Race And Class Issues | Rosetta Thurman

Structural Racism: Challenges and Opportunities in the Age of Obama

November 23, 2009 by rosettathurman · 1 Comment

After the morning’s armchair discussion, Southern Partners Fund’s inaugural Social Justice Institute kicks off a full day of workshops. The room fills quickly for the one on structural racism. Maya Wiley founded the Center for Social Inclusion after working as a civil rights lawyer, senior advisor on race and poverty to the Director of U.S. Programs of the Open Society Institute, and helped develop and implement the Open Society Foundation — South Africa’s Criminal Justice Initiative. She has worked for the American Civil Liberties Union National Legal Department, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. in the Poverty and Justice Program and the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

After all of this experience, she tells us what she has learned is that the best way to end structural racism is not through litigation. She’d had enough of banging her head against the wall. Rather, we should be working on creating new and better policies that will work for everyone. Maya spends the next hour and a half convincing us of this fact during an eye-opening presentation on structural racism. She wants us to think of ideas for how we can combat it using the opportunity of having a new president. She asks us what are the opportunities for change in the midst of the economic crisis. We do have some assets we didn’t have before:

Opportunities for new elected leadership, more people saying they want to step up
A more informed community
People realize we can’t do it alone, that we can do more together
Country finally starting to acknowledge and understand the practices that got us in this economic mess in the first place
Realization that we have a collective fate
Opportunities to form partnerships across lines – with government, with business/banking community

One woman in the workshop says that President Obama can tend to bring people together and move toward compromise. Which means that the left needs to go more left.

There are many ways to examine structural racism, but today we’re looking through the lens of the economy. Someone else points out that you can’t have an open society in a closed south – and over half of black community lives in the south.

Maya teaches us that structural racism is not the same as institutional racism.

Structural racism defined:

Multi-institutional – involves more than one institution ex. schools financing connected to tax structure, connect to school board, etc.
Policy driven – structural racism didn’t just happen naturally, happened because of how policies worked
Not race neutral – the things that are happening are impacted because of race, it doesn’t make sense to find the racists because it’s a larger problem that doesn’t need to say anything about race to impact people of color, policies aren’t race neutral just because they’re race silent
Intent to discriminate not required – elected officials who just do their jobs and follow the law will still produce disparities in communities because the policies are set up that way
Racial disparities are symptoms of the illness – they tell us where the systems are broken, otherwise fairness would prevail and there would be no disparity by race

Maya asks, how long has there been a middle class? The answer is not very long. America created it, it did not happen naturally. Policies created the middle class in 1950s-60s such as Social Security, Federal Housing Administration, G.I. Bill, Federal Highway Act. We didn’t have anything like this before the Great Depression, it took a crisis to produce these opportunities. These policies were race-silent, but the intent was there because the government knew what it would produce. For instance, domestics and agricultural workers were not eligible for Social Security when it was first created. These were jobs that most people of color held. What happened was that 60% of all blacks did not benefit from Social Security because of this structural arrangement. People of color were already segregated into certain job categories because of policies and our lack of education because of segregation. The Social Security program just exacerbated this.

Federal Housing Act gave opportunities not just for homeownership, but also for refinancing homes to start small businesses and pay for college degrees. By the 1950s, the federal government was guaranteeing loans for 50% of all homes in America. Their loans supported racially restrictive convenants, and would downgrade credit ratings for those who wanted to move into integrated communities. So many people of color weren’t able to become homeowners under this program. Lack of homeownership meant not being able to do other things which would have increased wealth for people of color.

Maya asserts that we’re more racially segregated now in America than we were in the 1950s because of policies. While 200,000 people earned college degrees from G.I. Bill, few of them were people of color although the policy was race silent. But who was getting into the military? Not people of color – the Tuskegee Airmen had to fight to get into the military. Stereotype of “flat feet” and others kept Blacks from getting in. Even programs to help veterans get jobs after they came out of the war were also impacted by race. Whites were tracked to management roles, while people of color were not, which impacted their future earnings and benefits.

