The Holes in the Buckets Are Not Irreparable
The Holes in the Buckets Are Not Irreparable
If your DEI framework(s) are fixed, meaning, ideologically sacrosanct and self-righteously rigid—your bucket is likely leaking without you knowing it.
My family and I recently returned from our summer vacation in Northwestern Spain (Galicia). My wife Martina’s family is from the region, and we go there every summer.
One of the highlights of Galicia is the weather. The summers in Galicia provide everything one would want: warm, sunny weather with a bit of humidity in the air. The beach is hot, like a stone massage, and the water is cold. Not the “Oh, hell no” kind of cold (to the less cold-inclined, not people like me who love swimming in cold natural bodies of water), but an energizing cooling after a brisk walk in the sunshine.
While playing at the beach with my five-year-old son, Kai, I realized that one of his buckets, which we’ve had since he was two years old, had cracked and had a small hole. The hole was at the top of the bucket, so it only leaked when we filled it to its maximum. The bucket remains useful, but only to about 80% capacity.
While away some things emerged that are directly and consequently bound to impact the DEI space and reminded me of metaphorical holes in the DEI bucket.
First the U.S.-based Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) made a strategic (I surmise) decision to stop using the E-word, ‘Equity.’
Here are a few articles explaining SHRM’s rationale and links to pushback about their stance. I have also included a few screenshots articulating how this decision occurred to me.
I previously published a post on this Substack where I refer to deadlock situations hilariously illustrated by a Muppets skit featuring Liza Minelli and Jim Henson, which I reference in my book, Reconstructing Inclusion. Below is a snippet from the book to give you the framing I use and why it occurs to me that the SHRM announcement created a DEI deadlock situation that didn’t start with SHRM and won’t end with their decision.
“When thinking about the DEI field and all the hard and very emotionally taxing work that has been contributed to over the years to corporate social justice, I am often reminded of a Sesame Street skit that I watched as a child. Jim Henson was the voice of the puppet Henry, and Academy Award-winning Actress Rita Moreno was Liza, Henry’s wife.
They sang a song about a deadlock situation. [If you haven’t seen it, there is an embedded video in the link to my May 2023 post above.] The lyrics start off with Henry telling Liza about his problem with a hole (in his bucket). Liza responds that he should fix it, and the result is that with all of Liza’s suggestions, Henry has a counterpoint ending exactly where he began; there is still a hole in the bucket because none of what was suggested could be done without having an intact container from the outset.
In the video, Liza reaches a point of no return. She goes silent and resigns, ceasing her desire to play in what turns out to be a dead-locked exchange.”
What is Strategic Ignorance?
In fact, SHRM did what it did, at least partially, as a reaction to the deadlocks that DEI professionals have been creating for a long time. Many practitioners have been focused on language and our (sometimes ideological) adherence to particular meanings of certain words more than zeroing in on what is creating the conditions for people to thrive. These words and phrases mean a lot to a few and very little to most people.
People care about action. People care about being cared for. People care about what matters to them. People care about what is being created for them to thrive.
“Sticks and stones may break my bones. . .”
Aubrey Blanche-Sarellano (The Mathpath), a long-time influencer in the DEI space who I have great respect for, thoughtfully engaged with me in a thread she started with a LinkedIn post about equity. Below are some of my contributions to the thread that reflect my response to much of the oppositional chatter about SHRM no longer including equity in their DEI, now I&D learning offerings.
Another bucket, another deadlock.
Your first response when I tell you this is about politics is that you might automatically say, “Amri, of course, politics is a deadlock situation more often than not.” I would agree.
This time, I am talking specifically about U.S. Presidential politics. I rarely to never do.
Before I do, however, a disclosure.
I am politically neutral. You can call me center R/L depending on the issue. I grew up with a registered Republican mother (think Lincoln) who was heavily involved in local/state politics. I also had an entrepreneurial father who was a veteran, politically independent, and based his votes primarily on what he felt could help his family, business, and local community.
