Related Posts
How does pwc’s wealth builder plan work ?
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
How does pwc’s wealth builder plan work ?
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Download the Fishbowl app to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Copy and paste embed code on your site
Send download link to your phone
OR
Scan your QR code to download
Fishbowl app on your mobile
Rising Star
Three thoughts from me --
1) I thought the 1st through 3rd degree framework was a far more digestible / communicatable framework for accountability than the usual internalized-interpersonal-institutional-structural framework. It's oversimplified, but a good fit for a world where shortform communication dominates.
I would agree third degree racism is without question the most impactful, but often gets swept under the rug in favor of arguments about first degree racism. Without elevating the narrative on third degree racism, arguments like “there isn’t a pipeline” or “the culture Black people choose is why Black people don’t succeed” become far more widely held/excused than they would be otherwise. These arguments fall flat when you look at the long list of third degree policies, systems, and social forces that hold black people back — but generally first degree racism is at the forefront of discussions and is the only type non-black America learns about in school and popular media.
2) The overall idea of "increase the cost of racism" is spot on. If you study the amazing advances that were made in the LGBTQ movement in the 2000s, you'll find that leaders did (and continue to do) a spectacular job of two things consistently and relentlessly -- (1) storytelling to build empathy and allies and (2) creating and enforcing costs of homophobia. There are some different dynamics at play in the conversation around dismantling racism (particularly how deep-seated anti-blackness is in America), but I think what we've seen over the past few months is that this strategy does work.
3) Without question, most companies are lazy about diversity & inclusion strategy. It is often a check the box initiative and for some companies the only clear outcome is hiring a black/brown leader into an executive D&I role but giving them minimal resources/investment. If companies took an analytical, strategy-oriented, technology-enabled approach to diversity, they would be making much faster gains.
Chief
I was here until we started compartmentalizing racism. The temptation here is to make it seem as if there are more acceptable (read here as “less egregious”) forms of racism in comparison to others and that in itself is a slippery slope.
We shouldn’t have to do that to get people to digest that their actions are demonstrative of an overall lack of empathy and a degree of selfishness that is harmful to others in the short and long term.
Rising Star
I see what you’re saying based on the way it was written, but I don’t think the true intent was to separate out levels of racism as much it was to separate out an individual or organizations accountability for racism. This is a framework for enforcing accountability.
When an organization says “this is a pipeline problem,” they’re implying that there is indeed a problem, but because that problem is upstream, they’ve done all they can — in other words, the organization thinks they are not accountable for the negative racial outcome. John Rice is arguing that even if the pipeline problem is real, the organization is still accountable — in the third degree.