The Federal Highway Act created more highways even though people of color are six times more likely to use transit. The majority of our tax dollars went to highways versus transit. Poor people ended up subsidizing the white middle class, who are the commuters. We essentially paid for the infrastructure of white flight to the suburbs. Even today, people of color are bearing the brunt of the recession.

All these policies built on each other to cause the conditions we see today. But then Maya gives us the good news.

Structural racism is not inevitable. But it can’t be dismantled without new policy.

john powell from the Kirwan Institute often asks, which straw broke the camel’s back? All of them, all policies build to have a cumulative impact across generations. There’s no question that privilege comes from opportunities given to our families in the past – owning land, homeownership, learning a trade in slavery, etc. How is it that two-thirds of people living in concentrated urban poverty are Black or Latino?

Even if policies are race neutral, the outcomes will not be. Race matters. Look at how structures impact on racial lines. Once we all get healthcare, we’re still not done. It’s race, not poverty. Sub-prime loans have pulled down global economies, yet 60% of all those who got sub-prime loans were actually eligible for a prime rate. This is not a poverty problem. Blacks earning $350,000 a year were more likely to get sub-prime mortgage than a white person earning $50,000 a year. This is not a poverty problem. This is a race problem.

Someone recommends the book, The Two Trillion Dollar Meltdown: Easy Money, High Rollers, and the Great Credit Crash if you want to understand the financial crisis.

Even with universal healthcare, there will be racial disparities – we will still have issues with access, unemployment. The healthcare bill can actually harm communities of color because of public hospitals closing. The bill is the first step, and we have to be ready for the next level of fights.

The real strategy is in fixing the root cause of the problem, not attacking the symptoms. The frame is also important – people of color have been scapegoats in policy debate – Latinos as criminals, illegal immigrants getting free healthcare. Yet only 5% of recipients might be undocumented compared to 95% of citizens who will be helped. It’s about who gets to define the moral center. We have to do it first before the right defines it for us. We need to know where trends are going so we can put our race lens on it and get out ahead of the issues.

Barriers to undoing structural racism:

Internalized racism - when you test for subconscious racism, blacks have a preference for whites
Systems justification – people will often justify the systems when we start talking about dismantling them
We can’t through policy constrain attitudes (can’t change racists through policy), but we can constrain behavior

Policy opportunities that could help people of color:

Broadband access – will improve education, healthcare (telemedicine), make it easier to open a small businesses
Public transportation dollars – improve transit such as subway and bus lines to make it easier for people of color to get to work – highways generally serve to help whites who have more cars and commute to work

Maya urges us to come up with good infrastructure projects that will help our communities and then advocate for them in this opportune moment with stimulus dollars flowing. How can we get more of them into our communities? We need a structural approach to issues like getting better schools – elect the right people to school board, in Senate, etc. We have to make sure that the people we elected with political power then change the policies.

The information presented in Maya’s workshop made us angry. But not angry enough to quit. Angry enough to continue the fight for social justice. Armed with new data and new insights, community organizers left the room ready to get back to work.

Full disclosure: Southern Partners Fund paid me to provide blogging services for this event to leverage the power of social media to share their stories with the wider philanthropic community. The views expressed here are solely my own, however, and I stand by my commitment to authentic coverage of these issues. Would you like to hire me? Visit my portfolio to see samples of my work.

Filed Under: African Americans, Leadership, Politics, Race · Tagged With: Advocacy, Center for Social Inclusion, Maya Wiley, people of color, Race and Class Issues, Social justice, Social Justice Institute, Southern Partners Fund

$30 Million Won’t Buy Diversity (Or Where the Greenlining Institute Fell Short)

January 7, 2009 by rosetta · 6 Comments

We can no longer accept that throwing money at “the diversity problem” will solve anything. In California, and now Florida, the Greenlining Institute, led by Orson Aguilar is at the forefront of pushing for legislation to require foundations to give more resources to nonprofits led by people of color. At first glance, we want to applaud Orson & Greenlining for standing up to say we need more diversity in our nonprofit community. But when you dig deeper, we find that the tactics Greenlining is taking aren’t going to promote diversity at all, just give foundations another way to throw money at a problem that absolutely cannot be solved with dollars alone. First, a little background.

