—authors included—may be with you in spirit, but not necessarily in vocabulary. (For example, many younger LGBTQIA+ folks have embraced the word “queer,” which in our youth was an epithet that non-homophobic people didn’t use.)

   Many Americans—and not just older people—are unfamiliar with every iteration of the rainbow flag; unlikely to know the names of every native American tribe that lived in your—or their– state; and unable to identify which religions embrace the wearing of a turban, kippah or hijab. That doesn’t mean they are homophobic or transphobic, anti-Native American, or anti-Semitic, anti-Sikh, or anti-Muslim.

   We repeat: Ignorance is not bigotry.

   That said, there is value in understanding the contemporary vocabulary, and the way it is being employed by people trying to combat racist attitudes and behaviors. In this section, we go through some of the more common terms you will hear from activists and others, and explain their meanings. Communication, after all, requires a common language.

   We can’t define every term being used by advocates and activists, of course. For that matter, many are still being coined, and for that reason remain imprecise. But the following list will get you started!

   • Advocate (noun) – In the context of a discussion of racism, an advocate is a person who speaks up for or takes action(s) on behalf of, or in defense of, marginalized groups, or who works for the passage and implementation of anti-racist policies.
   • Ally, allyship – An ally is a person who is a supporter, an individual who associates with others who are working to end racist policies and/or behaviors. In the context of anti-racism, allyship is the commitment to supporting people who have historically been oppressed, marginalized or underrepresented. It is important to note that allies may have different ideas about what strategies are likely to be most effective, and that differences of opinion about strategy are not evidence of racism.
   • Anti-racism, anti-racist – Anti-racism is a philosophy that rejects belief in the superiority or supremacy of one racial group over another. Anti-racists promote racial equity and support anti-racist policies through both speech and action. A key concept in anti-racism philosophy is the emphasis on action; anti-racist literature is uniformly critical of persons who perpetuate racism through inaction and passivity. (Read Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist.)
   • Anti-Semitism – Anti-Semitism is discrimination against, or hostility toward, Judaism as a religion or Jews as people. Disapproval of Israeli actions or policies is not the same thing as anti-Semitism, although some anti-Israel rhetoric is clearly rooted in Anti-Semitism.
   • Bigotry—Bigotry is a “catch-all” term that encompasses the various “isms” we discuss in this book. Bigotry is prejudice, and the word prejudice comes from the act of “pre judging”–thus bigotry is the unreasonable pre-judgment that expects all persons in certain disfavored populations to exhibit certain specific undesirable charactristics.
   • Cancel culture – Cancel culture is the practice of ostracizing someone—usually but not always on social media—for the expression of beliefs, speech, action, or even inaction, perceived to be insensitive or racist (when coming from the Left) or anti-White or insufficiently “American” (when coming from the Right.) Canceling may be done in person, online, or through social media, and may or may not reflect the verified facts of a situation. Cancel culture is often indistinguishable from virtue signaling (see below).
   • Critical Race Theory – CRT is the (much-mischaracterized) area of legal scholarship that investigates the various ways in which racial bias has influenced legal structures and systems. It focuses on the study of systemic inequality—the ways in which stereotypes and beliefs about racial inferiority have been built into the law over the years—rather than focusing on individual prejudices. It is generally studied by law professors and lawyers, and because it requires a background in legal scholarship, is entirely absent from elementary and high school curricula.
   • Cross-race effect – Also called own-race bias or other-race bias, cross-race effect is the (generally unrecognized) tendency to recognize faces of, and gravitate toward, people of one’s same race. It often results in “ingroup” advantage.
   • Cultural competency – This term refers to the intentional pursuit of, and commitment to, understanding and appreciation of cultural differences. Efforts to improve cultural competency usually involve the study of those differences in order to improve inter-group understanding and ameliorate power imbalances in the relevant environment.
   • Essentialism – Essentialism is the belief that all members of racial or religious groups share certain attributes that are “essential” elements of members’ identity. Assuming that all Blacks are lazy, all Asians are good at math and science, all Jews are sharp businesspeople (or that all White Christians harboring such impressions are racists!) are essentialist assumptions.
   • Harm – Physical or mental damage or hurt. Moral injury. In the context of microaggressions (see below), harm is independent of intent. Harm may be experienced differently by different individuals. Harm can be a one-time injury, but with racism, it is often cumulative.
   • Identity – Identity is the set of beliefs, personality, values, and/or inborn features that distinguish one person from another. In the anti-racism context, identity is based on affinity with or membership in a specific cultural, ethnic, racial, religious, gender, sexual, ability or social interest group.
   • Implicit Bias – Also called unconscious bias, implicit bias is rooted in largely or entirely unconscious beliefs about, or emotional reactions to, a particular racial,religious or otherwise marginalized group. Individuals often harbor implicit biases, even when that bias is contrary to their conscious or declared beliefs. Implicit bias often shapes attitudes toward people, or stereotypes them, without an individual’s conscious knowledge. (Project Implicit, commonly called the Harvard Implicit Bias Test, is a free, online test of implicit associations individuals make that they may not readily recognize.)
   • Intersectionality – Intersectionality is a term coined by Kimberle’ Crenshaw in an academic paper in 1989; it originally explained the oppression of African-American women as rooted in both racism and sexism. Today, the term is used to identify people whose experience of prejudice arises by reason of their having two or more marginalized identities.
   • Level playing field – A level playing field is one where individuals have an equal opportunity for participation and success. In the context of anti-racism, Americans have slowly come to recognize that a newly-level playing field is not enough to erase the consequences of years of systemic bias, and that nominal equality does not necessarily equal equity, or fundamental fairness.
   • LGBTQ+, LGBTQIA+ – Various acronyms aim to represent a combination of sexual and gender identities, including but not limited to people who identify as Lesbian or Gay.
   The plus sign is usually meant to convey the range and fluidity of various sexual and gender identities. Sometimes it will be longer—for example, LGBTQIA+, where the I stands for Intersex, and the A stands for Asexual or Ally. Discussion of these terms will often include nonbinary (neither male/man or female/woman) or genderqueer (people who reject gender norms or conformity), in contrast to cisgender, a term denoting a person whose identity matches that assigned at birth).
   • Lived Experience – A person who gains first-hand knowledge about the world through personal, direct experience is said to have “lived experience” in contrast to learning about certain experiences through others, through reading, or through otherwise encountering fact situations or other data. The lived experience of historically underrepresented individuals shapes their knowledge (as it does, actually, for all of us).
   • Macro-aggression – The term macro-aggression has two meanings:
   o An act or statement of racism (sexism, ableism, etc.) against everyone in a specific race, gender, culture, or identity group (i.e., blaming COVID-19 on all people from Asia, for example).
   o A blatantly overt aggression against someone in a marginalized identity group (i.e., a teacher persistently and obviously refusing to call on Black students, despite their raised hands). Macro-aggressions are more serious and more intentional than micro-aggressions, which are small offenses that may or may not be based on some type of bias.
   • “Me Too” – The #MeToo Movement was started by Tarana Burke in 2006 to help women heal from sexual assault, harassment, and violence and to demonstrate how widespread such behaviors are. The hashtag #MeToo on social media posts designated women’s shared experiences of major and minor sexual violations.
   • Micro-aggression – A discriminatory action, statement, or incident that is indirect, subtle, or unintentional, but offensive to members of marginalized groups. Because micro-aggressions are small and subject to interpretation, one person may perceive the occurrence of a micro-aggression while another person may not. Technically, there must be bias to constitute a micro-aggression. Even though micro-aggressions are “small” offenses, they often accumulate, creating distress for the individual targeted. (Because micro-aggressions are by definition small offenses, they are often met with exasperated accusations of over-sensitivity, and the term itself clearly annoys some people.)
   • “My Truth” – Similar to lived experience, “my truth” is an expression meant to convey that an individual’s truth, or experience, is unique to them; it is based on their own perceptions and reactions to their individual experiences. A person’s “truth” is entitled to be believed until and unless credible evidence rebuts it. (It is similar to the legal concept of a “rebuttable presumption.”) In some precincts of the fight against racism, the “truth” of a person of a marginalized group is to be accepted as reality, regardless of facts, evidence, or contradiction with another person’s “truth.” Scholars of anti-racism have pointed out that unquestioning acceptance of “my truth” assertions about racism, sexual violence, ableism, etc., contradicts American traditions of due process and “innocent until proven guilty,” and thus hands a potent rhetorical weapon to opponents of anti-racism efforts.
   • Privilege. In the contest of anti-racism, privilege refers to the advantage one has over others simply because of social expectations grounded in class, education, race, gender, or majority status. Anti-racism fosters an awareness of one’s privilege relative to others.
   • Systemic racism, institutional racism – Racism that is embedded in the laws, regulations, policies, and culture of institutions is called systemic, or institutional, racism. Examples might include the practice of redlining, hiring policies that include degree requirements although a degree is not actually needed; funding models for schools based on property taxes; and similar structures that ignore or even continue the effects of centuries of discrimination.
   • Stereotyping – The assumption that all members of a particular group have certain essential characteristics is stereotyping. It is closely allied to essentialism.
   • Tolerance, intolerance – Tolerance is a fair, objective, and permissive attitude and acceptance of opinions, beliefs, and practices that are different from those of one’s own “tribe.” Intolerance is the belief that such differences are marks of inferiority. Tolerance can have a whiff of patronage—we “tolerate” behaviors that we don’t necessarily approve– but it can also refer to a “live and let live” philosophy, a recognition that that nice people don’t try to impose their own life-choices on people with whom they disagree. Many anti-racist activists believe that tolerance without a corresponding effort to achieve equity is not only insufficient, but supportive of racism. Moderates and conservatives, on the other hand, sometimes criticize purists for their intolerance of people who are merely tolerant.
   • Virtue Signaling –While we would all like to believe that anti-racist advocates are all pure of heart, some people will take public actions or make public statements that are intended to let other people know that they are “the good guys.” Virtue signaling is similar to “political correctness” and self-righteousness; it ignores nuance and complexity. It is a way of letting other people know that the person doing the signaling is on the “correct” side of a social issue. The primary goal of those who engage in virtue signaling is peer approval, not social change.
   • “Woke” – The term “woke” has evolved, and not always in a positive way. It was once a slang term meaning to have an active awareness of systemic racism, injustice, and prejudice, truth. For that reason, “woke” is often used as a compliment or positive comment to a person or institution that is seen as advancing equity. However, it is also used as a pejorative by culture warriors who dismissively label as “woke” someone who is pointing to evidence of discrimination; the implication is that the person is moralizing or virtue signaling. Calling someone “woke” in that negative sense is an effort to cancel or diminish people with whom they disagree.

