#anti-racism in the workplace train the trainer

[tasia-reader]

(link to doc)

                                                10 Calls to Action

1. CBC/Radio-Canada must institute a zero-tolerance policy on racism and/or anti-Black racism in the Code of Conduct.

2. Each of CBC/Radio-Canada’s foundational policies must be reviewed through the lens of diversity, inclusion, anti-Black racism and anti-oppression. This includes, but is not limited to, CBC’s Code of Conduct, Journalistic Standards and Practices, Language and Style Guide and Programming Policies, among others.

3. Each of CBC/Radio-Canada’s training courses must be reviewed through the lens of diversity, inclusion, anti-Black racism and anti-oppression. This includes, but is not limited to, all Train the Trainer, Professional Skills and Leadership courses.

4. CBC/Radio-Canada must appoint a person of colour to the next available position on the Senior Executive Team.

5. CBC Radio-Canada must explore accelerating the appointment of currently qualified Black employees into leadership positions by January 2021.

6. CBC/Radio-Canada must create a Black content unit, similar to CBC Indigenous. This new unit will be connected at the outset with all content creation units within the corporation (E.g. News, Current Affairs, Music, Sports, Kids, etc.). This unit must be led by and comprised solely of Black employees.

7. CBC/Radio-Canada must commission an independent audit of all employees’ salaries across the country, by position and race to identify any discrepancies in the initial salaries between Black and non-Black new hires.

8. CBC/Radio-Canada must commission an independent audit/investigation into systemic racism within the corporation with a focus on two main categories:

a) Looking into HR practices and the systemic barriers in hiring, promotion, retention.

b) Looking into the mechanisms for reporting racism and the barriers to BIPOC employees who experience racism in the workplace.

9. CBC/Radio-Canada must establish an independent office to track and thoroughly investigate complaints of racist incidents/language usage in the workplace. 

10. CBC/Radio-Canada must publicly release all race-based data/reports currently available and those to come in the future, including, but not limited to, the current retention and promotion rates of non-white employees.

All of the actions above must be in consultation with Black people throughout the entire process.

[matildainmotion]

Making Waves by Sophie Lovett

Mothers Who Make’s is hosting a series of guest bloggers, to celebrate and give space for the diverse views and voices within our movement. I am delighted to introduce our first of these: please read on for the Question of the Month, as posed by home-educating mother of two, writer and activist, and MWM Hub co-ordinator for Exeter, Sophie Lovett.

Before you read this post I feel that I should apologise: in case you disagree with me, in case what I’ve written is too much, in case it offends you. But this is Mothers Who Make, and we don’t apologise here for showing up as our whole selves, so instead I will take a deep breath and begin.

This has been a tough year. A tough year after a tough decade. One which, on a personal level, has been filled with many moments of joy – but where the weight of the world has pressed ever harder on my shoulders.

We’ve never lived through a pandemic before.

It’s brought out the best in us, and the worst. It’s brought us closer together, and deepened the divisions in values and circumstance that are tearing our society apart. And it has made the priorities of our government - to put profits above people – very, very clear.

This neoliberal agenda has its roots way back in the 20th century, and over the years we have pretty much come to take it for granted. Notions of unrestrained economic growth, wealth which is available to everyone if they just work hard enough, and the promise of freedom which is earnt by playing by the rules of society - alongside a reality of gaping gaps between rich and poor both on a domestic and international level. In many ways the Coronavirus pandemic has provided precisely the kind of crisis that the neoliberal elite love: an overwhelming distraction that they can use to impose more unpopular policies, accusing people of being unpatriotic or even undemocratic if they oppose them.

Yet it has also sowed the seeds of something new. Off the back of years of campaigning from environmental and social justice organisations, many more people are beginning to realise that the future could perhaps look very different. That the planet cannot handle this unfettered capitalism for much longer – and neither, given the explosion in mental health issues even before the challenges inflicted by 2020, can we. That there might be different ways of living that could be more fulfilling for us and our children, whilst at the same time starting to reverse the destruction we have wreaked on the global ecosystem.

And this – this imagining of a different world – is making some people very uncomfortable.

In England, the government released guidance last week which told teachers not to use resources from any organisation which has advocated abolishing capitalism – even if the materials themselves did not express such a view – as it would imply support for an “extreme political stance” on a par with racism and opposition to freedom of speech. Aside from the obvious hypocrisy of a statement which alienates many anti-racism campaigners and seeks to silence the voices of those who might want to legitimately challenge the status quo, this is a sign to me that they know their power is waning. The neoliberal story is coming apart at the seams, and a new narrative is taking shape which could take things in a very different direction.

As actors in that narrative we have a choice to make about the future that we want to see. And as mothers – and especially as mother makers – we hold in our hands a huge amount of power to shape the world our children will grow up into.

It might not always feel that way.

One of the most effective strategies of neoliberal capitalism is to convince us that we are not enough. That we are deficient in a myriad of different ways, and powerless to take control. It makes us the perfect consumers – hungry for the things we can buy to improve ourselves and make life better for us and our families. And if we can’t buy them – if we are part of the huge swathe of the population struggling to even afford the basics we need to live – we are taught that it is our fault, that we’re just not trying hard enough.

In motherhood especially this can lead to a real sense of disempowerment – a lack of trust in ourselves and our ability to provide for our children. There is so much that is marketed to that desire to give our children the very best start in life: elaborate toys, sleep training programmes, gorgeous clothes, endless baby classes. It plays into the competitiveness which fuels the capitalist fire, the fear of being left behind. It sells us baby walkers (and mini trainers) to get those little people up on their feet as soon as we can, electronic learning games for toddlers in the hope that they’ll know their ABCs before they start preschool, tutors to help seven year olds pass their SATs with flying colours. It rushes us back into the workplace before we’re really ready, no matter that our salary barely pays the childcare fees. It tells us that teachers know our children better than we do, that school is the only place they can get an education, and that compliance with authority is the most important lesson they can learn.

None of this is bad in and of itself – if it works for you then that’s awesome. But if it doesn’t, if the treadmill is making you tired and you’re fed up of searching for the next best thing then stop. Breathe. And work out what it is you truly need.

Our role as mothers may be woefully undervalued by the capitalist system, but we do have the power to choose where we focus our energies, to withdraw our consent from expectations that we disagree with, to challenge the assumptions around the status of mothers (and children) in wider society.

We can choose to raise our children with principles we believe in, to communicate messages to them that deviate from those which dominate the mainstream, to be their allies and their advocates instead of colluding in their oppression.  

And, little by little, we can build a kinder, more inclusive world – one where everyone has value.

If as mothers we hold the future of the planet in each act of care we carry out for our children, as mother makers we are doubly powerful in our ability to reach beyond our inner circle and inspire through the particular capacity of art of all kinds to reshape the narrative and reimagine what is possible.

Creatives are uniquely placed to lead the revolution – and this is I believe a significant reason why the UK government shows such disdain and disregard for the arts and creative industries.  

Just as Media Studies is decried as a ‘mickey mouse’ subject because it directly exposes the techniques the government and their allies use to manipulate the opinions of the population, the Arts in schools are sidelined because they nurture exactly the kind of creativity and independent thought that can be used to challenge the status quo.

It starts in the Early Years, when days that should be dedicated to open ended play are instead filled up with increasingly formal literacy and numeracy, and can be seen right through the education system: ten year olds spending whole terms doing nothing but exam preparation, teenagers being told they can’t study the creative subjects they’d prefer because they don’t fill the right assessment bucket. And it continues in the world outside, as the government response to the impact of Covid has shown so starkly.

Our art is important. Our making is important. It holds a mirror up to the present and shows how life could be, it inspires, it sustains – and it can be an escape route from the treadmill our leaders would rather keep us tethered to.

From the stories we tell to the songs we sing to the materials we choose to the business models we adopt to share our work: we are creating the fabric of the future.

And so this month, wherever you are in your mothering and your making, I would invite you to consider these questions: What are the changes you would like to see in the world? How are you making waves in your mothering? And in your making? What changes (small or large) could you make in either to help create the future you dream of for yourself and for your children?

To read more from Sophie go to: www.raisingrevolutionaries.co.uk and https://www.instagram.com/raising_revolutionaries/

[techcrunchappcom]

New Post has been published on https://techcrunchapp.com/trumps-diversity-training-order-faces-lawsuit-boston-news-weather-sports/

Trump’s diversity training order faces lawsuit – Boston News, Weather, Sports

New York (AP) — Three civil rights groups filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order that prohibits federal agencies, contractors and grant recipients from offering certain diversity training that the president deems “anti-American.”

The NAACP Legal Defense Fund filed the complaint in federal court in Washington, D.C., along with the National Urban League and the National Fair Housing Alliance. The lawsuit argued that Trump’s order violates free speech rights and strangles workplace attempts to address systemic race and sex discrimination.

The National Urban League and the National Fair Housing Alliance both have federal contracts and plan to apply for future ones.

The executive order “unconstitutionally forces Plaintiffs to choose between censoring speech on these important issues or forfeiting any opportunity to enter into a federal contract,” the groups argued in the complaint.

Trump’s executive order, signed last month, called out workplace trainings that explore deep-seated racism and privilege that the administration says could make white workers feel “discomfort” or guilt. The president ordered the Labor Department to set up a hotline to investigate complaints about training sessions that Trump has called “anti-American” and “blame-focused.”

Trump has said he is targeting training based on “critical race theory,” the idea that racism has permeated American history and institutions. At the first presidential debate, Trump said such training is “teaching people to hate our country.”

The directive uses a 55-year-old presidential order spurred by the Civil Rights Movement that sought to ban discriminatory practices at companies that contract with the federal government. Critics say Trump’s order twists President Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1965 initiative into vehicle for white grievances.

“The executive order smacks of a totalitarian endorsement of white supremacy,” Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League said at a virtual press conference.

Morial called the order a “direct attack on our mission.” According to the lawsuit, the National Urban League has a federal contract that includes developing diversity and inclusion training programs for the Department of Labor’s apprenticeship programs.

The Department of Labor says the order does not ban “unconscious bias” training that discusses “pre-conceptions, opinions, or stereotypes” that people might have about others. But it prohibits training that that implies anyone is racist or sexist “by virtue of his or her race, sex, and/or national origin.”

The lawsuit, however, said the wording of the order is overly broad and is already having a chilling effect on diversity training. Some organizations have asked that words including “systemic racism” and “white privilege” be banned from training, the complaint said. It also cited the University of Iowa’s decision to suspend its diversity efforts for fear of losing government funding.

Michelle Lee, co-founder and CEO of Awaken, which provides diversity and inclusion workshops, said one of her clients — a private company with a government contract — reached out shortly after the order was issued to ask if she could omit “white privilege” from a speech she planned to give to its employees. Lee said she pushed back, saying she did not believe that language would violate the order, and the company relented.

“I did give the speech and I was extra spicy. Not only did talk about white privilege but I extended that further to talk about white supremacy culture,” Lee said.

She said another client, a non-profit that relies on government grants, has asked if Awaken planned to reformulate its training. But Lee said no professional diversity trainer would imply that any group has unconscious bias without proper context.

“Of course we are not going to stand up and say, ‘you people are inherently racist,’” Lee said.

Within the government, the Justice Department has suspended all diversity and inclusion training. The government has also canceled training programs at the State Department, Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Veteran Affairs.

The National Fair Housing Association, which currently has a contract with Department of Housing and Urban Development, said in the lawsuit that it routinely conducts internal training and discussions to address “systemic racism, unconscious bias, and racial inequities.” Those include recent “informal conversation” with employees concerning “perceptions of white people and other demographic groups in connection with the killing of George Floyd.”

The Labor Department is also using the 1965 presidential order to target companies, including Microsoft and Wells Fargo, over public commitments to expand or bolster Black and Hispanic representation in leadership roles. The government opened inquiries into both companies, warning them against using “discriminatory practices” to meet their goals.

(Copyright (c) 2020 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

[sjwsutekh-blog]

A cogent example of White Fragility occurred recently during a workplace anti-racism training I co-facilitated with an inter-racial team. One of the white participants left the session and went back to her desk, upset at receiving (what appeared to the training team as) sensitive and diplomatic feedback on how some of her statements had impacted several people of color in the room. At break, several other white participants approached us (the trainers) and reported that they had talked to the woman at her desk, and she was very upset that her statements had been challenged. They wanted to alert us to the fact that she literally “might be having a heart-attack.” Upon questioning from us, they clarified that they meant this literally. These co-workers were sincere in their fear that the young woman might actually physically die as a result of the feedback. Of course, when news of the woman’s potentially fatal condition reached the rest of the participant group, all attention was immediately focused back onto her and away from the impact she had had on the people of color. As Vodde (2001) states, “If privilege is defined as a legitimization of one’s entitlement to resources, it can also be defined as permission to escape or avoid any challenges to this entitlement” (p. 3).

Robin DiAngelo, “White Fragility”