In January 2008, the California Assembly passed AB 624, a bill sponsored by Assembly Member Joe Coto (D, San Jose). The bill would have required foundations with assets of more than $250 million to disclose the race and gender composition of their trustees, staff, and grantees. The bill would have also required disclosure of the number and percentage of grants awarded to organizations serving the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community, as well as “ethnic minority communities.” In June 2008, Coto agreed to drop the bill, in a compromise with ten of California’s largest foundations that have pledged to make a multi-million dollar investment in the state’s underserved communities. (Background from Diversity in Philanthropy)

So this December 2008, nine California foundations, named the “Foundation Coalition”, announced new plans to invest in minority-led nonprofits. Of course, this “Foundation Coalition” was only formed in response to the Greenlining Institute-led legislation that would’ve required foundations to disclose their diversity data. The Coalition pledged to distribute at least $30-million during the next two to three years to aid needy members of minority groups. $20-million will support charities led by minorities & other small nonprofit groups helping poor neighborhoods and areas with diverse populations. An additional $10-million will pay for training to help minority & grass-roots groups improve management, accounting & leadership skills.

From the looks of it, Greenlining backed off when “The Coalition” pledged $30 million to demonstrate their commitment to diversity. But it’s really not a commitment at all, just a payoff to avoid having to disclose the fact that foundations (and this is true for nonprofits overall) don’t do a very good job at making grants to nonprofits led by people of color, having boards that include people of color, or even hiring people of color to work in their organizations. Greenlining’s efforts, and their recent report “Nonprofit Minority Leadership and the Capacity of Minority-Led and Other Grassroots Community-Based Organizations” fall short for me because their actions seem to suggest that $30 million can buy diversity, when that is hardly the case.

Mark Rosenman may have said it best:

Too much is needed and too much is at stake to simply count the number, race, and ethnicity of people touched by various grants, figure out how well they were served, and call it a day.

Diversity in foundations is not about playing with numbers. It is about understanding that holding power and privilege in the hands of traditional elites is an anachronism that cannot well serve either dominant or marginalized groups in a rapidly changing world, nor will trying to do so go unchallenged.

A Wall Street Journal opinion piece calls these efforts “racial extortion”, a strong phrase to be sure. I don’t think it’s “racial extortion” either, but clearly the tactics that Greenlining is using to further the cause of diversity misses the mark. Yes, nonprofits and foundations need to be intentional about supporting communities of color, but it can’t just be about the money. It has to be about supporting nonprofit leaders of color and recruiting more talented people of color to work for social justice in their community, be on boards of directors, hold power at the power table. Dollars alone isn’t enough, nonprofit leaders need to take diversity and inclusion head on and be part of the solution, not whining about the problem with our hands held out. Where do we begin?

Now Al Piña, chairman of Florida Minority Community Reinvestment Coalition, wants to distribute grant money to minority-led organizations in Florida. But it won’t matter whether he and his colleagues advocate for $30 million or $50 million. The really hard work still remains for us as nonprofit leaders to play a part in creating systematic changes to include more people of color in decisionmaking and positions of power. That is real equity. That is social justice. And if we stop wasting time chasing money, we could put some of that energy & advocacy to better use. As Angela Glover Blackwell has said:

Certainly, numbers matter: we must make sure that the staff and leadership of foundations and their grantees reflect the population. But diversity does not equal justice. What’s needed is a comprehensive, long-term strategy to advance equity and inclusion in grantmaking and in crafting and implementing the solutions to the pressing problems facing California.

What do YOU think? Is more money the key to creating more diversity & equity in the nonprofit sector? If not, what kind of leadership is needed to make it happen?

