Suddenly Anything is Possible

You Never Forget the First Time You Are Called a Terrorist

by Hafsa Ahmad
Content Solutions Intern, Cook Ross Inc.

 

It is difficult to forget the first time you are called a “terrorist”. At first, it comes as a shock but then you feel more emotionally rattled than you do insulted. Muslims, Arabs, South Asians, or anyone who could be mistaken as Muslim, have possibly experienced this in routine after the September 11 World Trade Center attacks. But after your first, the insults start to meld into just another aspect of life in America.

So when Shaima Alawadi first found a note pinned to her door that stated, “This is my country. Go back to yours, terrorist”, she dismissed it as a mere prank. This instinct to dismiss a threat has become routine for many Muslim-Americans in the past decade. Reporting harassment incidences to the police is perceived as foolish and futile.

Shaima, a sweet-smiled California mom of four, chose to wear the hijab. The tradition of hijab for many Muslim women, beyond modesty, is to identify and distinguish Muslim women from other women. Every Muslim woman who chooses to take up the veil, particularly in America, does so knowing that she will be identifiably Muslim from afar. Now, in Muslim countries, this is hardly a dangerous move. However, the brutal murder of Shaima Alawadi, hijab-wearing Muslim mother of five, proves that in America, identifying yourself as Muslim is tantamount to putting yourself at risk.

The issue at hand holds ramifications far beyond an isolated incident. What this murder reinforces is what many Muslims have feared since 9/11- to wear a hijab or grow a beard is to place yourself in the line of fire for hatred, harassment, even murder, in Shaima’s case. What this spells for Muslims today is that they are forced to choose. Do they hide their Muslim identity and live free of suspicion, hate and harassment?

America can never be the free country that it was founded to be, so long as minority populations within its borders feel pressured to suppress their identity, in return for an increased measure of security. Since the murder of Shaima, Muslims have again arrived at a crossroads to wonder: is it safer if to shed the scarf and shave the beard? Why must Muslims sacrifice tradition, religious freedom and personal liberty for safety and freedom from persecution?

Undoubtedly, countless Muslims have chosen to fight against the suppression of their religious identity. They have, in turn, become increasingly vocal advocates of their religion, in more ways than wearing a headscarf or sporting a beard. However, one cannot deny the fear that rippled through the Muslim-American community- that Shaima could have been any one of us.

The first time I was assaulted for wearing hijab, I was twelve years old, testing out my new bike in my neighborhood park. I faintly heard yells from an approaching SUV, but paid them no mind. As the vehicle approached, I noticed three teenage boys hanging out the window and sunroof, making rude gestures in my direction. Innocently, I glanced around to see who they were yelling at, but saw no one. I realized an instant too late that their hate was directed at me, when the first egg hit me hard on my thigh, followed closely by three more as I biked as hard as I could for home. The trembling stopped eventually, but I could never shake the fear that one day, I could get hit with worse than eggs.

It is horrifying that we live in a country where minorities have to suppress their identity in order to feel safe. This kind of exclusionary behavior threatens the ideals that America was founded upon. America’s founding fathers came here in search of a nation where they could practice their religion openly, and free from discrimination. We are a nation that, despite our Pledge of Allegiance, continually struggles to provide liberty and justice for all. We are a nation where a man who shoots an African-American youth for “looking suspicious” can go days uninvestigated, and where Muslim-Americans dismiss threats because of their lack of faith in the police force.

More than a decade has passed since September 11, 2001, when the vilification of Muslims became prevalent in America. Yet 2010 saw the highest number of hate crimes against Muslims since 2001. These assumptions -- specifically, that a headscarf-wearing mom from California must be a radical Muslim or that a hooded African-American teenager is a criminal -- are fed to us by media, government policies and the recent wars that have ravaged the American psyche. In order to move past tolerance towards inclusion, we have to discover within ourselves the hidden prejudices we hold and courageously address them, not suppress them.

Hoodie or not, I am not Trayvon Martin

by Howard J. Ross, founder & chief learning officer, Cook Ross Inc.

 

 

Like many of you, I have been deeply saddened by the tragic death of Trayvon Martin.  Sadly, the details are all too familiar.  In solidarity with others who are appalled by the circumstances, I have felt like wearing a hoodie and posting “I am Trayvon Martin” on my Facebook page.

But I am not Trayvon Martin. 

Being a 61-year-old white man, about two inches taller than Trayvon, if I were him I almost certainly would not be dead today.  I would probably have walked through that neighborhood in Florida, hoodie or not, without gathering the slightest interest from anybody.  And if I had attracted interest, it would more likely to have been people asking me if I needed directions or help.  If I were Trayvon Martin and somebody on “neighborhood watch” did approach me with a gun, they almost certainly would have been very careful, because they would be concerned about being sued for harassment, or worse.  And, without question, if I were Trayvon Martin and had been shot, my assailant would at the least have been arrested and investigated for committing a crime.

Sadly for his parents, Trayvon Martin was not treated as I would have been in that same circumstance.

I know that a great deal of attention has been put on George Zimmerman, the admitted assailant who shot Trayvon that fateful night.  I have no idea what his motivation was.  Was he a violent racist out to harass and eventually harm this young black man?  Or was he a diligent neighbor who thought he was doing his job and didn’t even realize the unconscious stereotypes that were driving his behavior and his fear?  I will leave it to people who actually know him to make that determination.