I am not endorsing any candidates. I only did that once since I’ve been a registered voter, in 2008. The pull to canvas for Obama was celebratory and historic and, you know. . . everyone I knew was in on it.
Also, my Chicago-based uncle, Sokoni Karanja, was/is a Trinity United Church of Christ member. Before Barack Obama, we all know, came to prominence, he was, like my uncle, a follower of a preacher/pastor, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright. He and his wife Ayana (retired Loyola professor of Anthropology) mentored the Obamas in the years leading to Barack’s political ascent.
Like his brother (my dad), my uncle is one of my heroes. Dr. Karanja’s reverence for Reverend Wright has always led me to admire and deeply respect his preaching and character. This is despite Wright's political demonization and Obama’s self-preservatory distancing from him.
In 2008, many of us were all-in on Barack Obama. In retrospect, the reality about that time is that President Obama was probably more similar to many past presidents than he was different. As far as educational background (prep school, Ivy League), class (grandparents and parents (especially his stepfather) were well off, and exposure (he had traveled the world and had relationships with influential people early in life).
Despite all of this, many people focused on the one difference between Obama and other Presidential candidates past–the color of his skin.
Now, fast-forward to 2020, July 20th, to be exact. Joe Biden, speaking to commentator Joy Reid, said, “Black women have supported me my whole career. I have been loyal, and they have been loyal to me—and so it's important that my administration, I promise you, will look like America."
In a way, Biden set the nomination of his Vice-Presidential candidate up for being about physical characteristics first. I think this was a mistake. Yes, Kamala Harris presents as a “Black Woman.” This historical first is something to be proud of in the USA, given our history. And Kamala Harris has been labeled a “DEI Vice-President” because of how her potential nomination was announced at the time.
And now, four years to the day later (July 20, 2024), President Biden dropped out of the race for a second term and endorsed his VP to get the nomination. His haste (likely prompted by the short timeline to the Democratic National Convention) has predictably led the Vice-President to likely be labeled as the “DEI President” by many if she is elected. But, her gender nor her race are qualifications. Her lived experience is. Not her lived experience as a phenotypically “Black” woman “Of color,” who is of mixed heritage with her father being Jamaican and her mother (South) Indian.
As Van Jones recently shared, the label of “DEI VP” is disingenuous and needs to stop. The reality is that this was set up four years ago when Biden made his nomination not about the qualifications of his four potential choices but rather about their physical characteristics. The four were qualified to relatively greater or lesser degrees based on what one feels are most salient. Their qualifications didn’t include them being Black women. Such framing is a mistake that will be hard to shake for the Vice President.
Vice President Harris has flaws, like all the politicians running for office in this election cycle, all those who preceded them, and all those who will follow. However, she has many strengths that are often overlooked in favor of her flaws.
She won an election for state-wide office as Attorney General in California, which has the largest department of justice in the country, second only to the Federal Government. She was elected to the U.S. Senate and has served as Vice President of the United States for the past four years. Those are her qualifications, along with what she has produced.
I also think she’s tough. Whatever is projected (racist, mean, sexist, fact, lie) at her, she will evoke that memeified laugh and it will roll off of her back and into her fuel tank.
I don’t like starting a sentence about myself or another with the phrase “as a [fill in the identities considered as outgroups].” But identitarianism is prevalent and will be amplified quite a bit over the next several months and perhaps the next four years.
So, yes, Vice-President Harris comes off as a bit folksy, which, as a [Black and South Indian] woman, makes it hard for some people to take her seriously. It’s a bias. And even though the response is biased, it influences people’s attitudes about her. They will criticize her on this point and many others.
Now, while I do still like Obama, I am objective enough to be able to be critical of him, just like I am critical of President Trump, Biden, Bush H.W. & W., Clinton, Carter, and Regan who I have been able to assess with experience in my lifetime. I can also acknowledge what they did well for the country that I know best and have pledged allegiance to.
