Twenty-five years ago, on September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon while passengers and crew members fought back aboard United Airlines Flight 93 before it crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Nearly 3,000 people were killed. The date remains etched in our collective memory—and in our worst nightmares.
Whenever I revisit that morning, I return to the gift that keeps on giving, the genius of Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. His nationally circulated column, published on September 12, 2001, gave voice to a country struggling to comprehend what had happened. Five years later, he reflected on the ordinary day that came before the attack: “On September 10, 2001, we went to bed. We slept in innocence. And then the morning came.”
Babara Johns Note: Not long ago, this author co-sponsored a trip from central Virginia to Farmville, Virginia for a visit to the R. R. Moton Museum. Mounted prominently on the wall in the museum’s auditorium is a picture of 16-year-old Barbara Johns, who led a protest that changed trajectory of history. Here’s her story.
20 years ago, Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr. penned words that have held their meaning and significance to this day….“Few forces are more compelling than a soul grown exhausted enough for change.”
Something has been quietly changing in American classrooms, and it’s worth paying attention to. Over the past two to three years, schools have been rethinking almost everything. How they teach reading. What role does technology play? Who gets to enroll, and under what conditions? The debates happening in school board meetings and university hallways right now will shape what American education looks like for the next decade.
It’s hard for me to get my head around the fact that it’s been more than a quarter century since the year 2000 publication of my book, The Children Are Watching: How the Media Teach about Diversity.In that book I proposed a framework for looking at the mass media as a sprawling, multifaceted informal educational curriculum that competes with schools in the teaching process.Whether or not media makers think of themselves as teachers is irrelevant.Once they create media, their products become sources from which people learn.
In August, 2023, two of my friends — Sandra Fowler and Daniel Yalowitz — set out to make a difference.They envisioned a book on the field of interculturalism structured around individual professional autobiographies written by twelve people, mostly in their eighties, whom they deemed to be intercultural pioneers .I was one of the dozen selected, also the oldest at 91 when the book — Creating the Intercultural Field: Legacies from the Pioneers — was published in 2025.
Within diversityworld, the field of interculturalism is not all that prominent.It isn’t a widely-trumpeted diversity term like microaggressions or white fragility or critical race theory. It doesn’t make headlines like DEI.In fact, although its origins date back to the early twentieth century, interculturalism has operated effectively in the shadows without the widespread public recognition of hotter and more critically scrutinized fields like ethnic studies.
“Sorry, but I don’t remember seeing many white faces during civil rights protests and marches in the sixties.
So, I’ll take a pass.”
That was one of the “no thanks” responses I got from “Fernando,” one of several Black folks I invited to attend the recent No Kings Day protest with me. Hold that for now because I want to leave with a full-throated response to “Fernando” in closing.
Now in case you didn’t know, cared to know, or reside on another planet (and much to the chagrin of “someone” who is obsessed with crowd size), in the largest single day of protest in American history, over 8,000,000 people took part in some 3,300 “No Kings” rallies recently spanning every continent on Earth while millions more participated remotely by watching coverage on television or online.
Georgia protesters Virginia protester
So, despite temperatures in the mid-forties, I made the short drive to a local No Kings Day protest.It seemed that the only difference between that protest compared to the one I attended last year was a much bigger turnout, more young people in attendance and more creative posters, some with graphic images and language way too inappropriate to include in this narrative. Plus, given that this an election year a few politicians were there deftly working the crowd. And from what I could glean from some conversations, many protesters were there not necessarily to protest for themselves but for generations to come.
A courageous voice in a wilderness of quiet conflict avoidance is refreshing, Pope Leo XIV’s regular critical comments of Trump’s policies are honorable and most important, necessary in today’s theater of hate and division.Pope Leo XIV has been a “moral check” on our present administration, challenging them as not being even humanitarian.He speaksfor so many – representing Catholics from all over the world.
Most important to note is how Pope Leo XIV critizes policy, the administration’s actions and not Trump personally.Donald J. Trump spews hate and suspicion every day and is a serial liar and it is Pope Leo XIV who cannot look the other way and “calls out Trump” constantly, regularly.Pope Leo XIV has criticized Trump’s policies on immigrants (“inhuman”), Iran War (“atrocious”) and calls out Trump’s action as not Christian.It is the right approach – separate the person from their actions and focus on their actions and consequences of their actions.