But there are things that I know about this case, and they are things that we all know. 

The first and most important is that this case is all too familiar.  It is not that different from too many other cases that we have heard about:  Amadou Diallo, 21, shot 41 times while reaching for his wallet in New York City in 1999.  Kenneth Chamberlain, a 68-year-old Marine veteran, shot in his own home in November because he accidentally set off his medical alert device and the police didn't believe him when he told them so.  They broke into his house and tasered him. Then shot him dead.  He was wearing only boxer shorts. 

And these are only the tip of the iceberg.  I was talking about Trayvon the other day with a friend of mine who has been driving me to the airport for more than ten years.  Dennis is a black man who has been a professional driver for over 20 years.  He is as professional as they come. Always impeccably dressed in a suit. Always on time. Always friendly and considerate.  He has never even had a speeding ticket or an accident.  He shared with me that recently he went to pick up a client in a relatively high-income neighborhood. Arriving 15 minutes early, he pulled over to the curb in his Lincoln Town Car to wait.  Within minutes, two police cars arrived to investigate the “suspicious” person that a neighbor had reported.  The police asked him questions for more than 10 minutes.  Though not surprised, because I have heard so many stories like this, I was outraged. Yet, in listening to Dennis speak, what struck me the most was how matter-of-fact he was about the incident. 

Just another day of being Black in America.

Post-racial, post-Obama America.

I am not Trayvon Martin.

If I were black, like Trayvon Martin, I would have had to provide training to my four sons so that they knew how to “Drive While Black.”  I would have had to tell them, for fear of their life, how to be respectful to police officers or neighborhood watch people when they harass you for no reason, other than the color of your skin.  I would have to teach them to be sure to always back off and keep their hands visible.  How to be careful to make eye contact … but not too much eye contact, so as not to appear insolent.  I would have to worry about them being shot because they were reaching into their wallet to produce their identification. 

I would have to wonder if their life span would be shortened by the plethora of illnesses that they would be likely to get because of the stress that institutionalized racism places on their health.  I would worry that they would be more likely to get heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc.  I would wonder if they would get enough pain medication if they were injured, because research shows that Blacks receive less pain medication for the same injuries.  I would wonder if a well-intentioned teacher would discourage them from higher academic studies and instead encourage them to try something “more realistic.”  I would worry about them getting a job, because it is almost twice as difficult given their race.  And I wouldn’t have to think that my fussing at them to dress differently sometimes was a matter of life and death.

To Trayvon Martin’s parents, this tragic death is personal.  To the rest of us it is just, as Malcolm X famously said, “the chickens coming home to roost.”  It is a result of a system that imbeds messages of fear in each of us:  Fear of black men and what “they” might do.  It is a fear that is fed by the media when they show almost twice as many black men as lawbreakers than are actually arrested. It is a fear that results in adolescent black men and women being suspended rather than sent to detention in schools (like their white classmates), contributing to the cradle-to-prison pipeline.

We know how this works.  In a 2010 study, researchers Justin Levinson and Danielle Young found that people shown a dark skinned photograph of a potential perpetrator, were more likely to believe their guilt than when they were shown the same photograph lightened. And in an earlier study, Levinson found that people were more likely to remember “aggressive” details when the person’s picture was darkened.

It is the result of a system in which people somehow believe that the free distribution of handguns makes us safer.  It is a result of “stand your ground” laws that state that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. In some cases, a person may use deadly force in public areas without a duty to retreat at all!

How “reasonable” a threat is a bag of skittles and a bottle of iced tea?  But, of course, the threat that Trayvon represented wasn’t in his pockets.  It was in the color of his skin.

No, I am not Trayvon Martin.  We all need to own up to the ways that we are more like George Zimmerman.  Negative stereotypes about Blacks in our society are so deeply imbedded that dozens of research studies indicate that not only do over 70% of white people have unconscious patterns of negative bias towards Blacks, but members of all others races, including blacks, also have these same unconscious patterns at various levels.  Why?  Because we all get the same negative stereotypes fed into our system from the time we are infants.

I am not Trayvon Martin, but I am saddened and incensed by his death.  I am tired of the loss of life, the tears of parents, and the stories about the “good kid” who is now dead.  We all should be tired of it.  We should never lose our outrage at a system that produces this same result over, and over, and over again.

I am not Trayvon Martin, but I adopt him as my own child.  I adopt the Trayvon Martins of the world because they are all of our children and until we treat them that way, all of us, we will keep having to see these tragedies repeated.

Making the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Fully Gender Inclusive

by Minjon Tholen, Training & Development Specialist, Cook Ross Inc.

In addition to her key role at Cook Ross, Minjon is a Roosevelt Institute Pipeline Fellow. Her post originally appeared on the Roosevelt Institute's New Deal 2.0.

-------------------------------------

Making the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Fully Gender Inclusive

On International Women’s Day, a proposal that will make sure a vital document includes women’s rights as human rights.