   As we have seen with the example of “woke,” terminology has a way of changing meaning rather quickly. Language, as we noted previously, is constantly evolving. We believe that the above list of words and phrases is currently correct, but it is certainly possible that there have been changes and/or additions since this was written. With that caveat, we hope this list will be helpful to those who may not previously have encountered certain of the terms and usages employed in the anti-racist context.

   II. Telling the Difference Between Ignorance and Intent

   As we pointed out in the introduction, there is a meaningful difference between ignorance—defined as a lack of knowledge, information or understanding, not stupidity—and intentional efforts to insult, diminish or harm another person. The authors believe that most Americans (granted, not all) are decent people who may simply not know that their vocabulary or their actions may be cause for offense. Our goal should be to interrupt ignorance and provide a teachable moment—preferably, a non-hostile one.

   It wasn’t all that long ago, after all, that younger family members had “the talk” with their grandparents about those Black lawn jockey statues in the front yard, or with elderly kindergarten teachers about why it was time to “retire” “Little Black Sambo.” People are products of the eras into which they were born and socialized, and more often than not individuals simply fail to think about the actual meaning of phrases and behaviors that were once considered acceptable. More often than we may recognize, a “teachable moment” simply requires focusing polite attention on phrases that have been used thoughtlessly.

   In this section, we provide some examples of behaviors that might be products of ignorance or inadvertence but that also might be classified as intentional micro-aggressions, as well as examples of speech and behavior that are clearly prompted by racial or religious animus. As you read through the scenarios, think about how you would classify them—are these behaviors micro-aggressions, as we have defined that term? Examples of intentional bigotry? In the next section, we’ll explore how to decide—and how to respond most effectively, based upon the conclusions reached.

   Some of these behaviors may seem minor, but all of them violate the most basic premise of anti-racism: people are individuals, not interchangeable representatives of monolithic tribes.

   • Let’s start with a very common example: what we call the clutched bag assumption. A White woman walking down the street notices that a Black male is walking behind her, and immediately clutches her purse, indicating that she believes herself a likely target of a purse-snatch (or worse). The clear assumption is that Black males are likely to be criminals. Also included in this category are store clerks who follow Black customers around, telegraphing their belief that Black patrons are more likely to be shoplifters. Most people now recognize how mistaken—and hurtful—these assumptions are.

   • Some behaviors communicate an unwillingness to distinguish between individuals in a particular racial or religious group. Call this the They’re all alike or They’re interchangable assumption. It can occur in a classroom, when a teacher calls a Black student by the name of the only other Black student in the classroom, or when the shift supervisor at the factory consistently calls Black workers by the names of other Black workers.

   • Closely allied to They’re all alike is the You people have weird names attitude. When supervisors, teachers and others don’t make the effort to pronounce an unfamiliar name properly, it telegraphs a belief that “you people” are less deserving of respect than people with more common names.

   • Another all-too-common experience occurs when two or more customers are waiting for service, and one is a person of color. If the clerk is White, s/he may recognize and wait on the White person even when the person of color was there first. If the clerk is Black, s/he may wait on the Black customer first, even when the White person was first in line. This behavior is called the cross-race effect, reflecting many people’s (hopefully unconscious) bias toward members of their own “tribes.”

   • Then there’s the eye contact issue. This may seem subtle, but it doesn’t go unnoticed. A supervisor training two people, one Black and one White, may make eye contact only with the person of the supervisor’s own race. This phenomenon isn’t limited to training or employment situations, nor is it limited to race. A male supervisor training a man and a woman may avoid eye contact with the woman; a female trainer might avoid eye contact with the male trainee. Eye contact is a function of comfort and assumed companionship, and it doesn’t go unnoticed.

   • Reactions to the watch your gendered or stereotyping mouth offense can sometimes be dismissed as over-sensitivity, but using gendered pronouns– addressing a mixed crowd as “you guys” or speaking to a women’s group and repeatedly referring to the audience as “you ladies”— conveys disinterest in using pronouns that more explicitly recognize the individuality of members of the audience, and may indicate that the speaker holds outdated stereotypes, just as bragging to a friend that you negotiated a good price for something by saying that you “Jewed them down” reinforces a pernicious anti-Semitic trope.

   • Workplaces are increasingly diverse, so indifference to culture is an increasing source of tension. The manager who decides to reward his staff with a catered lunch on Yom Kippur or Ramadan is sending a (again, hopefully unintended) message. That message may be that only holidays celebrated by majorities matter, or it may be that the manager considers the religious commitments of staff to be unimportant. In the alternative, it may signal that the manager is unaware of—or indifferent to– the requirements of religions other than his or her own. None of these possible messages are characteristics of good management practices. In educational settings, scheduling examinations on religious holidays important to minority communities falls into this same category.

   • Outdated assumptions about sexual orientation can give rise to awkward incidents or offense. We might call this one the closet is still closed assumption, and it most often arises in social conversations or in interviews of various sorts. Person one says he has a teenage daughter, and person two asks if she’s discovered boys yet, or at a dinner party, a guest notices that the man seated next to him is wearing a wedding ring and asks whether his wife accompanied him. Such questions telegraph the assumption that everyone is either heterosexual or trying to pass as heterosexual.

   • A number of secular and political organizations hold dinners at which it is common to have an invitee offer an invocation. It is also common to hear that invocation close with the phrase “In Jesus name. Amen.” This is the America is a Christian Nation assumption, and it ignores the probability that representatives of America’s growing populations of Jews, Muslims, Atheists and others are very likely to be present. Closing with specifically Christian language sends a message to those others, and the message is: I don’t see you, since you don’t really belong here.

   • The country’s economic history has fostered an increasingly inaccurate managerial assumption that White men are most likely to be in charge in most settings. For example, when a Black or female employee approaches a customer to “how may I help you?” the customer might point to a White male employee and say “I need to speak to the manager.” The customer is relying on an increasingly outdated stereotype about who is likely to be in charge. Something similar to the managerial assumption often impedes a productive business search for new employees or contractors. Those engaged in the search may fail to do appropriate outreach because they assume (incorrectly) that people of color or women aren’t interested or engaged in the relevant workforce or profession.

   • The form letter conundrum is a relatively new concern. Businesses often correspond with individuals or groups without knowledge of the gender or marital status of the recipient, and some of those receiving incorrect salutations take offense.

   • Efforts at inclusion can sometimes backfire. Call this the But I meant well example. A majority White workplace tries to recognize a minority by highlighting the occurrence of Black History Month, Pride, Hispanic Heritage Month, Disability Awareness Month, or similar event—and inadvertently misrepresents some aspect of that community, perhaps with stock photos in a display or the use of the “wrong” rainbow flag, offending some of the workplace’s minority members

   • Closely allied to the I meant well conundrum is the damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation, in which an experienced professional suggests to a young female intern that she wear less revealing attire if she hopes to succeed in the workplace. . Or an individual with a walker approaches a door, and another person rushes to open the door for that person, assuming a degree of dependency that may or may not be present.

   • Another workplace dilemma is the our perspective is disrespected implication. Strategic disagreements can be construed as bias; for example, if a committee has reached consensus on a shared goal and committee members who happen to be members of the majority community support one strategy, while two committee members (who happen to be members of a minority community) support a different strategy, the minority members may (correctly or incorrectly) interpret rejection of their preferred strategy as bias.

   III. Responding in Real Life

   You may have identified with one or more of the situations described above –either because it was a situation that you have observed or one that you experienced. How should these often awkward or embarrassing experiences be handled?

   First of all, let us emphasize that there is no one correct way! Each situation is dependent on the individuals involved and the context within which the incident occurred. Effective action will depend upon the relationships, if any, between the individuals involved. It will depend upon whether one person is in a position of power or authority over the other. It may well depend upon the identity or reactions of others who may be present. What is important is the goal: to effect a change in the speech or behavior that appears to be evidence of bias.

   Relationships, intent and context matter.

   We really do believe that most Americans support the principle of equality. Most people want to combat racism and to advance equity—or at the very least, be seen as non-racist. However, we currently occupy a social climate plagued by hypersensitivity, over-reaction, and cancel culture at both extremes. That climate, unfortunately, provides a powerful incentive for inaction. Well-meaning people are often paralyzed by self-doubt, confused by contradictory messaging, and intimidated by fear of being criticized for not being sufficiently anti-racist—or at the other extreme, seeming too “woke.”

   The activists are correct when they argue that inaction can perpetuate racism. This is the fundamental conundrum faced by well-meaning people caught up in complicated situations in the current climate. Most of us are willing to publicly criticize someone whose actions are unambiguous: someone who uses the “N” word, painting swastikas on synagogues, or otherwise engaging in blatantly racist and uncivil behavior. When the situation is more nuanced or less clear-cut it can be more difficult to speak up. If we don’t, however– if discomfort leads us to simply ignore the situation–we risk eroding the progress that has been made toward construction of a more inclusive, more civil society.

   Our goal in this section is simple: to provide a set of tools for measured, appropriate and non-hostile actions and reactions. It should be emphasized that these are not the only tools that might be employed—they are examples intended to be both suggestive and instructive.

   In this section, we review the previous scenarios, and classify them into three categories: unchecked assumptions with prejudice, unchecked assumptions with implicit bias, and what we call “works in progress.” Each of these situations may be rooted in our unconscious biases and shaped by our upbringing and the cultural norms of our personal and occupational circles. In our examples of effective responses, we consider both how to change our own behaviors and how to exert a positive influence on the behavior of others.

   Here’s a “quick and dirty” chart that sorts the scenarios in Section Two into our three categories.

   Unchecked assumptions with prejudice Unchecked assumptions with implicit bias Works in progress
   The clutched bag “The closet is still closed” The form letter
   “They’re all alike” or “you people have weird names” The cross-race effect “But I meant well” or “Damned if you do/damned if you don’t”
   “Your gendered/stereotypical mouth” Making eye contact “Our perspective is disrespected.”
   “America is a Christian nation” Indifference to culture

   Now, let’s take a closer look.

   Category A: Unchecked assumptions – with unconscious and intentional bias

   We all make assumptions about people; it’s part of human nature. However, if you are reading this book, you likely have a basic level of self-awareness. However, you may be unaware of lingering assumptions that–when left unchecked—reflect unexamined prejudices.

   • The clutched bag assumption – As previously stated, the behaviors of a woman clutching a purse or a store clerk following a Black customer are mistaken and hurtful. The remedy here is simple; stop doing this.
   • Your gendered or stereotyping mouth –Not paying attention to the language we use may be based in ignorance or inattention or habit—there are often expressions we use without consciously thinking about them (e.g.., you guys, you ladies, etc.) –reflexive usages that we simply never focused on. It’s easy to overlook or consider the meaning or impact of such phrases (e.g., Jew down, spaz out, gyp someone, etc.). Our choices of words matter. Language evolves, and so should we. In order to create new habits, we all need to identify our “go-to phrases” that may now be considered outdated or offensive, and practice using new phrases instead.
   • The “They’re all alike” or “you people have weird names” assumption – Calling someone by the wrong name and/or consistently mispronouncing a person’s name are disrespectful behaviors and can be hurtful. (Accidents do happen—in which case, we should apologize and make a sincere effort to improve.) Calling someone by the wrong name or mispronouncing their name is frequently experienced as a microaggression. Reducing and eliminating these offenses requires intentionality. It is simple enough to ask a person with an unfamiliar name to pronounce it for you and to practice the name when you meet them.
   • The “America is a Christian nation” assumption – By this time in our history, people should be well aware that even small communities are religiously diverse. (Indeed, Pew Rsearch tells us that 1 out of 4 Americans currently do not identify with any religion.) Offering a specifically Christian prayer at a public event is exclusive and disrespectful to others in the audience. It is important to be inclusive—to use universal language in public meetings. If you are not sure about the composition of a gathering, the safest path is to assume your audience is multi-cultural.

   We know that these scenarios may be rooted in ignorance. For example, we might excuse our 95-year-old aunt who at the sorority lunch ends her prayer with “in Jesus’ name” or who doesn’t understand why her transgendered grandchild changed their name and dresses differently. And we acknowledge there might be personal experiences that shape individual reactions. For example, we understand why the former crime victim clutches her bag when anyone is nearby. But we would expect most other people to recognize that even small communities are increasingly diverse and multi-cultural, and that the behaviors in this category are likely to give offense. Civility is always the safest behavior.