Filed Under: Leaders of Color, Leadership, Race · Tagged With: Diversity, Leaders of Color, Leadership, Race and Class Issues

Celebrating Poetry Month: This is About More Than Color

April 29, 2008 by rosetta · 2 Comments

Yep, it’s still poetry month. And as April comes to an end, I want to share with you dear readers another one of my favorite poems by Lucille Clifton. Lucille is an award-winning poet, fiction writer, and author of children’s books with an amazing presence if one is ever lucky enough to be in a room with her. I love her poem, “the river between us” because it embodies some of the unspoken complexity involved in any discussion about race and class in America. When it comes down to it, yes, we are all human. But the problem is that we need to learn, as a nation, to live together as humans who respect and honor each other regardless of the color of our skin or the size of our bank accounts. We touched on some of these themes on Sunday’s BlogTalkRadio show; check out the podcast “More Diversity, Please” after you read Lucille’s poem. It really can put things into perspective. Because it’s clear that race and class can be a huge, ugly chasm dividing us, but it doesn’t have to be that way.

the river between us

in the river that your father fished
my father was baptized. it was
their hunger that defined them,

one, a man who knew he could
feed himself if it all came down,
the other a man who knew he needed help.

this is about more than color. it is
about how we learn to see ourselves.
it is about geography and memory.

it is about being poor people
in america. it is about my father
and yours and you and me and
the river that is between us.

Filed Under: Race · Tagged With: Diversity, Race and Class Issues

An Interview With Keven Cotton: Nonprofits Need to Recruit More People of Color

April 24, 2008 by rosetta · Leave a Comment

Keven Cotton is one of those guys that you know you’re going to get along with as soon as you meet him. We met 3 years ago when he was applying for a position at my organization with his proud Howard grad self. Unfortunately we didn’t get to work together, but it’s been great watching his career bloom from afar in public policy. Currently, Keven is a Policy Associate with CFED (formerly the Corporation for Enterprise Development), which expands economic opportunity by helping Americans start and grow businesses, go to college, own a home, and save for their children’s and own economic futures. Be sure to join me and Keven this Sunday for “More Diversity, Please,” a live podcast discussion about the lack of diversity in nonprofits this Sunday, April 27 6-7PM EST with other special guests Eric Giles from the Nonprofit Roundtable and Rebecca Muse from the African American Nonprofit Network. And now, the interview.

RT: How did you make your way into the nonprofit sector?

KC: I made my way into the nonprofit sector through the AmeriCorps program. As a junior in college, I volunteered at a DC elementary school and was amazed at what I saw. In order to arrive at the school, I had to navigate drug dealers and individuals drinking outside of the school. I could not believe the environment that children had to overcome in order to attend school. I also began to realize why AmeriCorps was working with this school.

I was partnered with a second grader who was reading on a late kindergarten/first grade level. He had difficulty sounding out words and felt embarrassed to read out loud. I would work with one-on-one and I could begin to see progress. The student became more confident sounding out words and even practicing at home.

It was this student that opened my eyes to inequalities that many families, especially families of color, face on a daily basis. If a student in DC, the nation’s capitol, could not read on a basic level, what was happening in the rest of the country? How were other students faring, students in larger cities, in rural areas; I wondered if there were enough resources to effectively reach all of the students who needed assistance.

RT: What is your current position and day-to-day work?

KC: Currently, I am a Policy Associate with CFED (formerly the Corporation for Enterprise Development). My primary responsibilities include scheduling and attending meetings with Members of Congress and their staff to enact asset-building legislation. Our signature legislation, The Savings for Working Families Act has nearly 115 cosponsors, the highest level of support the bill has ever received. If enacted, the legislation would provide 900,000 matched savings or Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) to low-income families across the country. IDAs enable families to purchase a first home, capitalize a small business or pursue post-secondary education or training.

In addition to Hill visits, I also disseminate e-mail Alerts to our Advocacy Network through our Capwiz software. These Alerts keep our Network apprised of CFED’s policy efforts and encourages these nonprofits and community organizations to send letters to their Members of Congress. Last year, our Network sent more than 7,000 letters through Capwiz.

RT: What is your educational background and area of expertise?

KC: I received a Bachelor’s of Business Administration from Howard University’s School of Business, where I majored in Computer Based Information Systems. While my degree had little to do with my work in the nonprofit sector, the ability to create spreadsheets, PowerPoint slides and to use html has been beneficial. Also, my background in business has proved useful when interviewing, conducting presentations or meeting with Members of Congress.

