Sexism and Violence Against Women

Activist, bell hooks, writes, “The same is true of the struggle to eradicate sexism–men have a primary role to play…in particular, men have a tremendous contribution to make…in the area of exposing, confronting, opposing, and transforming, the sexism of their male peers.”  Sexism and violence against women is a men’s issue.  Let me repeat that, sexism and violence against women is not a women’s issue it’s a men’s issue.  Jackson Katz writes that by the mere fact that we call it a “women’s issue” we allow men to check out of the conversation and the required action to make transformational and revolutionary change.

On Homecoming Weekend at Ohio University, a woman was allegedly raped in public while 20-30 bystanders watched.  One even used his phone to record it.  I use “alleged” because what happened is still under investigation by law enforcement and the prosecuting attorney.  This incident brought out the worst in men on social media (and I am making the assumption that the quotes I read where made by men).  The comments went to the space of “victim blaming” referencing her “slutty” conduct, her alleged intoxication and the allegation that it was consensual because she took no action to stop it.  Men perceive this act as some sort of “conquest”.  It is easier to blame the victim than conduct a meaningful conversation that requires self-examination.  The bystanders failed to intervene.  Those who said nothing or took no action to intervene or contact law enforcement, are co-conspirators in the perpetration of the violence.  

Men’s violence against women is a major social problem that is deeply rooted in the way men have treated women for centuries.  Members of the dominant group, “men”, have a critical role to play in the struggle for equality.  The University recently held a “Campus Conversation” around sexual assault, consent and bystander intervention.  A follow-up conversation is planned for November 18.   We must address the “rape culture” that exists in our country and the world.  “Rape culture” is an environment in which rape is prevalent and in which sexual violence against women is normalized and excused in the media and popular culture.  Rape culture is perpetuated through the use of misogynistic language, the objectification of women’s bodies, and the glamorization of sexual violence, thereby creating a society that disregards women’s rights and safety.

Twitter recently reported that it will conduct an initial public offering for shares in the company.  At the same, it was disclosed that its board of directors did not have one female member.  Difficult to believe when research shows that the majority of Twitter users are women.  Additionally, studies demonstrate that companies that have more female members have a greater return to the organization’s shareholders.  Four out of five surveyed board members by the Corporate Member Board believe that board diversity adds to a company’s growth and sustainability.  What is Twitter missing?

Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times points out that the “2008 economic cataclysm” was led by men and would the outcome have been different  if it had been Lehman Sisters? 

 

The Supremes

The trend is frightening.  The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) continues to proceed down a path that discards the civil rights of those on the margins, those who lack opportunity and access and privilege.  It began with Citizens United and we saw firsthand how that decision impacted the funding of recent elections.   Are we not concerned that a handful of rich people attempted to control the election process?  This was an attempt to circumvent our democratic principles.

To fast forward to this week, SCOTUS has left its fingerprints on two more decisions that further marginalize those who lack power and privilege and close the door on opportunity, access and equity.

The Voting Rights Act (VRA) decision ruled that Section 4 of the Act was unconstitutional after less than 50 years of protecting people of color from being disenfranchised as voters.  Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the formula used in the 1960s and 1970s must be updated by Congress.  The current covered states are:  North Carolina, Virginia, Alabama and Mississippi.  These states have attempted to or have passed photo voter ID and proof of citizenship laws.  No need to update here Justice Roberts.  In fact, many other states have attempted the same impediments to vote that are not on the list.  Updating will only add to the list.  Justice Roberts and the four other Justices seem to believe that racial minorities no longer continue to face barriers to voting.  In fact, Roberts states so in his opinion.  This is simply not the case.  Voter disenfranchisement was a strategy of the Romney/Ryan campaign.  The Chief Justice goes on to state in his opinion that, “the country has changed”.  Change depends on whose yardstick you use to measure.  White folks believe that since we have an African American President we are post-racial.  When people of color use their yardstick they see a criminal justice system that targets Black and Brown young men, they see the corporate world still ruled by White men, they see the wealth gap soar to 20:1 with their White counterparts.  So to smugly say that our country has changed is disingenuous to those who live on the margins without access and opportunity.  Roberts believes that the 40 year old facts (that led to the VRA) do not have a logical relationship to the present day.  Wrong again, Chief Justice.  History illuminates the present.  The current initiatives around voter photo ID and proof of citizenship have their roots in the discriminatory conduct of the 1960s and 1970s.  Insidious and pervasive voting discrimination has not come to an end.  It is in full force.  It now takes other forms and exists in many more states.