   B. Unchecked assumptions with implicit bias

   Another group of unchecked assumptions is rooted in implicit bias, and the resulting offenses are also often unintentional.

   • The closet is still closed assumption – The continuing use of language that assumes a spouse is a person of the opposite sex is understandable. After all, same-sex marriages are relatively recent phenomena. That said, when this assumption is repeatedly employed, it can be considered less innocent. If you ask about a man’s wife rather than his spouse or partner, apologize and restate the question. As society changes, the use of gender-neutral language will be more important—and, we promise, seem more natural.
   • The cross-race effect – The cross-race effect, also called own-race bias, has been studied extensively. It refers to the reality that people inherently recognize and gravitate toward people like themselves. The Harvard Laboratory on Development Studies found that even infants and toddlers exhibit this tribal preference. The cross-race effect results in a variety of micro-aggressions against people we see as “other.” Countering this very human behavior requires intentionality; we need to become aware of our own behaviors, however subtle. What do we mean by “intentionality”? If you are a teacher, remind yourself to call on all students. If you are a supervisor, train yourself to speak to every staff member in the same manner. If you are a service worker, be careful to wait on each customer equally. Intentionality and sincerity can go a long way to combat the cross-race effect.
   • Making eye contact – The same advice applies here; watch your eye contact in order to avoid a situation in which you are avoiding eye contact with “others” or focusing too much on those you see as members of your tribe. (This advice is offered with a caveat: we recognize that some people with disabilities or from other cultures may favor different forms of eye contact. Efforts to be inclusive can be difficult!)
   • Indifference to culture – Americans live in a multi-cultural society, whether all of us are prepared to recognize that fact or not. Planning a workplace luncheon on a religious holiday that requires fasting is disrespectful to employees or guests of that religion. Scheduling an important test on a day when minority-religion students will be absent is inconsiderate. Attention to such religious and cultural differences is the mark of a civil society. Kindness and respect demand that we be sensitive to major holidays, dietary restrictions, and cultural norms. Fortunately, it isn’t difficult to practice such civility; you need only ask people in your workplace or other group environment how they prefer to celebrate X, or if they do celebrate it. A number of organizations also publish inclusive calendars and make them widely available.

   If you find yourself an unintentional offender in these situations, take time to learn about implicit bias, microaggressions, and their impact. While it is unfair to expect a person of color to explain why a particular communication or behavior was offensive, those who have a trusted relationship with a marginalized person may want to ask that individual to share the impact of those identifiable, negative behaviors.

   If you aren’t the one engaging in behaviors that can be considered micro-agressions, but you have observed such a behavior, your options are less clear-cut.

   First, consider the context. Are you in a position to support the marginalized person on the receiving end of the behavior, or in a position to coach the offender, or both? Start with the strongest relationship.
   • If you have a relationship with the targeted person, find a way to express support. If the microaggression is minor, you might just restate the offending words using a non-offensive phrase. For example, you could 1) restate and pronounce the individual’s name correctly; 2) rephrase, using gender neutral terms, such as spouse/partner/friend/student/employee when the sexual orientation is not known, or using “they/them/their” when the gender is not known; 3) restate using inclusive language such as person with autism, etc. Granted, this may look like virtue signaling,but it both sends a message of support to the marginalized person and provides a nonoffensive-language model to the offender.
   • If you have a relationship with offender that would allow it, take that person aside and explain why the language or behavior might be considered inappropriate, and offer a suggestion for avoiding offense in the future. (The offender may be less than receptive, but the likelihood is that the intervention will be remembered.) The key is to make the suggestion in private and in as non-accusatory manner as possible. If you can provide alternatives to the speech or behavior, even better.
   • If the exchange is occurring in the workplace or in an educational setting, understand that additional care may be needed. While the law generally has lagged our understanding of micro-aggressions, the workplace may have specific policies or procedures for addressing them.
   • In all of these exchanges, it’s important not to respond in a manner that is out of proportion to what may well have been a gaffe or unfortunate phraseology. Minor offenses can often be cured with an apology and a change in speech or behavior. Of course, if the behavior persists, further intervention may be warranted.
   • All of these examples are about Improving self-awareness.Neuroscience teaches us that positive reinforcement is the most effective way to change behavior. A positive, rather than a critical or punitive approach is critical. We do need to interrupt ignorance , thoughtless behaviors and micro-aggressions, but it is equally important that we not do so publicly, or in a shaming way

   C. Works in progress, aka, there is no clear answer yet…

   In the scenarios we described in Section Three, we recognized the emergence of challenges for which there are not clear resolutions. There is no “Miss Manners” or “Emily Post”specializing in etiquette for advancing equity. In this section, we deal with a few of the newer situations that may or may not result in causing offense. These are often “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” situations. Given the Increased attention to diversity, equity, inclusion, and access, we have seen substantially increased efforts to avoid giving offense, even if some of those efforts aren’t handled very smoothly. Social media is full of examples where purists have pounced on a company for well-intentioned but clumsy effort to honor Black History Month, Pride Month, or Indigenous People’s Day. It sometimes seems that “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” situations are proliferating.

   • The form letter and pronouns. It is important to use people’s preferred pronouns and salutations in individual communication—in speech and in writing. If you have a business, personal, or educational relationship with someone, you can simply ask their preference. There are many situations, however, where no prior relationship exists.In the business setting, you might have very little information about the recipient of a communication, and the meager information you do have may not be accurate. We are long past the time when we expected form letters to all use the “Dear Sirs” salutation. Businesses are now faced with a conundrum: what salutation to use? People of a certain age or status may still expect the use of their first name and last names. (Use of only a first name may be considered too informal.) If you are using only the last name, there’s the question of what pronoun to use when you don’t know the gender of the recipient. Ideally, we would address everyone as they wish to be addressed, but managing that level of detail can be time-consuming and costly. (Technology may come to the rescue! Many businesses, nonprofits, and religious institutions are beginning to use software that allows them to personalize for each individual in a database.) Until such technologies are widespread, let’s just admit that the issue of salutations is complicated and unresolved.
   • A college in a majority white community invites a person of color to join a committee on diversity. The committee wants to rely on that individual for a perspective it might not otherwise understand. It also wants to avoid turning that person into a “representative,” of all people of color, an obviously unfair burden to place on that individual. The college is trying to navigate the tightrope between being inclusive and avoiding tokenization. Perhaps a frank discussion of the dilemma with the “representative” person prior to the first meeting can ameliorate the discomfort, depending, again, on the relationship of the parties to that conversation.
   • A company includes a pride flag in a social media post supporting transgender rights. A person from the community criticizes the company for using the “wrong” rainbow flag. Here, a simple apology and a substitution of the “correct” flag should suffice.
   • A woman with a long history of mentoring younger women in her field suggests to a younger female employee that her clothing is too revealing for the professional workplace. One young woman considers the suggestion a gender-based microaggression, and is offended. Another sincerely appreciates the guidance and considers this invaluable mentoring from a professional. (Consider how the dynamics of this situation would change if the mentor were a person of the opposite sex!) In today’s work environment—and especially since COVID– the entire notion of a dress code may be disappearing, so this particular dilemma may go the way of the buffalo.
   • A middle-aged person opens the door for an elderly person using a cane. One person sees this as proper etiquette—a show of respect for elders. Another considers this ageism or ableism. Perhaps the best solution to this dilemma is simply to ask the individual “may I get the door for you?” or “may I help you with that?”
   • Another dilemma occurs in the context of committee or community deliberations.The purpose of collaborative processes is to incorporate a wide variety of viewpoints; organizational scholars have demonstrated that following such processes results in better decisionmaking than when decisions are made unilaterally by one or two people. Rather obviously, however, when marginalized members of a committee express a particular view in a collaborative process, it is still one view. If a committee ultimately selects a different strategy or option, that doesn’t necessarily translate into bias against the minority folks advancing an unchosen perspective–although in some cases, such bias may exist.