“It is necessary to scrutinize not only the truth of what we speak,
but the truth of that language by which we speak it.” - Audre Lorde

The continued battle over women’s rights both in the United States and across the world calls for a reaffirmation of the fact that women’s rights are human rights. International Women’s Day is the perfect time to once again point that out and challenge the gender bias in the language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

During the 4th World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, it was explicitly reaffirmed that women’s rights are human rights. The commitment of the United Nations, its member states, and NGOs to this important recognition has become clear in their efforts for the advancement of women and gender equality in their policies and practices. An important example is the institution of UN Women, the gender equity agency uniting the Division for the Advancement of Women, the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women, the Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women, and United Nations Development Fund for Women.

However, this evolving consciousness has not yet been reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself: the fundamental document human rights advocates base their work on. The declaration emphasizes that human rights are indivisible and apply to all members of the human family, and Article 2 explicitly states that there will be no distinction based on gender. Yet Article 1 still reads, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Furthermore, almost half of the articles (8, 10, 11.1, 12, 13.2, 15.2, 17.2, 18, 21.1/21.2, 22, 23.3/23.4, 25.1, 27.2, 29.1/29.2) use the male pronouns “him,” “he,” “himself,” and/or “his” as the generic terms to represent all of humanity. This initial gender bias in the declaration is historically understandable, but today needs to be addressed if we are truly committed to the full inclusion of women’s rights in human rights. If you are not convinced, imagine all pronouns to be feminine. Wouldn’t that sound exclusive of men? Therefore, we should replace the word “brotherhood” in Article 1 with something along the lines of “human solidarity.” This term is gender inclusive and reaffirms our shared humanity, which in turn strengthens the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the same way, the words “him,” “himself,” “he,” and “his” should be replaced with “one,” “one’s,” or “their”.

This linguistic adaptation will be of invaluable symbolic importance,  as it recognizes the efforts of those working for women’s rights and truly reaffirms the United Nations’ commitment to gender equity. It is well known that words are not value-free: they simultaneously reflect and reinforce values and attitudes. Moreover, a change in language is not only symbolic, but also has practical value for educational purposes. Gender equity should be integral to the next generation’s upbringing and curriculum. When they learn about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they should not have any reason to read gender bias in the concept of “human.”

Since the declaration was always intended to include women, there should be no legal consequences of these changes. And I by no means suggest a complete re-examination of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is merely an update in the language. Fifteen years after Beijing, it is time to review the Declaration from the perspective of our evolving consciousness regarding women’s rights and gender equity. We must recognize the dedicated efforts of millions of women and men around this world for these causes by reflecting their work in the central declaration for human rights, either in the document itself or in the form of an addendum.

Like all gender equality advocates, I am dedicated to the tireless efforts of the global women’s movement. I hope to do so with a gender-inclusive Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“Lin-sanity”: NBA Rising Star Evokes Powerful Diversity Lessons

by Howard J. Ross, founder & chief learning officer

 

 

In a period of just a couple of weeks, the world of basketball and then the larger media has been taken over by “Lin-sanity,” a flood of reaction to the play of Jeremy Lin, a New York Knicks basketball player.  For those of you who may somehow have missed it, Lin is a Harvard University graduate (2009) who was cut by two other teams.  He was a bench sitter for the Knicks until he was given a chance to play and has led the Knicks to eight wins in nine games while scoring and assisting at record levels.

Lin’s rise has led to a rash of positive reaction.  Fans have been buying his jersey number and going “Lin-sane” all over the country.  But there has been some negative feedback as well.  Boxing champion Floyd Mayweather Jr., who claimed to be speaking for friends of his who are NBA players, started a firestorm when he said, “Jeremy Lin is a good player but all the hype is because he’s Asian. Black players do what he does every night and don’t get the same praise.”

Of course, Mayweather may have been expressing his point for questionable reasons, but he is more than partially right.  The fact that Lin is Asian does draw attention to his performance. But not, perhaps, for the reasons Mayweather is suggesting, as a slight to Black players.

Of course the other questions that might arise is whether Jeremy Lin would have had an opportunity earlier had he more “looked the part” of an NBA player?  Or gone to more of a basketball powerhouse school, rather than Harvard.

The human mind is an interesting thing.  We see some things and not others.  There are hundreds of examples of similar things occurring.  When Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in baseball, his race was almost as important as his excellent play.  Jim Abbott became famous as a baseball pitcher because he had one arm more than because he was a dominant pitcher.  When Timothy McVeigh executed the Oklahoma City bombing was he described as a “White, Christian” terrorist in the same way as the purveyors of 9-11 were “Muslim Terrorists?”  How much was the race of the other 19 candidates talked about when President Obama started running for president, or, for that matter, their gender when Hillary Clinton announced? 

Where identity is concerned, we tend to notice it most when it is the least dominant.  Women, for example, notice gender dynamics more than men do, not necessarily because we don’t care, but because we don't have to.   People of color tend to be more aware of racial dynamics.  Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender folks do the same around sexual orientation or identity.  I know that I never feel more Jewish than I do when the Christian holidays are occurring, or when I visit a church or mosque.  We see ourselves and are seen by the world differently. When we are members of a non-dominant group we have to have our attention on what is going on in the world in order to navigate it.  It is an awareness built on survival.  When, on the other hand, we are part of the dominant group and our world is “the” world, it becomes concealed by its obviousness.  Like the proverbial water to the fish.

Cognitive scientists suggest that we are exposed to millions of pieces of information at any one time but we can only perceive about 40.  The rest are sorted out by various perceptions, interpretations and preferences that we have that leave us with what they refer to as “selective attention.”  We see what our minds are programmed to see and miss the rest.

And so there is something for us to learn from the Jeremy Lin phenomenon.  How many people are around us who we are reacting more or less strongly to based on their identity?  How many do we see or not see without even realizing that our minds are filtering the world around us?  And how many talented people are sitting on the sideline waiting for their chance, but not getting it because they don't fit the picture of what a successful person looks like?

Pay attention.  There may be a Jeremy Lin in your office waiting to score a big one for you!

The Jury is In -- The Privilege of Civic Duty

by Howard J. Ross, founder & chief learning officer

 

I know that I am not alone in that sometimes I take things for granted.  In my personal life I take for granted that I never have to worry where my next meal is coming from. I will have someplace warm to sleep. I will have a basic degree of safety and security in my life. 

I was called to jury duty today.  (In fact, I am in the Jurors' Lounge as I write this).  When I received the summons I had mixed feelings.  On the one hand, I have been called only twice before and both times was dismissed without actually having to serve.  A BIG part of me wants to know what it would be like to serve on a jury.  On the other hand, it is obviously not in my already busy schedule to be put on a trial that could last for who knows how long.  So part of me was hoping to avoid it.

I have heard about “jury of my peers” my whole life.  Most of the time it was in the context of seeing a court system that serves some people and abuses others.  I have studied the problems with the courts.  I have worked with judges and lawyers.  Yet, as I sit in this room with somewhere in the range of 300-400 people, I am taken by the greatness of a process that I take for granted every day.  The entire world is in this room with me. To my best count there are roughly an equal number of men and women.  There are 30-40% people of color.  There are people who clearly come from a broad range of ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds.  And, of course, there is unfathomable depth of diversity that I cannot see with my eyes. At some point some of us will be put on teams of 6 or 12 and decide the fate of our fellow citizens.  And we all sit in this room, many engaged in conversation, ready to give any case a fair hearing.  At the most fundamental level, these are my peers.

Growing up in this system it seems unremarkable to me.  Yet at this moment, that is seems unremarkable seems quite remarkable!  I’ve studied the research.  I’ve been interested in jurisprudence for a long time.  I have researched the court systems in countries around the world.  Many are deeply flawed, if not entirely corrupt and contrived.  And I know that this system has its flaws as well.  I know that unconscious bias in this system leads to darker skin men of color getting more severe verdicts from juries.  I know that people with strong accents often have trouble with judges who struggle to understand them (in fact, I conducted some research on that factor myself).  I know that because of socio-economic status, some defendants in the system will have better lawyers and a greater chance of acquittal than others.  I know that the judges, the lawyers, the staff, the jurors and all others involved in this process are human beings with their own biases and flaws.

I know all of that, and it is still remarkable.

As I look around this room there are very few people visibly “suffering” about being here.  Would most rather be somewhere else?  Of course.  But as I talk to different people it is clear that overwhelmingly they are here to contribute, and that they take the job seriously.  Many really want to be here to contribute to the system.  Hundreds of people from all walks of life will be put in teams of 6 to 12 people to decide the fate of their fellow citizens.  And I also want to acknowledge that the staff in this Montgomery County (Maryland) court system is doing a remarkable job of serving the people here, both in process and in the tone that they set.

We have to continue to be vigilant about making sure that the court system works fairly, factually, and equitably.  We have a long way to go before that is universally true in this country.  And thinking that something is valuable doesn’t necessitate becoming jingoistic or refusing to look at how it can improve.  Yet I am glad that this court system is not like the court systems that exist in many other places.

I don't know yet whether or not I will be called to serve in a trial today, but right now I feel fortunate to be a citizen of this county, in this state, in this country. 

 

 

 

Governor Perry Between a Rock and a Hard Place

by Howard J. Ross, founder & chief learning officer

The recent controversy about the hate-filled word painted on the rock at Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry’s hunting property reminds us of how much our past dictates the way we see the present.  There are few words in the English language that have the ability to remind us of how much our memories of things that have happened can live in our language as “the n-word.”  It is so viscerally reminiscent of the history of African American oppression in this country that it is hardly ever spoken or whispered.

How quickly Governor Perry actually handled his personal connection to the offensive word on the rock is a reasonable question. It indicates how seriously he took the offense of it, as is how he is handling the current situation around it.  But the incident is an aide-mémoire that our language is filled with reminders of the past.  Even benign terms and phrases convey hidden or lost meanings. For example, we call storage locations in our cars the “glove compartment” and the “trunk.” They were created when cars had no heat and drivers always had to have a place to store their gloves, and because early automobiles actually had trunks attached to the back for storage.  But, far more importantly, we know that our language is loaded with references that have a history to them, some which reinforce past inequities.

The “n-word” is an obvious example, and perhaps the vilest. But it is by no means the only one.  What is a “rule of thumb,” for example?  It apparently derives from old English commonwealth law, which stated that a man could beat his wife as long as the stick was no thicker than his thumb.  Why are our leaders usually called “chairmen”, “congressmen”, etc.?  Pretty obvious isn’t it?  There are all those references to the “black” sheep of the family. Or the classic western villain wearing a “black” hat. What about “Indian giving”? (Which is particularly ironic given that the Native American population of this country had deals and treaties rescinded from them far more often than the opposite!). Ever hear of “jewing down” the price of something? (An obvious reference to the stereotype of stinginess that is associated with Jews. In fact, some people are so obtuse of the source of that it has been said in front of me a number of times in my life).  Getting “gypped” on a deal derives from a negative stereotype about the Roma or Gypsy people). Of course there are ubiquitous references to people (including children) as “illegal aliens”.  Finally, there is the name of the Washington DC football team. If we weren't so used to the name "redskins" and even attached to it, we would easily see the absurdity and offensiveness of using a race of people as a mascot."  And I resist going on and on only because the point is made.

That we are our personal history is undeniable and no secret to any of us.  Malcolm X said, “People are always speculating: why am I as I am? To understand...any person, his or her whole life, from birth, must be reviewed. All our experiences fuse into our personalities. Everything that ever happened to us is an ingredient.”  But we are also our collective histories.  We live in a world that has been shaped and influenced by our collective past.  And our language is the main carrier of that history.

The human mind perceives the world mostly through language.  It provides one of the most predominant filters through which our background interpretations of events are formed.  A simple word can give an entire worldview.  Consider, for example, did we “invade” Iraq, or did we “liberate” Iraq.  By the choice of those words aren’t we likely to at least imply a person’s political point of view about the conflict?  Our very consciousness is structured by the words we use, the names we give things, and the questions we ask.

Words can also marginalize.  The collective pain of centuries of sexism lives in the titles we give our corporate leaders.  The collective stain of slavery lives in the fact that African American unemployment is almost twice the national average, and that the color black usually implies "less than" or more evil.  The collective shame of homophobia lives in the many ways our language tells us that heterosexuality is “normal.”

These words infiltrate our “normal” discourse, and so do the values that the words connote.  And the most challenging aspect of it is that it mostly doesn’t live in our conscious awareness.  It is buried deep. These words help form the foundation of some of our most basic beliefs without our even realizing it.

I am not a big fan of political correctness.  Though it may be well intended, my experience has been that it suffocates our ability to have real conversations. It drives people underground rather than allowing us to know whom we are dealing with.  But I am not talking about political correctness.  I am talking about listening and learning.  I am talking about being conscious of the language that we use and the memories that it carries. 

The language that people choose can help us know when leaders are “uniters” or “dividers.”  And so, as our news cycle tends to go, we will be hearing incessantly for a few days the various opinions as to whether or not the rock in Governor Perry’s “garden” was dealt with appropriately or fast enough.  And we have every right to determine what Governor Perry’s response tells us about his capacity for empathy and compassion as a leader. 

But let us not forget the deeper message:  our language carries our heritage. And it is not easily “painted over.”

 

Howard Ross is the recent author of ReInventing Diversity: Transforming Organizational Community to Strengthen People, Purpose & Performance, published by Rowman Littlefield in association with the Society for Human Resource Management.

Another Opportunity for Hypocrisy?

by Howard Ross, Founder & Chief Learning Officer

Last week a divided panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11^th Circuit in Atlanta struck down the insurance mandate portion of the 2010 health care law, ruling that Congress overstepped its authority when it required all Americans to have health insurance.

To be clear, this ruling does not end the legal debate on the legislation, which will undoubtedly eventually be decided by the Supreme Court, but it is a frightening harbinger of what is likely to come. As much as I searched the newspapers and internet over the past few days, I was unable to find any hue and cry against this “radical judicial activism” from those who were so vociferous in that characterization when the courts ruled against voters or legislators decisions on marriage equality, affirmative action, or other such issues.

In all transparency I supported the healthcare bill.  Actually, that is not truly accurate because I had hoped it would have gone further.  But at least it was a start.  An acceptance of the general notion that quality healthcare should be a right for all citizens. 

Now I know that many people criticize and condemn that idea.  They see it as a move towards “socialized medicine.”  But I have a hard time understanding why it is fine for us to have state-sponsored education, state-sponsored traffic laws, state-sponsored postal service, and a state-sponsored military, but it is somehow repugnant or “socialist” to have some governmental process that ensures health access in a society that prides itself on the notion that the American people are endowed with “…certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  It is hard in my mind to understand how life and happiness (and arguably liberty as well) are not related to health.  Life is obvious. But I know that I am never less happy than when one of my loved ones or I is sick or injured.  I would find it appalling if some Americans in general, regardless of race, economic status, gender, etc., had less access to quality healthcare and poorer health outcomes.  But how often that happens is not random in our society, it is directly related to race and socio-economic status.  Consider these Department of Health and Human Services statistics:

• African American men are over twice more likely to die from prostate cancer than White. While breast cancer is diagnosed 10% less frequently in African American women than White women, African American women are 36% more likely to die from the disease.
• African Americans are twice as likely to have diabetes as Whites. Hispanics are 1.5 times as likely to have diabetes as Whites. American Indians and Alaska Natives are twice as likely as non-Hispanic Whites of similar age to have diabetes.
• African American men are 30% more likely to die from heart disease than non-Hispanic white males, despite the fact that 6% of African Americans have heart disease.
• 32% of African Americans have hypertension compared to 23% of Whites.
• Non-Hispanic Blacks are 60% more likely to die from viral hepatitis, as compared to non-Hispanic Whites. American Indian/Alaska Natives were almost twice as likely to develop a case of Hepatitis C, as compared to the White population.  Hispanics are twice more likely to be diagnosed with Hepatitis A than non-Hispanic Whites.
• African Americans accounted for 52% of all HIV/AIDS cases diagnosed.
• African American mothers were 2.3 times as likely as non-Hispanic white mothers to begin prenatal care in the 3rd trimester. Or not receive prenatal care at all.
• American Indian/Alaska Natives have 1.6 times the infant mortality rate of non-Hispanic Whites.
• Puerto Rican infants were twice as likely to die from causes related to low birth weight, compared to non-Hispanic white infants.
• The infant mortality rate is 1.7 times greater for Native Hawaiians than for non-Hispanic Whites
• Mexican Americans, who make up the largest share of the U.S. Hispanic population, suffer in greater percentages than Whites from overweight and obesity, two of the leading risk factors for heart disease. Premature death was higher for Hispanics (23.5%) than non-Hispanics (16.5%).
• Oral health disparities are so dramatic in this country that Native American people have dental diseases 3-5 times as often as Whites.

I could go on with similar statistics that link income levels, sexual orientation, and gender to health performance. Data that link poor healthcare to education and job attainment, especially for poor children, is readily available. But the real issue is why so many of us feel comfortable ignoring the obviousness of this data.

“Liberty and justice for all?”  

“Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?”   

The “best healthcare system in the world?”

 According to the World Health Organization, the United States is:

• 31^st in the world in life expectancy (tied with Kuwait)

• 37^th in the world in infant mortality (an American child is 2 ½ times more likely to die before the age of five than a Singaporean child)
• 34^th in the world in maternal mortality (an American mother is 11 times more likely to die in childbirth than an Irish mother)

Who are we kidding?

I have heard the argument that the United States Constitution does not provide for healthcare for all.  But, of course Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution also did not provide for African Americans to be counted as full human beings, and, of course, there was that sticky issue of a woman’s right to vote…

I have heard the argument that this service is best provided by the states, which was, of course, the same argument that Mississippi and Alabama used to resist the Civil Rights movement.

I have heard the argument that people should be able to decide for themselves whether they need health insurance. But there have been numerous times when we have decided as a society (education, child labor, child sexuality, seat belts, etc.) that the well-being of our citizenry requires that we sometimes be protected from our own poor decision-making. Not to mention the fact that we as a society pay for the lack of health insurance of our fellow citizens through the rising tide of healthcare costs.

And I have also heard the argument that private industry is better able to provide these services. I generally believe that there are many healthcare companies that combine a deep commitment to service with an ability to operate a consciously capitalist company. But we also have to admit that there are some who are simply out for profit and need to be carefully regulated.

Unfortunately what is just under the surface of the resistance to our intervening in the tragic inequity in healthcare in our society is a rising tide of Social Darwinism, a notion, originated in the 19^th Century, that some of us are just more “fit” for survival and it is simply the evolutionary forces of nature that sort out the ones who aren’t.  It slips out sometimes, as when Utah Senator Orrin Hatch recently said, “The poor need to share some of the responsibility in reducing America’s debt burden.”  It is a philosophy that was generally discredited after it contributed to the development of eugenics, scientific racism, imperialism, and fascism.

One of the overarching themes in my just-release new book, ReInventing Diversity: Transforming Organizational Community to Strengthen People, Purpose & Performance, is that we all need to work to overcome the deeply ingrained and polarizing dynamic of “us versus them.”

Personally I don't believe that poor people, black and Hispanic people, women, and gay people are getting poorer health results because they are “less fit to survive.” I believe we, as a society, have not joined virtually the entire developed world in understanding that it is the responsibility of the strong to assist the weak. And the rich to assist the poor. How? By providing the simplest, if not the easiest, of safety nets: universally available and affordable health insurance.

The notion that just because you are poor, black, Hispanic, gay, or a woman, doesn't mean that you should be doomed to be sick and die more than those who are rich, white, straight men.  And, if you don’t believe that we have a responsibility to help our neighbors than consider your own family’s self-interest:  when your neighbor’s children are sick because they can’t afford quality healthcare, they still play on the same playground as your children and grandchildren.

This fight is not over.  Please contact your elected representative today and tell them that we need to stand strong for a quality healthcare for all people in this country.  And if the Supreme Court overturns this bill, we intend to fight for another so that the United States can truly have liberty and justice for all.

The First Day of the Rest of Our Lives?

by Howard J. Ross, Founder & Chief Learning Officer, Cook Ross Inc.

Yesterday, Sunday, July 24, 2011, gay and lesbian couples all over the state of New York were allowed to legally marry for the first time. Thousands of people were granted the same legal and civil rights as those of us who are straight. Straight people have historically never, even for a moment, had to consider if their marriage would be recognized as legal and valid.  New York is now the 7^th state in the nation, in addition to the District of Columbia, that has recognized the right to marriage equality. (http://www.marriageequality.org/current-status)

I was deeply moved as I watched the news reports of people getting married who have been devoted and faithful partners, in some cases for dozens of years. Now they are finally getting assurance that they will be legally guaranteed the right to sit in the hospital with their beloveds as they passed their last breath. Now they can fully share in creating their financial futures. Now they can legally share the lives that they have in actuality been sharing for years. 

As I sat there watching I couldn’t help but ask myself, “How can this possibly be a threat to my own straight marriage?”

I am convinced that some day we will look back at this time like we now look back at the early days of the civil rights movement, when people were fighting for the right to be treated as full citizens of our country and others were fighting to deny those rights, and say “what were we thinking?”

As the news stories and photographs came out yesterday I was completing a training I had been leading all week in Ottawa, Canada.  The Canadians I was with had, almost universally, just one thing to say:  “What took you so long?”

Many strategists are predicting that Maryland is the next big state where marriage equality will become a legal reality. Please support organizations like Equality Maryland, HRC, PFLAG, and any other organization advocating for marriage equality. We all need to work together to get this done!

Support equal rights for all citizens NOW so that one day we can look at this moment in time and say “that was when we came to our senses.”

 

photo credit

 

Trumping the Race Card

by Howard J. Ross, Chief Learning Officer

People across the globe are gripped by the surprise news of the death of Osama bin Laden. For many, a part of us views his death as a catharsis for our anger which has brewed for more than a decade.  Another part of us embraces the release of a powerful and nagging fear which has insinuated itself into daily lives in a way that many of us have not felt before.

What is the impact of fear on us as individuals and as a society? How does fear impact our decisions, responses, and thoughts? In some cases, we can transform our fear into great works of creativity and tremendous acts of courage. In all too many cases, fear can transform itself into destructive cynicism and division.

Last week, we saw a textbook example of how collective fear can be manipulated for political purposes.  Donald Trump has dominated the airwaves the past couple of months as news reporters all over the country have seemed to salivate over every opportunity to hear him challenge President Obama’s citizenship.  Even as this charge had been proven to have far less credibility than the aliens supposed hidden in a vault in New Mexico.  As we all know, the President, finally tired of the distraction, had his lawyers arrange to produce a second official birth notification to again substantiate that he was born in this country, demonstrating that there was nothing but hot air to “The Donald’s” charges.

But that has not stopped Trump.  He now is challenging the President’s academic credentials. But what is Trump really trying to say when he charges that he has “read” that President Obama was an underachieving student?  Is he questioning his intelligence?  If so it’s a challenging charge against a former Harvard Law Review editor whose political enemies have even labeled him an “effete professor.”  Is he suggesting that there was some unethical play involved?  I don't think so.

He is trying very hard, as he has been all along, to remind us (as if we needed reminding) that President Obama is black.  Sadly, this kind of race baiting is not unusual in American politics.  It was just a couple of years ago that Congressman Harold Ford of Tennessee lost his United States Senate race in after his opponent ran a commercial suggesting that Ford was interested in white women.  I could list dozens of other examples but, of course, they are all too familiar.

The real question in my mind is, why is this so newsworthy?  Trump is, to put it bluntly, a buffoon and a vulgarian.  His single appealing quality, to some, is that he is rich and arrogant.  There is no consistency in any of his political points of view.  He was for universal healthcare before he became against it.  He was for marriage equality before he flip-flopped  He called George W. Bush the “worst president in history” before he decided that President Obama deserved the title.  Hasn’t the man ever heard of videotape?  This is a man who attempts to appeal to social conservatives after a lifetime of philandering.  A person who, Carrie Prejean claimed, insisted that participants in the beauty pageants he was running parade before him so that he could separate those he found sexually appealing from those he didn’t. 

What does it say about American culture and American politics today that a person of this caliber is considered a serious candidate (by some) for the presidency of the United States?  What is the mindset that allows this to happen?

Back in 1999, I was hired by the Atlanta Braves to help them deal with the infamous John Rocker incident.  For those of you who don’t remember, Rocker was a Braves pitcher who, in an interview with Sports Illustrated reporter Jeff Pearlman, made insulting comments about a broad range of people, including people of color, immigrants, single mothers, and gays and lesbians.  After he came back from his suspension, he was met with a strange reaction.  Many people expressed their dissatisfaction with his comments by booing him. But a significant group of people in every ballpark turned him into a cause celebre.  He was greeted often with rousing cheers.

There is something in our cultural psyche that vicariously lives through people whose vulgarity allows our deepest, darkest thoughts to emerge.  And when those thoughts are about subjects that are politically incorrect to talk about out loud (sexist, racist, and homophobic thoughts), we seem even more interested in those very people.  After Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Arizona, people understandably called for an end to rifle targets on pictures of politicians.  Yet, why is the media feeding rather than ignoring the “rifle targets” in Trump’s charges?  I’m not suggesting censorship, I simply asking why a bloviating entertainer is given so much airtime?  Why is he being fawned over and desperately sought for interviews?  And what is the impact of this inordinate amount of attention on our national discourse?

I have little hope that NBC will make the same call that they did when Charlie Sheen became so offensive that they no longer wanted him representing them.  “The Apprentice” is too popular, I suppose, for standards of decency to derail it.

But it is time for people who stand for a more civil discourse in our society; who do not want to live in a society of coded racism and sexism, to let Trump and NBC know that, in no uncertain terms, we desire a higher level of discourse in our politics, and in our society.  It is a relatively simple act to begin.  Whenever you see him on TV, change the station.  When The Apprentice comes on, turn it off.  And let people know about it.  This is a man who feeds on attention.  Like a vampire, it is his lifeblood.  Starve him.

Just keep a simple thought in the mind.  Whenever he comes on your screen, change the channel and simple say, “You’re fired!”