A White woman, Abigail Fisher, denied admission to the University of Texas sued the University claiming that the school’s consideration of race in admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.  Prior SCOTUS decisions upheld that the use of race as one of many “plus factors” in an admissions program that considered the overall individual contribution of each candidate (Grutter), while Gratz held unconstitutional an admissions program that automatically awarded points to applicants from certain racial minorities.  In Fisher, SCOTUS remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit to assess whether the University has offered sufficient evidence to prove that its admission program is narrowly tailored to obtain the educational benefits of diversity.

Racial minority status is a favorable and positive factor that assists a university’s goal of achieving the educational benefits of a more diverse student body as stated by Justice Powell in the Bakke.  The Bakke decision also states that “The attainment of a diverse student body, by contrast, serves values beyond race alone, including enhanced classroom dialogue and the lessening of racial isolation and stereotypes.”  While Fisher upholds the tenets of Grutter, it also requires the lower court to review the admissions process so that it is judged under the correct analysis.  That analysis means that Texas must demonstrate “that its plan is narrowly tailored to achieve the only interest that this Court has approved in this context:  the benefits of a student body diversity that encompasses a broad array of qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single important element.”  

This all seems well and fine.  After all, affirmative action is still intact (with the Michigan affirmative action constitutional amendment before the court); however, SCOTUS continues to whittle away at the foundational principle of affirmative action:  opportunity and access for all.

Race is one of the factors that can be considered in the admissions process.  It has been so for decades in a different fashion.  Abigail Fisher claims that race shouldn’t be a factor; however in her own case it is so.  She is a “legacy” applicant and by that I mean she believes her family members who have attended Texas serve as a factor in her admission.  Why?  Because her White family members have had the access and opportunity to attend Texas for the past decades while students of color have not had the same opportunity.  Many students of color are first generation college students.  Fisher and the Court fail to recognize this fact.

Why is it so difficult to understand the value of diversity, access and equity?  After all, it is a pillar of many businesses in how they recruit employees and market their products and services.  Professor Scott Page of the University of Michigan states that “diversity trumps ability”.  It flat out works and the University of Texas should not have to narrowly detail its practices and the effects of it.  Imagine if your favorite sports team had only one type of player.  Think if all your software engineers were all White males over 50.  What if the SCOTUS was all White males?

The interesting piece of the Fisher case is the concurring opinion of Justice Thomas.  He analogizes the Fisher case with Brown v. Board of Education.  In Brown, the Court rules that “separate but equal” education was racial discrimination and violated the 14^th Amendment, and Justice Thomas believes the same should be the case in Fisher.  The intellectual leap in this argument puzzles me.  In Brown, the case dealt with students of color who had been denied equal opportunity to a quality education just as in Fisher.  Is the Justice putting White students like Abigail Fisher in that same category of students denied a quality education?  The inequities students of color face are long in the history books while Whites students have a history of privilege.

The Court seems to want to move to this shallow concept of “color blindness”.  Color should be staring us in the face.  Justice Ginsburg said it best about the University’s plan in her dissenting opinion in Fisher, “It is race consciousness, not blindness to race, that drives such plans.”

Cheerios!

 Recently General Mills ran an ad for Cheerios showing a family with an African American father, white mother and a bi-racial daughter.  The comments to the ad ranged from outright hateful racism to warnings of miscegenation that would lead to the extinction of the white race.  General Mills stood by its ad and stated,  “At Cheerios, we know there are many kinds of families and we celebrate them all.”

In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a ban against interracial marriages in 16 states.  Yes, 16 states.  The 2010 U.S. Census showed that interracial marriages grew by 28% from 7% in 2000 to 10% in 2010.

Those who have read my earlier blogs know that there is no room for such racist and hateful comments.  They are untrue and hurtful and we must always stand up against them.

One of the lessons in this case is that General Mills understands the value of diversity.  The company is attempting to ensure that their work product reflects the people it is trying to sell products to.  General Mills is using diversity in its ads as a tool in its business planning.  I realize the company’s goal is to sell product and enhance its revenue and profit figures.  The Cheerios brand sees the value in diversity as a marketing device.  Face it, there are more babies of color being born in this country than white babies.  How companies do business in the decades to come reflects their ability to read the market.  Diversity is a verb and not a noun.  It’s how companies should do business.  Diversity and inclusion is to be woven into the fabric of the company. It’s just not a human resources or diversity department responsibility.   Companies need to use it to market and sell products, recruit talent, promote employees and retain their workforce.  With diversity must come inclusion.  People on the top floor should reflect the general employee population.  Employees want a workforce that has the same shared experiences.  The research of University of Michigan Professor Scott Page demonstrates that diversity trumps ability in business.

The young girl in the commercial asks her mother if the cereal is “good for your heart.”  It’s not only good for your heart.  It’s good for business.

The Rifleman

No, I am not referring to the old Western starring Chuck Connors.  I am referring to the remarks of National Rifle Association President, Jim Porter.  I do not intend to begin a discussion on Second Amendment rights.  However, I do wish to address Porter’s clearly racist remarks about African Americans.

It is reported that in a recent press conference regarding his new position of leadership with the NRA Porter stated that “we need to really buckle down and strap on our best arguments to defend what is our God-given rights”.  He means the “God-given” rights of white people to the exclusion of others.  When did Jesus draw the line according to race?  Porter goes on to state, “I will not stand by and let some liberal-elitists try to ruin what has made this country great, especially a liberal, of, you know, a different breed”.  Did he really say, “breed”?  For those who believe we are post-racial because we have elected a multiracial President twice, well you’re wrong.  As Tim Wise puts it, has there been gender equality in the U.K. because Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Minister?  No, and Porter has his audience who believes in what he says.

Porter next says, “In fact, it’s only a matter of time before we can own colored people again”.  Porter, like some Americans, are out of touch with reality.  Close to 50% of all people under 21 years of age, are people of color.  Get with it Jim.  Today, white privilege does provide white folk (white males in particular) with power over people of color.  This power may not be a physical one; however it does have a stranglehold on opportunity, access and equity. 

NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre’s response almost condones Porter’s remarks.  He does not refute what Porter stated.  He only states that they brought Porter in to liven things up.

Fighting racism is not a Blue State/Red State issue.  It’s not a Republican, Tea Party or Democrat issue or even a religious issue.  It’s a human one.  You must be able to respond to the question, “What does it mean to be human?” and that takes courage.

 

Mission Moments

Each week the Michigan Roundtable shares with its Board of Directors stories of our work that intersect with our Mission.  Below are two of such Mission Moments:

No. 1:  Last week one hundred middle school students, some parents and teachers
from Oakland County schools were welcomed to the Bharatiya Temple by several of
the Hindu congregation members. These students have become comfortable visiting a diversity of worship places and developing a greater understanding and knowledgeLast week one hundred middle school students, some parents and teachers from Oakland County schools were welcomed to the Bharatiya Temple by several of the  of the many religions prevalent in metro Detroit through our Religious Diversity Journeys program.

 Each of five “Journeys” focus on the similarities and differences in religious beliefs, services and cultural practices including food, art and dance of particular faiths. Our own Rita Crooks and Cheryl Birks shared information and a demonstration of “Christian Praise Dancing,” a favorite of the students, at the Christianity Journey!

 While the Journeys are educational and enjoyable what stands out about our program is what students tell us years later. A broad exposure to the “other” and experiences that dispel myths and stereotypes prepared them for college, workplaces and life in our increasingly diverse society.

No. 2:  I was recently preparing for an overnight retreat for our Regional Youth Justice Consortium to bring together students from across Metro Detroit to examine social identities, privilege, and oppression. I came across a retreat center that had a good location and a great price.  As I explained our program needs to a staff person over the phone, fully prepared to patronize her business, she halted the conversation.  She explained that the center supports social justice, but if we were to teach curriculum that goes against “morality” and “biblical principles” by supporting the LGBTQA community, we would not be a good fit for them.  I told her how it was unfortunate that we could not work together because of their discrimination.

At the Roundtable, we live out our mission to advance equity and opportunity for all not just in our events and programs, but also in our day-to-day work.  This simple phone conversation reminded me that in everything we do—the words we chose, the organizations we collaborate with, and the programs we plan—we must remember to work with intention to identify exclusion, challenge privilege, and create opportunity for all. 

 

The Rebellious Mrs. Rosa Parks

Today, I attended a presentation by Professor Jeanne Theoharis of Brooklyn College of the City University of New York. Professor Theoharis authored the book, The Rebellious Life of Mrs. Rosa Parks. As the book’s cover notes state, “…Theoharis shows that the standard portrayal of Rosa Parks as a quiet and demure accidental actor is far from true.”

The author described how Mrs. Parks’ life was much richer and more impactful than that single act on the bus in Montgomery. Her work included campaigns against discrimination in education, public services and the criminal justice system. Mrs. Parks spoke early and often against the war in Vietnam, was an advocate for the poor and believed in the power of youth leadership on issues of social justice.

So, why do we view Mrs. Parks from the lens of this single act of defiance?  Perhaps, it’s because history is taught from the lens of a white person.  This wouldn’t be the first time.  High school history texts do not teach the complete and accurate history of indigenous peoples in our country.

Professor Theoharis likens this perception to describing America as “post-racial” after the election of President Obama.  We now have a President of color and that demonstrates that we have moved beyond racism.  Mrs. Parks refusing to give up her seat is that made for TV moment.  It’s a nice way to remember her when in fact her life demonstrated a commitment to social justice on many fronts.  History has romanticized her actions when in reality her life and convictions were much deeper.

Julian Bond stated, “…Parks not only sat down on the bus; she stood on the right side of justice for her entire life.”

 

Metro Times Recognition

The recent edition of the Metro Times honored the Michigan Roundtable for its work in the area of racial equity and racial healing.  In the paper’s Best of Detroit section, the Roundtable received an honor for, Best Longtime Attempt at Racial Healing.  The award recognizes the organization’s 72 year history to overcome racism and discrimination. 

Our history allows us to look at history.  What does that mean?  We portray our work through a lens of equity.  Those in the majority, those in positions of power and privilege view the world through their lens.   Most times it’s unintentional, but out of focus.  We look at the world through a narrow lens.  We at the Roundtable ask you to look through the lens with the eye of an African American, a woman, a gay man or a Muslim.  Once you are able to do that, one slowly sees how structures and policies have marginalized the “other” because of one’s race, gender, religion or sexual orientation or gender identity.  Our work goes deeper than a human relations approach.  We try to move you beyond the individual relationship to one that gives a deeper look at the structures and institutions that have the result of discriminating against people of color.  I often refer to the Mumford & Sons’ lyric, “Lend me your eyes and I will change what you see.”

When it comes to racial equity, our work centers on housing in our region.   Why housing?  Because place matters.  Think of all those areas of your life that are affected because of where you live—housing, education, safety, health care.  Your zip code is a better determinant of your health outcomes than your genetic code.  The education campaign taken up by the Michigan Roundtable looks at the history of housing in Detroit.  That campaign takes the form of an exhibit that has been viewed by over 60,000 people throughout our state.  Knowledge is power and we believe the accurate portrayal of our history educates folks and demonstrates why we are in the housing tsunami we experience today.

Since the fall of 2012, we have convened community forums throughout the metropolitan area on the first Friday of each month.  These public meetings permit a discussion on current topics in a safe and respectful space.  These discussions are conducted through an equity lens.  The foundation of these meeting is the impact of race on a particular topic–criminal justice, gender, wealth, education.

We are grateful for the recognition.  We will continue to serve as a catalyst for change by developing, organizing and empowering individuals and communities to advance opportunity and equity for all.

 

Ernst & Young

Yesterday I had the honor of being a panelist for Ernst & Young’s annual Inclusiveness event.  This year’s event featured a discussion on LGBT issues in the workplace.  The event was actually billed as “LGBTA” which I like because the “A” signifies, “Ally”.  The panel featured Nancy Schlichting, President and CEO of Henry Ford Health System, Kathleen Martinez, Assistant Secretary of Labor, Beth Brooke and Steve Howe of E & Y.  Our moderator was WDIV-TV reporter, Hank Winchester.  Except for Steve and me, all the panelists were out gay individuals.  This is important because each one of them told their own storing about coming out and how anxious and fearful they were of doing so.  Not only from a personal perspective with their families and friends, but from a professional perspective because it jeopardized their jobs.

The discussion centered around being “authentic” in the workplace.  That is, the ability to bring your entire self to your work.  If an employer can’t create that safe work environment, then an employee cannot be fully engaged and productive.  So if a gay or transgender employee has to hide, then everyone loses.  The employee is less productive and the company is not getting the full value and effort of that employee.

Another part of the discussion centered on the use of affinity groups or employee resource groups.  These groups bring awareness of the group’s membership and mission.  In this case, the LGBT affinity group can serve as a resource on LGBT issues.  Its members can assist straight employees in dealing with a child who has come out as gay.  Additionally, an effective affinity group can provide market data information to the organization as well as serve as a resource for employment candidates.  An organization gets its best referrals from its own employees and thus lowers its cost of hiring.

One question during the Q and A dealt with policy issues.  In Michigan, an employee can be terminated because he or she is gay or transgender.  Our employment laws do not prevent such discrimination.  We need employers to get behind the initiative to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the statute.

Ernst and Young is taking a leadership position on inclusiveness in the workplace when it comes to its LGBT employees.  Others need to follow their lead because inclusion means everyone.

It’s Everywhere

At this weekend’s Appalachian Studies Association Conference in Boone, NC, I attended a number of workshops that covered projects, issues and concerns in Appalachia.  Since attending my first conference in 2011, there has been an increased focus on LGBT issues in Appalachia.  Today’s workshops dealt with acceptance, safety and inclusion.

Stereotypes continue to be a topic of discussion which lead to issues of self-esteen and self-worth.  The “I won’t amount to anything” was a repeated theme. 

Parts of Appalachia have seen an increase in an immigrant population, and in particular, the Latino population.  Students from Berea College led a discussion on their effort to support the DREAM Act and have Berea College admit undocumented students.  A great example of leadership by young adults.

General issues around acceptance and judging the “other” were themes throughout most discussions.  Who sets societal norms?  Those in positions of power and privilege. 

My five years in the work of human rights and social justice have been in Detroit, an urban area.  I hear and deal with the same issues I have highlighted above that occur throughout Appalachia which leads me to a couple of thoughts.

My first thought reminds me of Rev. Dr. King’s quote from the jail in Birmingham, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”  So whether its the ‘hood in Detroit or the holler in Appalachia, we must speak up and stand up for opportunity and equity.  We must be advocates for those who don’t look like us or worship where we worship.  We are called to stand with those who live on the margins,

My other thought comes from the writings of Fr. Greg Boyle, S.J., “The powers waging war against the “other” will only be moved to kinship when they observe it.  Only when we can see a community where the outcast is valued and appreciated will we abandon the values that seek to exclude.”  We all belong to each other.

Steubenville

Yesterday two high school football players were found guilty of raping a 16-year-old girl last summer in a case that drew national attention for the way social media spurred the initial prosecution and affected the presentation of the evidence at trial.  It also created a groundswell of national outrage regarding the actions of the two young men.

Some of the national coverage has focused on how devastating the convictions are for the two young men.  The convictions may affect their ability to further their football careers and it will mark them on the sex offender registry.  Sadly, there has not been much spoken on the effects of the actions of the two men and the trial has had on the victim.  Her mother reports that she has been reclusive, that her daughter has received threats and that she rarely comes out of her room.

Where do we think men who abuse women learn that conduct?  Is it possible to think that these two young men, without any intervention,  may repeat such conduct as they grow older?

Historically, men have prevailed when it comes to issues of sexual assault and domestic violence.  Thankfully, in recent decades, the trend has changed and courageous women have stepped forward and prosecuted their assailants.  Prosecutors and law enforcement now take the victims at their word rather than blaming them.   

When it comes to domestic violence, one in every four women will be a victim.  Approximately 1.3 million women are assaulted every year.  Abused women lose 8 million days of paid work per year.  Imagine if you are single mother supporting your household.  Over $4.1 billion in medical and health care services are spent each year.

Male entitlement carries over into the workplace.  Women hold only 18% of the corporate board seats.  In 2012, 18 of the 500 largest corporations in this country were led by a woman up from 12 in 2011.  Women lead 3.6% of the Fortune 500 companies.  On average, a woman earns $0.78 for every $1.00 a man earns.

Approximately 15,000 were brought each year by the EEOC for sexual harassment.  This excludes private lawsuits.  Sexual harassment results in low productivity, rise in health care costs and increased litigation costs and settlements.

Gender equity is a social justice issue.   Men have benefited from a life long affirmative action program.