RT: Do you want to be an Executive Director when you grow up? Why or why not?

KC: I think the question of whether I would want to be an Executive Director is striking because honestly, the thought had never crossed my mind. When I think of an Executive Director, I think of someone who has served in that position for several years and who can be somewhat detached from everyday happenings within the office. Are they aware that the organization is unable to retain employees at the program level? Have they noticed that there few minorities on staff, especially in leadership positions?

While achieving more responsibility and climbing the ranks within an organization is a goal of many employees, I do not see climbing the ranks within a nonprofit to be realistic. Most nonprofits consider themselves to be flat organizations and an opportunity for a promotion usually coincides with your supervisor seeking greener pastures. Otherwise, you may earn a higher salary and more responsibilities, but as long as your supervisor remains with the organization, you are climbing laterally, not vertically.

Given that scenario, most nonprofits do not look internally when they seek an Executive Director; they hire from a pool of outside candidates. I guess I have considered being an Executive Director. However, I do not believe that one can attain to that position unless:

You spend 10+ years within an organization and you become an Executive Director because everyone above you has either left the organization or retired; or

You take your nonprofit experiences and apply for an Executive Director position with an outside organization.

RT: Do you think Generations X and Y are stepping up to lead in the nonprofit sector, or are we just waiting for the world to change? How could we get more involved?

KC: Generations X and Y are finding their way in the nonprofit sector. While the majority of Generations X and Y are not ready to lead or to play a leadership role within a nonprofit, they are not waiting for the world to change either. More so than any generation, these younger generations are ready to change the world which could mean that they need to have a tangible connection to that change – on a daily basis, they need to see and feel the impact that their work has on the world. While non-profits are just that, a nonprofit, the day to day operations are very similar to that of any business. You have meetings, dress codes and more often than not, you are working at your desk for hours at a time.

While high turnover in the nonprofit sector can be attributed to long hours and low wages, I get the impression that these two Generations are reluctant to stay with organizations that are not meeting their needs to effect change. It is likely that Generation X and Y are ready for the corporate functions of a nonprofit and end up feeling as if they are living for a paycheck, not living for their dreams.

The way for Generations X and Y to get more involved includes being aware of which nonprofits/positions are office based and which ones will allow them to have daily interactions with the people and issues they wish to impact. Also, these younger Generations should be encouraged to follow their passion.

RT: What would you like to see changed in the nonprofit sector? How can we take action to implement that change?

KC: Areas that I would like to see changed in the nonprofit sector include providing career and educational advancement, offering competitive salaries and actively recruiting minority candidates.

The success of many nonprofits boils down to their ability to effectively fundraise. The changes that I recommended, while interconnected, cannot be implemented if a nonprofit is unable to raise funds.

A nonprofit that is successful at fundraising should provide their employees with opportunities to learn and grow professionally. Whether employees are matched with a mentor, are offered career counseling or have an opportunity to take classes towards an advanced degree, these are all options that will encourage an employee to remain with a nonprofit.

Cost of living, transportation and private sector salaries should be factors when determining salaries. Unfortunately, by offering lower salaries, nonprofits often eliminate themselves as a viable option for many employees. While nonprofits have historically had lower salaries than private companies, the cost of living is demanding that nonprofits raise their wages to at least compete with private companies. If nonprofits do not consider making salary adjustments, they will find it difficult to recruit and retain employees.

I have worked in the nonprofit sector since 2002 and I continue to be amazed that while the majority of people being served by nonprofits are people of color, the majority of nonprofits are staffed and led by white women. I would like to see nonprofits increase their recruitment of and career advancement for, minority employees.

Filed Under: Interviews, Race · Tagged With: Diversity, Race and Class Issues

Let’s Talk About Diversity: Are We Making Any Progress in the Nonprofit Sector?

