Diversity means nothing without power
by Carmen Van Kerckhove, originally published at CarmenVanKerckhove.com
I really enjoyed yesterday’s discussion panel, organized by Diversity Woman magazine. The panelists were spirited and passionate. We talked about everything from the role that women played in this election to the state of diversity in corporate America.
At one point, moderator Chiqui Cartagena asked me if I thought there was enough diversity in front of the cameras when it came to political pundits during this election season. I said that though there was a bit more diversity than in the past, ultimately, most of the faces we saw analyzing the news were still old white dudes.
But then my fellow panelist Paula Madison brought up an excellent point. She said that she was more concerned about diversity among the actual decision-makers who shape the news and hire the anchors, than with the diversity among those in front of the camera. She shared some of the abysmal statistics that demonstrated just how few people of color were in management positions in newsrooms and TV stations all around the country.
It reminded me of a friend of mine, who was one of many producers who worked on CNN’s recent series “Black in America.” She shared with me some of the difficulties she faced in trying to tell the authentic stories she wanted to tell, and how she was met with resistance every step of the way.
It also reminded me of my interview with Don Lemon on CNN about Jesse Jackson’s use of the n-word. Lemon asked me if I thought Jackson “got a pass” for using the word because he was black, and just kept pounding away at the rather remedial question. “Did he get a pass?? Did he get a pass??” It was pretty clear to me that this wasn’t a question that Lemon himself was interested in, but he probably felt pressured to ask it because that’s the way his managers were shaping the story.
Remember: Diversity means nothing without power. It’s all well and good to have people of color in the most publicly visible positions of your organization (news anchors, company spokespeople, etc.) but ultimately those people won’t be able to do the kind of work they want to do unless they are supported by management. And the less diverse the management is, the less in touch they’ll be with issues that concern people of color.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:
I’ve always been bothered by the word “DIVERSITY” thrown around loosely just cos it involves Whites and Blacks, but no Asians or Latinos norwhere in sight.
Posted 07 Nov 2008 at 1:12 pm ¶
Mammith wrote:
It’s an easy way out to get visible faces of colour in front of the cameras, but its even more important that there are POC behind the cameras, from a variety of backgrounds.
Its hard to take breakdowns in ethnic makeup for corporations seriously. I remember reading a report a little while ago that stated that even though the BBC has many POC working for them, hardly none of them are in any decision-making roles and if they are they come from upper-middle class backgrounds like all the white guys.
@DEAF FEMINIST PUNK – It can be argued (stupidly) that thats down to demographics, I wonder if something else is at play though, especially considering something I read detailing on French television for example, that there are many more people of African descent on French television in opposition to people of North African/Arab descent, even though the demographics suggest more Arabs in France.
Posted 07 Nov 2008 at 1:39 pm ¶
ragamuffin wrote:
the lack of nuanced stories on ethnic minorities in media is two seconds off driving me out of this industry. just had to hear another story idea set to further marginalize us, even in the ‘obama era.’
i agree wholeheartedly, but i’m still wondering how we’re gonna get there…
Posted 07 Nov 2008 at 2:07 pm ¶
drispe wrote:
So true. Public mascots never do anything to change institutionalized disenfranchisement on their own turf. I always think about Oprah when this issue is brought up. What I’ve seen of her TV and magazine staff suggests that whites are primarily responsible for the content of her media empire. Let’s face it, a Chicago-based show hosted by a mega-famous African American should be able to discuss that city’s staggering violence in at least one episode. It’s no different from what I see in job interviews. Companies with POC who only do menial work, if they’re employed at all. Getting back to the media, the racist anti-Obama acts committed by McCain supporters was very underreported. But none of this is an accident. I remember how Michael Moore’s Bowling For Columbine uncovered news programs’ disproportionate coverage of crimes committed by blacks.
Posted 07 Nov 2008 at 2:33 pm ¶
Rob Schmidt wrote:
Good points. FYI, I may be the moderator for an upcoming panel on Native Americans in the entertainment field. The title will be something like “Diversity is a Dirty Word.” The thesis will be that Hollywood pays lip service to diversity, bandying the word about to cover up the lack of real progress. We even plan to penalize attendees a penny each time they utter the dreaded “d-word.”
For more on the subject of diversity in television, see:
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/natv.htm#diversity
Posted 07 Nov 2008 at 2:57 pm ¶
oagudugu wrote:
i agree. i saw a chris matthews interview with two black house representatives, and i was apalled with the level of condescending paternalism with which they were treated. I really agree that there needs to be diversity in the corner offices. I hate it when the use black faces to do hack jobs on issues for people of color. I came across some varied and interesting commentary (although i didn’t quite agree with the initial article) over on blackagendareport.com, which seemed to stem from the apparently visceral fear that Barack was one of these faces used to manipulate people of color into buying into their own disenfranchisement.
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=875&Itemid=1
(scroll to the bottom for the comments)
i personally think that some of them are just a bunch of paranoid cynics, but i wonder if this kind of “sham diversity” is what made them that way in the first place.