Having worked in the field nearly 33 years now and as President, CEO, of DTG fornearly 30 years, I have confronted these myths over and over and I am constantlydebunking them. I often distribute this document prior to a diversity and inclusion-related conversation, forum or training to undo the bias about an upcoming workshop onbias (what I call bias squared).
Well, at least we as women have one of the longest commemorative months of the year. But equal pay and fair treatment would be preferable. That would be a measure of respect.
As of 2025, women earn less than men at all education levels, except that Asian women with a bachelor’s or advanced degree earn more than Black men with similar degrees. The gender pay gap is narrowest among individuals without a high school diploma. In essence, education only acts as an equalizer for those with the lowest level of schooling.
2025 Pay Inequality – See chart in headline
In 2003, serving on The Conference Board’s Tough Issues in Diversity panel, I showed that analyzing U.S. weekly median earnings requires considering gender, race or ethnicity, and education level. Over 20 years ago, gender had a greater effect on pay than race/ethnicity and that being a woman of color amplified the negative impact on pay. I found that higher education did not narrow the pay gap. Sadly, that remains true.
For woman of color the pay gap increases as they obtain higher levels of education. This remained true in 2014, when I analyzed the 2013 Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Harvard Business Review. Black women and Latinas vied for last place on the earning ladder for each level of education. By 2025, Black women were the biggest losers, earning less than any other group at each level of education, with the exception of Black women and Hispanic women/Latinas with bachelor’s degrees tying for last place in median weekly earnings.
Yes, equitable pay would demonstrate that women’s work is respected as much as men’s. However, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, even when women are performing the same jobs, women are paid less than men. For example, female computer programmers earn 34% less than their male counterparts, while female marketing managers make 23% less than male marketing managers.
Addressing respect for women should be a no brainer, since women are approximately 50% of the global population. However, mainstream media allow talk show hosts, guests, and scriptwriters to use the B-word for women. If the importance of censorship is recognized to censor the N-word for people of African ancestry and censors the F-word for gay men, why are women’s psychological safety and psyche disregarded?
Why do mainstream media, cable, or streaming/podcasts, tend to refer to women by their first name? Men are routinely referenced by their surname. Why are women’s titles rarely mentioned? While serving as Secretary of State, Kissinger was often called Dr. Kissinger in news coverage, especially when his official title was not mentioned. Secretary of State Rice was often referenced as Condoleezza rather than Dr. Rice in similar circumstances.
Even when women ran for president of the United States, there was a distinction between how men were referenced than women. This may have been partially due to political strategists or political consultants, who tend to be men, wanting the women candidates to be perhaps more relatable and approachable. But think about it. When former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Vice President Kamala Harris were running for president both in the primary and the general election, their campaign kept canvassing them as Hillary and Kamala. Former President Obama campaign did not promote him as Barack. Nor did President Trump campaign promote him as Donald.
While some may say that Hillary Clinton’s campaign focused on her first name because there had been a President Bill Clinton, George W. Bush campaigned as Bush even though President George H. W. Bush had been in office less than ten years, previously. He did not run as ‘George W’. Research has shown this name bias undermines creditability and authority. Surnames are indicative of a position of power and respect, first names are not, unless the first name is preceded by a royal title, à la, Queen Elizabeth!
Women’s History Month is a wonderful recognition of women’s achievement throughout history. Besides recognizing women for their contribution to society and culture, provide them respect and equitable pay. They earned it!
In 1816, 19-year-old Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin captivated her close friends with a story about a monster.Two years later, now married andknown as Mary Shelley, she stunned the reading world with her novel, Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus (1818).
Frankenstein’s monster was a man.It remained so in most film renditions.Notable exceptions were the 1935 “The Bride of Frankenstein,” who was actually created by Dr. Victor Frankenstein as a partner for his original male version, and the 2026 “The Bride”.
Frankenstein’s monster was not totally evil.He was big, strong, and often unaware of his ability to create havoc because of his size and strength.In some versions, such as Guillermo del Toro’s 2025 film, the monster’s human sensitivities figure prominently.
Today we are dealing with a monstrous new creation, artificial intelligence (AI).To the best of our knowledge, AI doesn’t have feelings.However, we know something else.AI is male tilted, and some of our fellow human beings are responsible.
Babara Johns
