
If you’ve been following this series, you’ll recall that in Part One we highlighted the incredible career of Dr. Carlos Cortés. In Part Two, we shared several questions with his answers as a follow up. We now conclude the series with his answers to a few more questions we posed to Carlos.
Long history short, Carlos is currently the Edward A. Dickson Emeritus Professor of History and co-director of the Health Equity, Social Justice, and Anti-Racism curriculum of the School of Medicine at the University of California, Riverside. As admitted to earlier, this is just a miniscule snapshot of his extensive curriculum vitae, let alone the books he’s authored and awards he’s earned over the decades.
I’ll further admit that once I researched his vast career and accomplishments, my initial thoughts were that I’d bit off more than I could chew, that any attempt to compress his background to a series of articles would be a disservice to him and the reader. However, like “toothpaste out of the tube,” once it’s out it’s out and there was no way that I could push it back in. So, here we are.
Now here’s the conclusion of the interview:
Terry: From your experience, what tends to help people be open to the realities and experiences of others to develop and strengthen relationships?
Carlos: That’s a tough one, Terry. I try to stay more open by continuously reflecting on two sentences. First is the wonderful opening line from L. P. Hartley’s novel, “The Go-Between” – “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.” The second is from Jean Renoir’s film classic, “The Rules of the Game – In this world there is one thing which is terrible, and that is that everyone has his own good reasons.” So I start by recognizing that everyone’s past is a unique foreign country where others did things differently than in my past. This means that everyone has their own good reasons based on their personal journeys. Not that I accept everyone’s perspectives as equally worthy or everyone’s actions as acceptable.
Terry: Recently you corrected me when I referred to your “Diversity and Speech” series as “Diversity and Free Speech.” Tell us why you feel that the word “free” does not fit. Was there a moment in time or critical incident that got you to reach that conclusion?
Carlos: Another good question. In short, here’s what happened. About five years ago, when I applied to become an inaugural fellow of the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement, my basic research question was this: why have so many diversity advocates become opponents of the hallowed American concept of freedom of speech? However, as I began to plow my way through dozens of tomes on free speech, I came to a contrarian conclusion based on the evidence. The conclusion was this. In contrast to the basic free speech paradigm that has dominated the U.S. historical narrative, I concluded that we have always lived in a nation of extensive speech restrictions, both governmental and non-governmental.
Terry: Interesting. Tell me more.
Carlos: Sure. Largely because of the First Amendment, there are limitations on governmental interference with speech. This has allowed the nation to create an environment for “robust” speech (but not totally free). Yet governments continue to limit speech (consider legislation and school board decisions barring teaching about critical race theory), while non-governmental entities can squash speech (people get fired or cancelled every day for things they say).
Terry: Speaking for robust speech, can you share an instance where you had to say something difficult to someone, perhaps something they didn’t want to hear and the effect on the relationship?
Carlos: I can’t recall saying anything in my personal life that destroyed a relationship. However, this sometimes happened in my professional life. During my university career, I served as chair of two departments for a total of eleven years. In that role, I was often the bearer of bad news, such as the fact that a professor had been turned down for promotion. Receivers of bad news didn’t react with happiness. Neither did I when it happened to me. Occasionally the fact that I delivered the bad news left a permanent scar on a relationship.
When I took early retirement from the university in 1994 and became a full-time consultant/lecturer, I drew on that experience and concluded that I didn’t want to supervise any more employees. My motto for consulting nirvana became “No bosses, no employees.” As an independent consultant I have never hired an employee, and I have turned down all offers to form or join an organization where I had to supervise. I may have lost opportunities to increase my earnings. Whatever. I often serve as a trouble-shooting diversity consultant for organizations, but never where I supervise employees where I’d have to officially bring bad news.
Terry: If you were tasked to write a letter of hope and advice to a grandchild, what would you write in the outset?
Carlos: I have six grandkids and one great-granddaughter. I think I would start by telling them how much I love them, how proud I am of the way they are developing, and how they should view life as an exciting journey. Inevitably there will be setbacks but keep on keeping on.
Terry: Thanks Carlos. As much as I’d like to promise it, this may not be the last time you hear from me. You are indeed the gift that keeps on giving!
Carlos: No problem, Terry, no problem.
CLICK for Part One
CLICK for Part Two
- Erasing the Tuskegee Airmen from History? – by Terry Howard - January 28, 2025
- Well, did I answer your question “Deb?” – by Terry Howard - January 2, 2025
- Are we better than this? Well, obviously not – by Terry Howard - November 10, 2024
Fabulous series. Thanks for conducting these interviews and sharing.