In addition, the Don Lemon reference you mentioned is almost like the fantasy of “reality tv” where stories are presented as real, but in reality the producers are scripting the whole thing. I don’t know what to do about it except turn off the tv and not participate in such things, because it is so hard to patiently wait for people like yourself to get enough power to change things from the inside.
@Rob Schmidt: i absolutely agree with your panel’s thesis that this is all lipservice diversity. it’s like some college brochures ive seen where white students are looking at the camera, flanked by attractive diverse students looking at them, making the statement “see how diverse my friends are at this school! it’s such an exotic experience!” But that’s a whole nother story.
props for bringing this up btw!!!
Posted 07 Nov 2008 at 6:29 pm ¶
MK wrote:
Yes, many people do throw the word “diversity” around almost to the point where they seem to be forcing it on us. Whether the diversity is racial, religious, sexuality, etc. does everybody still get their perspective across, or is it still the privileged?
Posted 07 Nov 2008 at 7:51 pm ¶
Marge Twain wrote:
I didn’t watch CNN’s Black In America. Diversity doesn’t mean much when it’s ghettoized, like Black History Month. Every year is White History Year. I’d like to see CNN integrate.
DFP- Yeah, that diversity ghetto can look pretty homogeneous. The New York Times did a series called, I think, How Race Is Lived In America and the whole thing was only about black/white relations.
On a similar note, I knew a girl in high school who loved rainbows and what they symbolized: plurality, tolerance, and harmony, until someone told her that included gay people, so then she didn’t like rainbows anymore.
Posted 07 Nov 2008 at 8:50 pm ¶
octogalore wrote:
Cannot agree more. One law partner I placed recently wrote a great article that goes to exactly this point within law firms. He is a leader in the effort to create more diversity in the profession, and was basically cautioning people in the article not to get too excited about the increasing numbers of attorneys of color or even partners of color, because very few of them are corner-office. He was looking at structural impediments to that.
It always seems to me that the folks I negotiate with at firms for partner income are always more critical of POC or women who are aggressive in terms of what they want to make. Somehow it’s more acceptable for a white dude to want the most the market will bear, but women or POC should be grateful to make whatever it is.
Posted 08 Nov 2008 at 1:25 am ¶
brownstocking wrote:
I think we all face this, I do in academia. It’s like, everyone feels like this presidential election means “we’re even! He can do it, you can do.” That ignores our collective histories as a multiethnic country, and our battles. Until we own the teams/run the universities/are the CFO and CEOs/sign the checks, we’ll be window dressing.
Posted 08 Nov 2008 at 3:03 am ¶
Alienation wrote:
Ugh, I shudder when I hear the word “diversity”. In the wake of colorblind liberalism, it is specifically on white terms– and usually or very regularly connotates a touch of color, but not too much. Trying the new mexican dish, as opposed to encouraging Americans to learn Spanish. Dating a black person, but not having too many blacks move into your neighborhood,etc., etc., Diversity is the embrace of an “artifact” of the culture (whether that be a dish, an artform, or a token), but not the acceptance in too many numbers of the people that come with it. Cultural integration on white terms has always meant that in the presence of too many; the person suddenly becomes phobic.
The only word worse than diversity is “tolerance”. grrr :-/
Posted 08 Nov 2008 at 4:07 am ¶
Lxy wrote:
One thing that I hope happens as a consequence of the Obama election is that people of color will advocate for their interests against White America more assertively.
While the US Establishment did not intend it in their support of Obama, there has been an awakening of political hopes and expectations among minorities at the grassroots level that cannot so easily be put back in the bottle.
Change indeed may be coming, more than (White) America realizes.
Posted 08 Nov 2008 at 5:25 am ¶
Synaka wrote:
@comments:
In the black & white lines that chart the demographics … hasn’t anyone experienced the grouping of being more related to one side than the other?
wading in the shallow pools, I’ve found other people are inclined to see all asians (though typically continental) as basically being white.
Of course some of the arguments there may also be inline with the stereotypes of economic, educational and class distinctions, from fictional characters to visible figures in reality.
With limited exposure to american-asian identities, culture and history.
But it’s the broad title designations which reflect the issue and the complications when we break it down into specifics. Because frankly, it’s not about which box you check on the form, but something drawn down to skin tones.
And come on, that’s one of the primary places it stands. And it’s easier to discern by colour alone without getting the complications of cultures.
And often it seems other minority groups by NAME often get lumped into one category or the other, and by specifics often falling into the fob category: fresh off the boat and therefore uncounted.
Besides when they say “white” – aren’t they typically refering to everybody whose first cousins married on the mayflower. And “black” as typically those who have descended from ‘african’ slaves.
As both can fall on an extended, uncontested, more recognized long-term history in the states, which build their designations up more in celebratory fantasy and myths. Propaganda on both sides to build-up and instill a sense of personal history, pride and patriotism (nationalism + xenophobia).
It names who the “real” americans are.
Even after all these years, I don’t think most people believe Connie Chung was born in the u.s. so even as a minority who has spent decades on television … does she then represent the american reflection on diversity or does it become an argument for world diversity, rather than American?
Maybe the argument in diversity is with the stereotypes of what represents the u.s. without brining up questions of immigration.