To be critical of any presidential candidate or POTUS is to be critical of what they bring to the table, what they’ve done, and what they propose to do if elected. That includes their character, words, and actions. No candidate for POTUS or any other office is immune.
In fact, to say or condemn anyone for being critical of the above is not good for the candidate and is worse for the U.S.A. and, in fact, the world, given the U.S.'s influence.
I am a DEI critic and a stalwart. Such a position may occur as contradictory or even hypocritical depending on where you stand and what you stand for (or against). When it comes to the second woman Democratic nominee for President, we know that critical analysis and criticism will come forth. Some of it, in opposition to her candidacy, will be sexist, racist, and DEI-averse. Most, I surmise, even from those in support of her, will be reflective and honest about the facts.
If we want this race to be about the latter, I encourage those who work in DEI, and are supporters of it to proceed with vigilance. This mostly applies to the social media sphere and public discussions where your responses might end up on social media.
😐This means responding to comments with care and thoughtfulness, not raw emotion and vitriol.
🤔When you hear something that ‘sounds’ sexist of racist, think first. Then, ask a barrage of questions to get clear about what the person means. If one acts in bad faith, they will likely respond with a snarky insult. If so, simply 😁. Ideological takedowns will just serve as screenshots in opposition. If for not other reason to adhere to this, do it for your inner peace. 🧘🏼
🧐It is hard not to think this election is about you. It is, and it is not. Whether you are American or not, it is about policies that could shift how you navigate the world. Each candidate will have many that they pledge to change. Most of their pledges and promises won’t manifest.
And, if elected, all of what they do manage to bring to fruition will contain tradeoffs. As you are evaluating both candidates, even in your disdain for who you believe them to be in your conscious and subconscious mind, consider that everything that comes out of their mouths will require tradeoffs.
This is where the election is not just about you. If you firmly believe in equity in the sense that it is about ensuring that those with the greatest needs (i.e., social, economic, medical, etc.), independent of their beliefs, you will consider these tradeoffs.
You will be curious, incisively questioning, and not concluding that because the candidate you support said it, it is true and/or without potentially adverse consequences.
All politicians contain and tell lies. It is part of the job. We don’t have to like it. Maybe all of us have a bit of politician in us?
Lastly, listen more than you talk. Ironically, we are grossly misinformed and underinformed while having vastly more information than our ancestors. We are not making sense of the information and seeking out that which confirms our particular sliver of belief of that day.
If you look for something, chances are high that you will find it. That won’t make it helpful to you, and more than likely, it won’t allow you to understand the context and consequences of the dynamics at hand any better than you knew before.
Seek out opinions that are contrary to yours. No, not so you can post something about them to signal your moral and intellectual superiority. Rather, do so in order to see how similar and different you are. What we seek, we find. What we focus on, grows.
If you go down one thread that irks you, perhaps the same person has another one that might make you think again. Possibly not. Consider all as one more perspective to add to your heterodox mix toward better sense-making.
As stated in Reconstructing Inclusion:
“The problem with DEI is not the problem. There is a hole in the bucket and our conversational networks of contention keep us deadlocked in an exchange that is full of conflict. But as a field, we have rarely sought out common frameworks to resolve them."
If your DEI framework(s) are fixed, meaning, ideologically sacrosanct and self-righteously rigid—your bucket is likely leaking without you knowing it. Now, more than ever is the time to acknowledge that the holes are always there for all of us. And it is up to us to recognize them and plug them together.
I hope this was helpful. . . Make it a great day! ✌🏿
In this episode of the ‘Reconstructing Inclusion’ podcast, we talk about developments in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) primarily focused on the U.S. context but with global relevance, and the importance of meaningful dialogue and systemic change within organizations, keeping in mind that effective DEI work involves engaging with diverse perspectives, and should focus on substantive impact and advancing the mission.