   In each of the situations above, and many others, different people will perceive realities differently. Purists may label every gaffe, every unfortunate phrase, as an intentional micro-aggression. Those with more charitable worldviews may see innocent, albeit clumsy, attempts to advance equity. The tragedy of the current social climate is that far too often, well-meaning, well-intentioned allies who are making good-faith efforts to advance equity are the ones being publicly criticized and shamed. Seeing these frequently indiscriminate expressions of hostility, people who are neither bigots nor anti-racist “warriors”—people who want a fairer, more just society but are unfamiliar with the required vocabularies and most recent causes celebre—are intimidated, and afraid to weigh in.

   Deep breaths, people. Fortunately, most Americans really are well-meaning and fair-minded; they are neither committed White Supremacists nor virtue-signaling purists. The fight for civic fairness and a world in which we can all get along will ultimately be won by the millions of sensible people who have a sense of proportion and a commitment to fair play. The future belongs to those fair-minded people–not to those who are descending on school boards to demand that the schools teach inaccurate history, and not to the scolds who see Klanspeople behind every awkward phrase.

   Summing Up /Afterword

   We cannot repeat this often enough: the proper goal of anti-racist behavior is a world where individuals are treated as individuals, not as representatives of any particular “tribe” –a world where each person is treated with dignity and respect until and unless they demonstrate behaviors that divest them of the right to demand such respect.

   Mythology to the contrary, the United States has always been diverse, albeit not as diverse as it has become. The original American Idea—a true departure from the norms of the time—was that citizenship should be based upon an individual’s behavior rather than that person’s identity or status. The new nation was not based upon geography, ethnicity or conquest, but on allegiance to a theory of social organization, a philosophy of governance that was meant to facilitate e pluribus unum—out of the many, one.

   As we all know, America still falls far short of realizing that goal, but we have moved from a system in which only White male landowners were considered full participants in the governance of society, to one where, slowly and steadily (with some hiccups along the way) we include non-landowners, women, non-Christians and people of color as equal participants in our polity. Our challenge now is to make good on the promise of inclusion by ridding our legal system and society of the remnants of unfair and unfounded attitudes that do not serve our purposes, our economy, or our moral aspirations.

   Changing culture is a slow process. It inevitably proceeds in fits and starts. It’s easy for people to become impatient, to be intolerant of the stubborn intolerance of others—but “cancelling,” calling out and shaming such people all too often turns out to be counterproductive (not to mention that it can often be inconsistent with America’s commitment to due process and free speech). We are all tempted to be “jerks” at some point, but that really isn’t the way to win hearts and minds.

   There really is no substitute for doing the deep, inner work needed to recognize our own unconscious attitudes, and applying what we’ve learned to the ongoing task of informing, communicating and—especially—modeling the values we want to advance. With that in mind, we want to reiterate some of the basic points we’ve tried to convey.

   • Deepen your own self-awareness – If you are reading this book, you likely already have some level of awareness of your own unconscious biases and the degree to which you are privileged, if you are. Consider this a lifelong journey, as language and cultural norms evolve over time. The key here is to avoid assigning responsibility for your self-awareness to the people who have been marginalized. We are each responsible for our own moral and intellectual growth.

   • Start with a presumption of positive intent – Whether you observe someone else’s ignorance, or they interrupt yours, give each other grace and assume no offense was intended. The very nature of a micro-aggression is that it is “micro,” a small offense. (That said, if you are the offender, ask yourself if this particular incident was really a “one-off” or whether you may have said or done the same thing repeatedly. If it is the latter, resolve to stop it.)

   • Assess and act – When you see or hear co-workers, family members, and friends act or speak in a way that could be experienced as offensive, pause and preface any response with a quick assessment. If you know that the person whose behavior is the issue is a confirmed White Supremacist, recognize the futility of any intervention or effort to change that person’s heart or mind. (That certainly doesn’t mean you shouldn’t signal disapproval.) Remember, the first goal of interrupting offensive speech or behavior is to provide support to people who have historically been underrepresented; the second goal is to educate the offender and improve the situation by reducing futures expression of bias. Getting into an argument with a confirmed, “out and proud” racist won’t accomplish the second of those goals and is likely to give that person a further megaphone. “Cancelling” someone who, in your opinion, has been insufficiently anti-racist is likely to confirm the opinions of anti-“woke” crusaders, and highly unlikely to change the future behavior of the individual being cancelled.

   • When you do interrupt or are interrupted – Ask yourself whether this situation offers a teachable moment. Does it offer an opportunity to strengthen the relationship? We really can advance both civility and equity in most situations. (There may be extreme cases where it may not be safe for anyone involved to interrupt certain behaviors; we are not addressing those here.)
   a. If you are interrupting a micro-aggression – Be civil and kind. If possible, educate ignorance or interrupt micro-aggressions in private, not in public—especially if you have a relationship with the offending individual. Don’t lecture, just name the offense and explain why it is a micro-aggression. Suggest a different way to express the underlying sentiment, if appropriate. Request a different behavior—again, as appropriate. Thank the person for listening, and recognize that s/he may need time to process the information and the discussion.
   b. If your own micro-aggression is interrupted – Listen. Observe. Thank the person for bringing this to your attention. Apologize sincerely for the specific offense and, if appropriate, describe how you will behave in future. (Author Harriett Lerner offers solid suggestions on good and bad apologies. For example, Lerner writes that good apologies should be short, clear, and direct with an acceptance of responsibility. Good apologies never include the words but or if. See Why Won’t You Apologize, 2017.) Express your desire to maintain or strengthen the relationship. Depending upon the degree of offense, you should also recognize that the offended party may not forgive or excuse you—and that a decision to withhold forgiveness may or may not be about you.

   • Recognize ambiguity and avoid oversimplification. As the Black columnist John McWhorter has written, we live in an age of complexity. If we are to move society to a fairer, more inclusive place, we need a critical mass of people willing to come to terms with that complexity. Recognition of ambiguity and complexity are hallmarks of maturity, not signs of racism.

   We have concentrated our advice on transgressions that are largely inadvertent, because we believe that efforts to change the hearts and minds of committed bigots are largely a waste of time and energy—but we also believe that thoughtful, non-accusatory efforts to educate and inform can be immensely productive.

   The primary goals for the anti-racist—as with so many other facets of our communal lives—are communication and understanding. Since one goal is communication, we need to avoid virtue-signaling and shaming and similar self-congratulatory behaviors. Since the other goal is understanding, we need to cultivate sufficient humility to recognize that we all harbor blind spots and implicit biases, and curb our (very human) tendencies to become defensive and angry.

   When we communicate properly, when we put ourselves into another person’s shoes and begin to understand the world from that person’s perspective, we advance social equity and the common good. We begin the overdue job of repairing the damage done by pernicious stereotypes and hard-wired tribal prejudices.

   We become anti-racists—and hopefully, nicer human beings. Not jerks.

2. As George Bernard Shaw said: “England and America are two countries separated by a common language”
   Language is tricky. For me, Standard English is the only way to communicate your ideas. Drifting into slang and slogans reduces the desired affect. I do NOT Lean IN or care about Woke or anti woke. It is just babbling to me and I tune it out. The now common misuse of pronouns and DEMANDING that others misuse pronouns is another current example. It makes me want to back away from the very people and groups that I naturally support. The language is damaging the cause. PLEASE use standard English.

3. I admit that I get confused by all of the ‘terminology’ and what it really means.

   I also admit that I have no idea how to begin repairing generations of subjugation, especially with the current senior population.

   I live in an active senior community and regularly see anger and reaction between the groups (not even counting here those who are 1st generation foreign language residents). I have encountered few who are open to discussing how we might move forward together …

   I am thrilled you are addressing this/these issues.

   Thank You … Colleen Kelly

4. A few years ago I became reconnected with someone I was friendly with but not close friends. She was a singer and was of course friends with and connected to many black people in the music field. One of our E-mail conversations was regarding a problem in her apartment complex, I don’t remember the problem but it had noting to do with race. She referred to one of the residents who disagreed with her as a black woman; the woman called her a racist and I agreed with her because race was not the issue. I must admit I have been guilty of this myself but identifying a person in this situation by race is racist. We don’t realize how deeply embedded racism is in our subconscious; why do we feel the need to identify friend or foe by race in non-racial issues? Why do we become alerted to possible danger when we see a group of young blacks in public places?

   When will we stop congratulating those such as John Lewis, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Sidney Poitier and Cicely Tyson and the current Presidential nominee to the Supreme Court as being a “credit to their race”?

5. I have read Ibram X. Kendi’s book and was in a book discussion with the Sisters of Providence regarding the book. Anti-racism is the Providence Community’s focus for the next 5 years. I think it is worthwhile to approach being anti-racist vs being non-racist because as Kendi says we must focus not so much on the individual racism as we need focus on the policies that support it.

   Those who might demonize being ‘woke’ may not understand that it means becoming aware of deeper meanings than just surface. Isn’t that laudable? The first time I saw the TV shows ‘Live PD’ and ‘Cops’ it was apparent to me that those being arrested were not representative of our country’s population and that it was perpetuating the myth that blacks are more criminal. It was not apparent to my friends who were fans of it, and it perpetuated their own myth. When they were cancelled in 2020, my friends were initially upset but soon came to realize that it was indeed perpetuating a myth.

   We have much to overcome in this country and any book, any study, any help for citizens is crucial. As I have said many times, all of my life I have watched peaceful protests and I’m not sure if people just expected them to continue for another 100 years.

6. First we should all face the simple fact that we all have prejudices. We can only create change if we can truthfully confront our own issues.

7. Thank you for the interesting read. I have an additional suggestion as a strategy for teaching others (and reinforcing to yourself) some better behavior/speech – correct yourself out loud. I’ve worked to stop saying gypsy after I read it was offensive to some (still not sure about Travelers though). I said gypsy in some context that escapes me right now (maybe some European migration conversation? No idea) around a friend and then immediately said “I mean Roma. I think Roma is what I should have said”. He asked why and I explained that gypsy wasn’t seen as a positive thing to some people and that my personal policy is if I can change something about what I say/do(especially if it costs me nothing to do so) and offend fewer people – I think I should. Correcting yourself out loud seems like a good policy to me.

8. With regard to the LGBT… issue, you might include a reference to the existence of the “I” component that was apparently present, in some if not all of the Native American cultures.

9. it is estimated that 97% of Afghanis will be living in poverty and here we are debating whether certain words upset people. Americans are a spoiled, superficial, bored and boring people.

10. Nobody who is “trying” wants to be told they are “failing”. If your effort (the book/article) doesn’t include serious methods or techniques on how to “coach” those who are trying, you are just adding to the noise out there. While I will apologize in advance for the sports analogy (you opened the door with “level playing field” [I say this jokingly]) but we should approach your “woke wars” more like little league baseball – everyone who wants to play, gets to play! Period. And even if someone is the worst player you have ever seen in your life, you give them time on field. You encourage them to practice and keep trying and at the end of the season, you encourage them to come back for the next season. You want the young inexperienced players to enjoy the game, the process of improvement, being a part of something bigger than just themselves. This also means that you have to coach the naturally gifted athletes to understand that not everyone can keep up and to be patient – you simply can’t compete without complete team. While I agree that life is complicated and gray, this doesn’t mean that we need to approach all of our problems with density and opacity.

11. Two things…First, a problem with talking about “racism” is the root of the term in “race”. To my knowledge, biologically/scientifically there are no pure “races” – we are all some mixture of Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. Because of the history of America, “race” equals Black or color. It is way more complicated than that. Is it any wonder that Latinos and Asian-Americans feel offended by all the talk about race?

    Second, when expanding our thinking to consider distain for “the other”, we neatly evade social classism. When we rant about helping those in poverty, it is mostly about people “of color” when there are actually, in pure numbers, more poor “white” people, ignored by the enlightened/concerned of us. And we wonder why many of those folks turn to Trump?

12. Pascal de Caprariis, I am an amatuer student of indigenous culture, and am unaware of the “I” component. I would appreciate your elaboration. Maybe it’s something I know by another name?

    To Sheila, The following paragrpah, and some other stuff here concerns me. Allow me to quote your paragraph.

    What, exactly, is racism, as we are using that term? It is the belief that identity trumps individuality and behavior—the belief that people who share a skin color or religion share essential characteristics that distinguish “them” from “us.” (We use the term identity in its political sense: the tendency of people of a particular gender, religion, race, social background, social class or other identifying factors to develop political agendas that are based upon these identities.) It is a worldview that fails to see people as people—individuals who deserve to be approached and evaluated as individuals. There are certainly cultural and regional differences among Americans, but humans of every color and faith and gender can and do vary from delightful to annoying to truly damaged and/or deplorable.

    I define “identity” in a different was, particularly as a trans person and non-binary. Trans people get to define their personal identity. This idea that identity isn’t personal, “It is the belief that identity trumps individuality and behavior” is exactly the opposite of how people in the LGBT community think about identity. Perhaps there is another word you could use? Otherwise you are going to confuse the heck of LGBT people, and probably others.

    Another area that relates to the problem with the LGBT community is that, while most basic values in our country (at least among non Trump supporters are common, people in minority groups usually have an entirely different life experience than white people Heck white women have an entirely different life experience than white men. so a very big part of black people’s identity is their experience of living in this “white” culture as a black person. When you say, “It is a worldview that fails to see people as people—individuals who deserve to be approached and evaluated as individuals”, it is critical that part of seeing people as people is recognizing their different lived experiences. This is one of the big stumbling blocks in dealing with racism, because it is the primary piece that makes “I don’ see race” into a problem instead of a solution to the race problem. People who don’t see race, no matter how well meaning they are, aren’t really seeing and understanding most black people.

    My time is very limited this morning. I will come back later (could be a couple of days) to look through this more carefully and see what other comments I want to offer.

13. there isnt a failed experiment,its ingrained in the society we have chosen to have. though the idea is to go above it,it will never move until we have the common face to face insitution of conversation together again.i do not avoid the conversation with the whities who live among me,( i am as white as they come)instead i engage by the conversation,when it evolves. time and place is usually the flow of words to engage when someones listening. i do not howl the words,or place a prioritiy to them. the conversation has been lost in a real world and many times now, replaced by people in shadows,who feel they must remove themselves and hide to make thier point. one who flaunts and damns in the shadows are mindless,at one poinnt,and fully rightious in another. we hide behind shadow names,memes and places,the gratification to them in the shadows. hiding the conversation wont bind one to the realities, as they merely distroy whats left. this free speach thing we are granted to abuse in our democracy will be the deathbed of our goverment,unless one is put into a reality check,and told, that this is not for abuse,try russia, if you want to see how its done..

14. Sheila:
    the idea is to enjoy the conversation here,and spread that wisdom to those who have little wisdom today..Thanks..

15. Unless I missed it, the terms ally and allyship were not included. In my community work groups addressing DEI issues, we have been cautioned to undertand the difference between philosophical support and actions that suupport.

    Another term that is used extensively is intersectionality.

16. Well firstly,

    Living in what’s supposed to be a secular society, secularism would be good to add to the list. Secularism’ in a society would mean everyone is treated similarly. No group or individual could or should impose their religious viewpoints on those who might not agree. So, keeping that wall up between church and state, allowing individuals to worship in their particular church or Temple or whatever, and of course their homes. But definitely not pounding dogma of a particular belief down somebody’s throat. Religious discussion is one thing, so is political discussion, but those need to be done with ‘Respect!’ Sometimes you need to agree to disagree. Having a different ‘viewpoint’ on a subject should not equate to hatred. But, as it is today, it actually does.

    LGBTQIA, just kind of reminds one of Me’ism or being a Me’ist. Look at me! I’m different, I’m special, 10 different genders? Binary? Trans? Sheesh, Just live your life! That’s a person’s right in a civil and secularist society. Discriminatory practices can be dealt with by law. That being said, law can’t be discriminatory which it’s so often is. Folks walk around and flaunt whatever they decide they want to flaunt to Garner a reaction so that then they can post it on Tic Toc or file a lawsuit or become righteously indignant! Thereby, they feed their Me’ist cravings of self-importance, denoted by the amount of followers one has, SMH…

    Woke? Most activists that I know don’t use that word. Jamal Cole in Chicago is well known for his movement. He pals around with Barack Obama! He never uses the word. Those that are out there shouting about being Woke, usually have their own blinders to worry about. They tend to be self-anointed Me’ist intellectuals or experts.

    The same can be said for white Christian nationalists or evangelicals. They don’t practice what they preach but reach back for the good old days when the Evangelical ranks would support the idea of slavery because the white race was superior. And especially, the black race was cursed. That’s why they were destined to be slaves. You can read the scripture that they used to alleviate their conscience, at Genesis 9:20 – 27.

    Only Ca’naan was not the progenitor of the black race, his brothers Kush and Put were, and they were not cursed. This scripture was the Vade-Mecum, or the “constant companion” of slaveholders and traders.

    This was not unknown, and in the summer of 1700, judge Samuel Sewall of Boston stated: for Canaan is the person cursed three times over, without the mentioning of Cham (Ham)…….. Whereas the Blackmores (Moors/black race) are not descended of Canaan but of Kush (Cush).

    Also, read John Woolman’s Treatise published in 1762. It blends in well with Judge Sewall!

    This piece of hypocritical and false doctrine has permeated the psyche of white men and damaged the psyche of black men throughout history.

    Black Lives Matter? When the founders realized they could become very well off from donations, it ceased to become an activist movement. It became a money-making enterprise. Very Me’ist, look at me!

    The Woke and defund the police ‘Nincompoopery’ are siblings of BLM. And, I wholeheartedly agree that there is a need to reform police, but BLM always holds up the police as the devils. BLM though refuses to enter into inner city War zones, where dozens of individuals are shot and killed every weekend especially in Chicago and other major cities. In my discussions, they claim it’s not their realm of responsibility or their mission statement.

    So black lives only matter if they are taken by the police, but obviously they don’t matter when they are taken by Bangers in the Hood. In Chicago, 800 murdered, 2100 wounded. Sounds like the Ukraine? BLM nowhere to be found.

    I’ll leave you this to ponder, Galatians 5 starting in the 19th verse through 25.

    I’ll paraphrase; ‘works of the flesh or hedonistic qualities, brazen conduct, idolatry, spiritism, strife, jealousy, Fits of anger, dissensions and divisions, sects, are wrong and must be steered clear of.’

    ‘Fruitage of the spirit, equates to love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.’

    ‘Let’s continue to walk orderly by spirit. Let’s not become egotistical, stirring up competition with one another, and envying one another.’

    I think that’s a good start, and you should read it yourself for the exact wording.

    Anyway, that’s how I see it! And Sheila, I hope this works out well and it’s a best seller. Maybe you should think about doing it as a fiction book through a particular storyline. After all, you want eyes on the page. You’ve got a good person commenting on this thread all the time, Vernon Turner! He could give you some good ideas and maybe help in the storyline. Anyway, just a thought! Sorry for volunteering you Vern, lol!

17. Some words have been repurposed for propaganda purposes. That was the “art” of advertising as demonstrated by Edward Bernays, the father of advertising, when he coined “torches of freedom” to “free” women to smoke in public and thus smoke often instead of infrequently in order to sell cigarettes. It’s taking what you, our your client, want to impose on others and expressing it in words that connote good.

    Also included in the art is a great deal of repetition. Thus even “big lies” become truth when they are presented as truth very, very often. This is the basis of much entertainment advertising like “the election was stolen”.

    Some words are born to be propaganda. “Race” is an example. It can be defined as apparent differences between humans adapted to different regional climates on earth. That’s accurate. Say the word though and that’s not what comes forward in most human brains.

    We have all seen, and some have experienced, the power of rapidly expanding air caused by rapid release of stored chemical energy. It takes us where we want to go in our cars, and it destroys buildings, and it creates projectiles that tear up human flesh. Boys play games imagining those things and men project their power the same way.

    All told the human language is the music of good and evil, of freedom and slavery. It’s power lies latent in human brains until a sound triggers a memory which comes attached to related memories and chemical triggers that cause physical reactions. They are every bit as compelling as rapidly expanding air caused by rapid release of stored chemical energy.

    We have all heard, and heard of, the language of love. It’s no different than the language of hate except by the memories that envelope specific sounds and letters in human memory.

    We each can choose our words carefully but what we can’t choose is the memories attached to those words by different brains. The power of word meanings, definitions, is to reduce the variability of reactions to them.

    The power of sentences and paragraphs is that they can be crafted to inform or to persuade. They can be crafted to persuade to mutual benefit, or to unilateral benefit.

18. Sheila,

    Your research before your final draft should include Rick Wilson’s two books about Trump. “Everything Trump Touches Dies” is the first one. It’s not so much about Trump, as it is with messaging. Also, read about George H.W. Bush’s embracing of true evil, Karl Rove, Lee Atwater and Dick Armey. Then, do read Rebecca Costa’s most insightful book, “The Watchman’s Rattle”. I’ve mentioned George Lakoff’s books before.

    Do you want me to forward the absolute lunacy from the down-in-the-rathole-never-to-emerge-as-sane FBI agent? You’ll get a good look at what these creatures are surfing for.

19. Vern,

    I actually got my copy of the watchman’s rattle last week! Very very interesting!

    Thanks for the recommendation.

20. Near the beginning, you state: ” It includes anti-Semitism and bigotries against Islam and various other religions, as well as a healthy dose of misogyny.” I’d amend that to include the LGBTQ community in some way. That’s a large area of prejudice covering gender, sex, orientation, dress, etc. And it’s a growing body of people now, and I suspect, will continue to be a growing group. Based on what I’ve seen with my own kids, my suspicion is that there will be more and more people embracing non-historically-typical identities as we move forward. My kids tell me that as many as half of their schoolmates are not traditionally straight. (In my school days, I knew of no one who was gay. Only learning in later years that many of my classmates were not traditionally straight.) If it’s no longer as hidden, it’ll inevitably no longer be so suppressed either.

    I wonder at your definition of “woke”. To me, it has always been an awareness of discrimination and bigotry. Sure, racism is a big one, but all other discriminations and bigotries are included. My kids first referred to me as “woke” because I recognize that gender and sexual orientation are complicated. In fact, my kids would not have thought of your “purists” as woke. To be woke implies an understanding that these issues are complicated and nuanced. If you are dogmatic, then you are not woke.

    In your definition, you say: “For that reason, “woke” is often used as a compliment or positive comment to a person or institution that is seen as advancing equity.”

    So, perhaps that’s just a change? As I say, I’d always heard it used by my kids and their friends as someone who was _aware_ of the issues. I’ve only heard it applied to knowledge never actions. I wonder if the move to include actions is related to the new pejorative use of the word, since the pejorative is often applied to a person based on their actions, rather than the person’s understanding or knowledge. In other words, my kids used woke as a characteristic of a person, not of actions or activities.

    In the systemic racism definition, the main argument I often see is that the law wasn’t explicitly racist (i.e. Black people are not allowed…) so therefore it couldn’t be racist. Is it worth explicitly noting that these laws are generally written to appear neutral, but may not be? For example, sometimes laws are inadvertently racist while others are meant to be racist, despite them all being written in very neutral language.

    Your definition of CRT is perfect. (That’s to be expected of an academic describing an academic subject, of course.) Is it worth describing how the term is currently being used by many of those on the right? It seems to me that they use it to refer to any nuanced discussion of race and history in the classroom, for example. It’s a means to shut down discussion, of course, to limit knowledge, empathy and understanding.

    When you discuss “ignorance v.s intent”, it occurs to me that the recent case involving Whoopi could provide a good example. It also demonstrates how hysterical over-reaction/cancelling can be problematic. Anyway, I just thought it’s an example of which most will be aware and could be a good case study to illustrate some of your ideas.

    There’s still much more to read, but I don’t have time now. Maybe I’ll add more thoughts later. I really like the fundamental idea.

21. “… or anti-White or insufficiently “American” (when coming from the Right.)
    Just yesterday, I came across an article that pointed to an essay which seems to speak to the issue of
    one’s being a “real” American, or not, in the eyes of the vast number of people who view Biden’s presidency
    as an outrage to their (very, and widey bigoted) views. I suggest that this needs to be addressed in what I
    hope will be your most useful book:
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/21/republicans-biden-trump-election-democracy
    “According to Ellmers, Biden’s presidency represents an “un-American” idea of multiracial pluralism – something that is fundamentally in
    conflict with what he refers to as ‘authentic America.'” This quote comes from the Alternet article that led to the essay in the Guardian.

    Yes, Larry, Americans are spoiled,and over entertained, modestly by mindless garbage.

22. Peggy & Larry spoke my words for me. There are no perfect people, self honesty is the better road to kindness.

23. Anne Johnson. I do not remember where I came across a comment about some indigenous tribes tolerating, ambiguous sexuality, and some of the tribes actually holding such people in esteem, but it stuck in my memory. It might have been some of the tribes in the Southwest, but I am not sure.

24. I am a White privileged person, although also an invisible older female (and an atheist!)… Perhaps the below topic could be included in your book.

    Would other people think the large “BLM” displayed in my front window is some sort of virtue-signaling or view it as allyship? I meant it for allyship and also used to have George and Breonna in the window. After nearly two years, I was thinking of replacing BLM with a rainbow, but was planning to use a true spectrum curved rainbow. Or what one might think of as a Martin Luther King rainbow. Hopefully that won’t bother any LGBTQ+ neighbors.

25. Thank you Sheila and colleague for compiling this info.

    John Pavlovitz was in Fort Wayne last weekend and a friend and I listened to him speak Saturday evening. For two hours he kept us entertained. I subscribed to his blog/newsletter many years ago and appreciate his wisdom and messages.

    I have mentioned John on this blog because he spoke about what Sheila and her colleague have written and his latest book is titled “If God is Love Don’t Be a Jerk”.

26. Sheila,
    I read your post carefully, and was struck by the failure to compare/contrast equity/equality of opportunity, although you grazed it a couple times.

    I’d suggest writing as if it were a conversation with Coleman Hughes and Jordan Peterson. Intellectual rigor IS a thing. I’m neither woke nor intentionally prejudiced, except for being a rational atheist, which ain’t easy nor normal.

    When you suggest psychologically modifying our genetic tendencies, you’re close to realizing how difficult and dangerous that path is. We’re heuristic operators, because a centipede can’t follow all its legs.

    Writing the book will be difficult, which is the goal of those who put up all these undefined hyper-conditional road signs.

    Best to just be as considerate as you can figure out, and not accept ill-meant critiques from people not qualified to critique.

27. Hi Sheila – I cannot help with this project, but I thought I’d tell you why, which might be helpful.

    In brief, I believe that racism (as you use it) and other -isms are forms of bias and outright ignorance. So, I believe that it is a waste of time to try to have discussions to promote understanding of eight billion opinions, especially now that we are creating whole new vocabularies that will repel racist people from that discussion. People are biased and ignorant in certain ways, and to try to guide them to behave better, when they are unmotivated to do so, is a waste of time.

    Instead, everybody already agrees on something, and two principles are often repeated, although rarely consciously understood. We should teach everyone from a young age (5th grade) about “how we know what we know.” We should propagate understanding of these two simple rules (that most people refer to often, but rarely know what they are talking about or practice).

    1. The Fallibilist Rule: Nobody Gets the Final Say. Popularly: “There’s more to it than that!” You may claim that a statement is established as knowledge ONLY if it is submitted to the reality-based community, and the statement withstands all attempts to debunk it. The statement is available to be checked by everyone and anyone, and stands up to all attempts to check it. The rule directs us to assume that everyone is fallible, and that participants must diligently hunt down their own and others’ errors.

    2. The Empirical Rule: No One Has Personal Authority. Popularly: “You ain’t the boss of me!” You may claim that a statement has been established as knowledge ONLY insofar as the method used to check it gives the same result regardless of the identity of the checker, and regardless of the source of the statement. Whatever you do to check a statement must be something that anyone can do, and get the same result. The rule applies to everybody, and persons are interchangeable. If your method is valid only for you, it is not reality-based. So, holy books, popes, kings, and gods are authoritative only insofaras their assertions meet this rule.

    These two rules are the foundations of liberal science and, incidentally, of the U.S. Constitution.

    Without these foundations, no discussion of bias and ignorance, truth and reality, can produce understanding or improved behavior.

    Therefore, until these two rules are accepted and understood as foundational by participants in the discussion of racism, I choose not to waste time. Any such discussion only exacerbates the confusion and push-back.

    Blessings!

28. There is a lot of incredible wisdom in the words of all here, as well as some that in my mind is questionable. The writing, particularly at the beginning, is very dense and may be overly challenging to many readers who are not deeply familiar with the concepts being discussed. My sense is it will be good reading for stereotyped: “lawyers”, “professors”, “peace activists” and the like. I think that it will be unreadable to many who are not comfortable in an academic or overtly political setting. It sounds like it is intended more towards white people than for BIPOC. I think that it could use more examples, and taking more time even repeating oneself at times, especially early in the writing. I would consider having synopses breaking up much of the writing, repeating the main messages, as well as considering having some areas with numbering of sub-points and similar. I would certainly refer the readers to areas to go into more depth on some of the concepts and applications of the concepts. Ian Haney Lopez – on video, for example, is an excellent resource most people have probably not heard of. I think that it may be necessary to have both a “short version” and a “longer version”- of the writing. Though the writing itself is quite lengthy, it may need to be about 30-40% longer to be more readable. Part of being more readable is feeling more of one’s own and your hearts more – rather than simply your intellect.
    There is a tremendous amount of great stuff in the writing! I think, however, that it can be improved in some ways. I would suggest – having a number of us, as well as others who may not read your writings here – review a draft, and write revisions that they would add. You may find 90% of the suggestions not directly helpful, but the 10% could help it. I’d be happy to review things in detail, though it would take me a lot of time. Thanks!

Comments are closed.