The Revolution Within: What the Tea Party, Egypt, Wisconsin, Facebook & WikiLeaks Can Teach us About Communities of the Future

by Howard J. Ross, Founder & Chief Learning Officer

We are experiencing a fundamental revolution in how people see their world and how that impacts the nature of organizations, communities, government and leadership.  We are just beginning to see what that revolution may mean, and both the possibilities and the dangers it presents.

Tea Party Movement, rising in a flash to dramatically impact the mid-term elections and the way we are being governed. WikiLeaks splashing thousands of secret documents around the world. “Instant rebellions” springing up in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and throughout the Middle East. Facebook hitting its 500 millionth member (approximately 1/13th of the people on the planet are now members!). Tens of thousands of citizens mass in protest of budget cuts in Wisconsin.

Each of these is a distinct event. Yet, in many ways these events are not unlike other protests, uprisings, or even leaks of the past.  I am definitely not comparing the protests in Wisconsin to Libya or anything of the sort.  But I have long been a believer in systems thinking and I don’t believe much in coincidences. (Coincidences do happen. But far more often things are connected in ways that we don’t see).  So, if we look at all of this collectively, could it be telling us something about the world that we are living in? More significantly, can these events tell us about the world that we can anticipate?

There are a number of significant trends that are coalescing in the appearance of all of these activities:

•    Collective Stress – created by both the prolonged economic crisis and tension in the world about security. We are feeling this stress in a different way than we have experienced it before.  It seems like entire countries (including the U.S.) are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

•    Technology – now allows us to transmit information faster, broader, and deeper than ever before.  Across our current technology tens of millions of people can be mobilized within days, hours or even minutes.  I remember when we were organizing rallies when I was a young social justice activist back in the 60’s, staying up all night printing flyers on an old mimeograph machines and then scouring the community putting them under windshield wipers of cars, in mail boxes or stapled to telephone poles.  It took dozens of people hours or days to reach 20-25,000 people.  Now in one push of the button, a viral message can be transmitted to the world (“Rally at Tahrir Square at noon!!”) over the Internet, through Facebook, by Twitter or by whatever new communication technology will be invented and be in use by the time this blog is two days old!

•    Information – which supported by technology, is disseminated faster and broader, and deeper and, as in the case of WikiLeaks, respecting very few boundaries of privacy or secrecy.

•    Globalism – An increasingly greater sense of ourselves as interconnected world citizens, impacted by what’s going on in other places that used to feel much farther away.  The whole world is watching.  In some cases we welcome that connection, in some cases we try to resist it (as when we attempt to “wall off” our country to immigrants), but either way it looms large in our consciousness.

•    Media and Communication – which now constantly blares at us, and, even more significantly pre-sorts the news we see.  (Watch the same story covered on MSNBC and FOX and see if you can even recognize them).

•    Generational Shifts – that have produced younger people, who are inherently more diverse, more informed, more connected, more independent in their thinking, and more prone to think of themselves as global citizens.

At the nexus of all of these trends we find a world in which people are increasingly less likely to defer to the power of authority figures to tell them what to do. Today people are more likely to instantly react and respond, more likely to find like-minded souls to respond with, and less likely to be “patient” about waiting for change.

What does this say about the organizations and communities of the future?  I recently heard it said that things that are top-down driven are slow and dull. Things that are bottom-up driven are fast and exciting.  But, of course, exciting can have both a positive and negative side to it.  The same energy that can inspire us when it coalesces to create positive change can also create anarchy.  Imagine, if we were to shift –- as some have suggested and as is now technologically possible –- to a system in which citizens directly vote on legislation, rather than go through elected officials.  An exciting prospect if one believes in “government by the people.”  Yet, how informed might they be?  How susceptible to the kind of demagoguery we have consistently been seeing?  How likely for a majority to dominate a minority?

For those of us in leadership positions, it calls for a significant reinvention of how we go about leading.  It requires constantly giving up control and encouraging autonomy.  It requires recognizing that the people we are leading may know more, more often, about more things than we ever have experienced.  It means that the “command and control” structures of leadership we have been mostly raised to admire must be replaced with more inclusive forms of stewardship, in which the role of the leader is one of facilitation even more than directing.  After all, what happens when leaders shove their decisions down the throats of those who are being led?  Do we think in this day and age the dissension will just go away?  Or will the spark be fanned on a computer discussion group somewhere and pop up on another day, in another way?

We have an opportunity to learn to create a greater sense of Organizational Community within our businesses, schools, community structures, and governmental institutions.  A true appreciation of the interconnectedness of the various stakeholder groups that we interact with, and a greater sense of inclusiveness so that all people can contribute to the greater good.  More and more people, including some of the clients we’re working with, are proving that these kinds of organizations can thrive, even while others are struggling.

The world will not be “quieting down.”  In fact, it is likely to continue to become more chaotic.  Those of us who lead organizations and governments will have a hard time letting go of our habitual ways of leading and interacting.  Some of us may fall to the wayside.  Some of our organizations and governments may do the same.

But those who survive will have to decide how we manage that chaos.  Do we fight against it and create upheaval and more conflict, or do we take more of an Aikido approach, creating “chaordic” structures that provide just enough order around the chaos to keep us focused on the needs of the future.  How well will we be able to internalize the revolution that is happening outside of us?

It is not too grandiose to say that the fate of humanity may rest in the answer to that question.