Posted 08 Nov 2008 at 6:35 am ¶
Synaka wrote:
**extra note: I sound like I’m contradicting myself there with relying mostly on the skin tone aspect as it equally applies to skin-tone culture in the great divide, which splits “acting white” and “acting black” just to complicate things further.
Though I believe the context associated with ethnic/racial diversity and immigration issues still gets far too frequently over-glossed or skipped over in discussions on American diversity.
Because for those who still get asked, “So what country are you from?” it’s the same as somebody telling you “you don’t belong.”
I’ve been trying to find a series of debates and discussions relating to the “new model minority” which seemed the most popular between 2001/2003 that really opened it up to the complex problems at the surface level.
A few other options but nothing in detail and a book I might actually have to check out.
“Who Is White?: Latinos, Asians, and the New Black/Nonblack Divide” by George Yancey, Lynne Rienner Publishers 2005. (preview at google books and a review at blackcommentator.com)
which opens up more doors to discussions and rants, than even my own little melodramatic head can handle at the moment.
Posted 08 Nov 2008 at 7:15 am ¶
Peter Pixie wrote:
So how do we fix it?
Posted 08 Nov 2008 at 8:49 am ¶
roschelle wrote:
speaking of diversity…I experienced a silence on election night at my workplace that was deafening
Posted 08 Nov 2008 at 12:11 pm ¶
MK wrote:
Good points, Synaka. About getting asked what country we are from, in a way, yes, it is like being told, “You don’t belong.” How does being born in a different country make you any less American? America is made up of immigrants. Really, it doesn’t take much to be a so-called “American.”
I go to a college that tries to stress “diversity.” Most of the people that do that are white, and cheers to them for at least desiring a diverse campus, but maybe it’s to satisfy their so-called progressiveness, while not letting the non-whites, the non-Christians, the non-heterosexuals, etc. get their voices in. We have student groups for those kinds of things, so please, keep stressing diversity while “segregating” us into these groups. Don’t get me wrong, they are great to have, but they don’t seem to interact with each other as much as I would like them to (Asian, African, Latino, feminist, etc.).
Posted 08 Nov 2008 at 12:35 pm ¶
Sudy wrote:
I agree, but would take caution in how it reads to folks who don’t analyze the depths of race and power. Simply putting folks of color in positions of power doesn’t make a perspective diverse. There’s plenty of people who do not critically understand racial and ethnic identity and how it shapes opinion and choice. Now, putting folks in management positions who are of color AND who understand the dynamic of power, equality, and communication is the combination we’re striving.
Posted 09 Nov 2008 at 12:10 pm ¶
Karen Jordan wrote:
These are excellent points. Having worked in front of the camera, I agree with Paula Madison that there is a definite need for more people of color in decision-making positions. Let’s hope the current climate will foster true change.
Karen
http://www.karenjordanwrites.com
Posted 09 Nov 2008 at 10:53 pm ¶
Synaka wrote:
Well for universities, I tend to believe it’s not so much for promoting diversity but getting additional funding.
One point that could be illustrated with UCB (University of California, Berkeley) which it was argued at one time the majority could be identified as Asian. And thus the concept of diversity shifted in the rejection of more asian and white students, (which has and is still denied officially) as it also relating to financial issues. Particularly with the questionable rejection of more qualified asian and other minority students to those who met the minimum requirements.
While I believe in several cases these programs are necessary, in the realities of minority backgrounds (which include economics, social stature or class, geographical location and culture)
the selection process and the financial issues cannot be ignored as a more obvious incentive. Which while painting an image of diversity, does so with further exploitation of the groups it wishes this diversity to represent.
And on the social front, diversity programs have benefits .. but I’d agree it does often segregate students into distinctive designations – which part of me again with the other incentives, creates a racially/ethnically/culturally competitive assocation between minority groups and therein, sub-groups of those broad designations as we further diversify.
So not only may there be segregation between the primary minority groups, but also further internal separations which can break a represention of 25% latino into groups isolated to smaller percentages.
And it creates more problems for students which identify and represent as belonging in more than one group, whether within the broad titles or the sub-categories.
It also often gets back to issues of xenophobia, whether by culture or nationality, or other possible discriminative, stereotyping, background/racial-profiling by both the broad student body, sub-groups and the school (and surrounding community) itself.
Posted 10 Nov 2008 at 7:24 am ¶
lechatnoir wrote:
@mammith,
I am French, we are tied to the 1789 law that supposely make every citizen equals. Ethnic survey are illegal over here, we have no affirmative and various “black” associations ,churches or meetings are illegal. It is well known here and abroad that this makes it extremly difficult for us to adress our core issues, conversely it makes it easier for the white majority to ignore identity or social issues.
There is definetely more people of Arab heritage on TV. The reason why you may not notice is because, the white management employs kabyles, kabyles look white to the most and the few other arab French do have Franco names. You might as well mistake them for either Greek or Italian. Within that landscape you have 2 blacks per channel .They can handle one at a time. They are rarely on air during “dinner” time lol!
Posted 12 Nov 2008 at 3:03 pm ¶