April 23, 2008 by rosetta · 2 Comments

I had the opportunity to speak to a group of about 20 young women in the WeLEAD Program at the Women & Politics Institute at American University over the weekend. Thanks to Sabrina for inviting me! It was a great way to spend a Saturday morning speaking on a panel called “Minority Women in Politics and Leadership.” One of the questions from the audience was, “How do you deal with the isolation that comes with being the only person of color in your organization?” And it prompted me to share a story that resonated with many of the young women about my own experience with being the only black woman in my nonprofit. So I thought I’d share it with you dear readers as well.

A few weeks after coming onto the staff of the organization, we had a staff lunch and everyone was asked to go around the table and describe where they were from and what their parents did. I was immediately uncomfortable, since I knew my background was very different than my more privileged colleagues. Knowing that the truth was too personal to share, instead of telling my new co-workers I grew up in public housing – in the projects, came from a single parent home, and none of my family members had gone to anybody’s college, I lied my ass off. I told my fellow staff about my wonderful childhood and two very educated parents. All because I knew they just wouldn’t understand my perspective as a black person from a different socioeconomic place.

So I think it’s a good time as any to keep the discussion about the lack of racial diversity in nonprofits going on this blog. Last year, you dear readers may remember that I wrote a piece for the Stanford Social Innovation Blog called: Philanthropy Doesn’t Care About Black People. The blog sparked some rich discussion through over 50 comments at SSIR and was the most-read post of 2007. Obviously, many people in the sector are tired of living the lie we keep telling ourselves: that we are committed to diversity in our organizations and strive to reflect the communities we serve. Like the TV character Senator Clay Davis on The Wire would say so often: “Shiiiiiiit.” From where I sit in Washington, DC, our nonprofits are about as diverse as apple pie and baseball.

So the lack of racial diversity in nonprofit work is getting to be a huge topic. The philanthropic community in California has been all up in arms about AB 624, which would require them to report:

the ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation of foundation board and staff members;
the number of grants and grant dollars awarded to organizations reporting that 50% or more of their board or staff members are ethnic minorities;
“the number of grants and grant dollars awarded to “organizations specifically serving African-American, Asian-American, Pacific Islander, Caucasian, Latino, Native American, and Alaskan Native communities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities and other underrepresented communities”
“the number of grants and grant dollars awarded to predominantly low-income communities”; etc.

Well-meaning maybe, but many folks question the effectiveness of such legislation. The key point here is that people are starting to look at why nonprofits aren’t walking the talk of having diverse staff and boards. It’s just not happening, no matter how we want to spin it, as Jeanne Bell asserts in a recent Nonprofit Quarterly article quoting this blogger:

While the nonprofit sector regularly discusses and addresses programmatically issues of race and class, recent studies reveal a sharp disconnect between our values and our leadership’s demographics. Organizations that originate in, serve, and are led from within ethnic communities do an excellent job of developing constituency-reflective boards and staffs. The problem is with the rest of the sector.

The truth is that our lack of attention to—and expertise in—human resources management relative to other sectors means we have not gone about systematically attracting and retaining people of color as Fortune 500 companies have done for years.

So there it is folks. Nonprofits need to do a better job of recruiting people of color for leadership positions in the sector and we had better get a move on before legislators get all up in our business to do it for us.

I was also honored to be on the same program last Saturday as the incredible René Redwood, CEO of Redwood Enterprise, LLC and one of the nations’ foremost experts and advocates on diversity, “glass ceilings,” and affirmative action. René talked to the group about the state of diversity in organizations, saying that essentially we’ve moved beyond simple representation, it’s really about cultural proficiency and getting people of color into positions of leadership and influence. It’s simply not enough to have lots of Blacks and Latinos and Asians working in lower-level positions, there needs to be a way for our leadership skills to be recognized in terms of being the CEOs and VPs of the organizations.

What do YOU think? Are we moving the needle at all on progress in nonprofit leadership for people of color? Or do you think there is a glass ceiling in the sector?

I invite everyone to join me this Sunday for “More Diversity, Please,” a live podcast discussion about diversity in nonprofits this Sunday, April 27 6-7PM EST with special guests Eric Giles from the Nonprofit Roundtable, Rebecca Muse from the African American Nonprofit Network, and Keven Cotton from the Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED).