Deborah: I’m getting multiple emails and phone calls disturbed and distressed about today’s divisive world. Colleagues ask about what can and should be done to counter the current trends. One of the emails that stands out is from Terry Howard, one of our American Diversity Report Advisors.
Terry: “Hey Deborah, considering the on-going Israel-Hamas conflict and its seismic increases in acts of antisemitic and Islamophobia in the United States, what are your thoughts about developing something highlighting divisive/hurtful words and language that divides? For example, I’m not sure that many people are familiar with the history behind the expression, “From river to sea,” and language used to disparage Palestinians.”
Deborah: Talk about controversy! For the Jewish people, the phrase “From river to sea” means the elimination of Israel and replacement by a Palestinian nation. For Palestinians, I believe it means freedom from occupation. What prompted your interest in this difficult subject?
Terry: Where do I start? Documented incidents of antisemitism, and islamophobia to a lesser extent, have dominated the news, even more since the October 7 attack on Israel. But most acts of hate go unreported, so we have to keep reported incidents in perspective. So, in answer to your question, I’ve always been interested in the experiences of others.
Deborah: This is a complex and risky topic. I suggest that you contact one of the best experts in the arena of diverse speech, Carlos Cortes, and get his opinion. He’s another longtime ADR Advisor, and I’d like to hear what he has to say, too.
Carlos: The Israel-Hamas conflict goes well beyond the issue of divisiveness or language that some might consider hurtful. It goes to the heart of differing group historical journeys, competing territorial claims, traumatic intergenerational memories, and differing senses of peoplehood. Whether you’re talking about Palestinians or Jewish Israelis, you’re talking about actual human beings with hopes, pain, and historically-grounded, very legitimate fears of group elimination. That’s why the dehumanizing language often used in the current situation sends a chill up my spine.
Deborah: Let’s talk more about the divisive language. How do we communicate with people given the fear of group elimination?
Carlos: It starts with recognizing basic humanity. If you use language implying that some people are less human than others, you’re contributing to those group fears. Once you’ve done that, your further explanations of “what I really meant” reek with insincerity. I’d like to hear your angles on this.
Terry: Carlos is spot-on. I might add that given the uniqueness of this fear, the typical “my thoughts and prayers” via a text message, or even a phone call, badly misses the moment. Even worse, although understandable, total silence speaks volumes. To me the better approach is just to be there with the person and listen without interruption. When it comes to this delicate situation it’s important to be patient, steady, incremental, keep yourself vulnerable and, above all and to Carlos’ point, lead with respect and humility.
Deborah: I agree that listening skills are imperative. Without those skills, no meaningful conversation will emerge. But even if there is expertise in listening, there are many ways in which the language used in responding can be divisive that mistakes, particularly unintentional mistakes, are almost inevitable. How can we manage our conversations when this happens?
Terry: Again, to me it goes to the heart of making oneself vulnerable beforehand. I’ve found that a leading statement like, “I’m trying to educate myself and know that occasionally I unintentionally may step into unfamiliar terrain based on limitations of my knowledge, what to say and not to say.Therefore I’d really like for you to give me feedback if I utter something inappropriate in a manner that you’re comfortable with. Okay?”
Carlos: We need to show self-restraint when it comes to trying to “manage” conversations. I’ve observed many diversity trainers whose efforts at conversation “management” turned into “manipulation.”
Deborah: The “management” vs. “manipulation” issue has intensified recently and diversity professionals, even those who do practice self-restraint, have been targeted and often removed. I think that Terry’s next question is a vital one for moving forward.
Terry: How does our language about thorny issues – race, religion, book banning, abortion, Donald Trump, Israel-Hamas war, etc – we’re faced with today, set up either/or propositions?
Carlos: As I re-read this thread, I’m struck by the fact that we’ve touched on a wide variety of topics related to our main concern – constructive and less-than-constructive conversations about divisive issues. I’d like to hear what other ADR readers and columnists have to say about this. Maybe we could set aside a section in future reports so that others can weigh in as we continue this conversation.
Terry: Nice idea Carlos (glad I thought about it, LOL).Having other columnists weigh in would give readers a reservoir from which to pick from to develop their customized frameworks and strategies for constructive conversations. Perhaps we could say that as a kickoff in the new section.
Deborah: Given that Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) has become one of today’s divisive topics, It seems fitting that the American Diversity Report would invite articles on our divisive world, including DEI, but also on the challenges locally and globally that we face. Our goal is to demonstrate how to instruct and inspire, and manage without being manipulative. As 2024 unfolds, let’s share our expertise and give our readers the tools to move forward successfully.
CLICK for the ADR articles:
TRENDS 2024: Our Divisive World
HOWARD is an ADR Advisor, award-winning writer, storyteller, contributing writer with the Chattanooga News Chronicle, The Douglas County Sentinel, and Blackmarket.com. He is co-founder of “26 Tiny Paint Brushes” writers guild, recipient of 2019 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Leadership Award, 3rd place winner of 2022 Georgia Press Award.
CORTÉS is a retired history professor and diversity speaker, educator, trainer, and consultant for 45 years. His books include: The Children Are Watching: How the Media Teach about Diversity; his memoir, Rose Hill: An Intermarriage before Its Time; and Fourth Quarter: Reflections of a Cranky Old Man which received honorable mention for the best book of poetry in 2017 International Latino Book Awards. He also edited the 4-volume Multicultural America: A Multimedia Encyclopedia.
At birth, other than the instinctive relationship with our Mothers, how we act with or towards others does not come with the “initial packaging”.
However, it does not take long before the world around us starts to influence us, first by the actions of our parents and other family members, and then by those we are introduced to us at daycare and elementary school, both teachers and peers.
As parents we are all familiar with “the terrible twos” as a child acts out starting to exert a level of independence. How we, as parents, respond even to those early actions, then in the years from three to five, and how we act to each other in their presence, how we act towards or speak about others outside of our family units also in their presence, has a huge influence on them.
Recently, through every type of media, we have seen pre-teen children stomping on or involved in the burning of the flags of other countries, and chanting words of hatred towards others based on race, religion, gender identification, sexual orientation, and political beliefs and affiliations.
From our early years as children, our biases, prejudices and views of others become engrained in who we are, and many/most of us do not suffer from diagnosed mental health issues which could be blamed for our words or actions.
Prior to social media, many with strong beliefs and opinions only had a relatively small circle of people with whom they shared such views, unless they had the wherewithal to enter politics or held some societal position such as to expand their reach.
With the advent of social media, and with freedom of speech as their shield, the voices of the opinionated and often angry “Joe Public” became shared globally, often echoed and encouraged by similarly angry listeners.
As a result antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism, misogyny, homophobia, anti-government, anti-establishment, and every type discrimination seems to be considered “fair game” by some people and they believe should be allowed without consequences.
What can and should be done to counter the current trends is a very valid and concerning question when some of the world’s most influential figures are engaged in this publicly?
As Carlos Cortes indicated, the current Israel-Hamas conflict goes well beyond mere words or rhetoric, going back historically, and neither antisemitism or Islamophobia are not limited to those who follow the Jewish or Muslim faiths.
Any hope to curb these trends of hurtful language goes well beyond improving our listening skills. Listening and understanding is very important but, without respect and recognizing basic humanity with some level of empathy, on their own listening and understanding will not counter current trends.
In my view, the topic of diversity, equity and inclusion is separate and distinct from divisive and hurtful language.
Having a diverse group, of any kind, benefits such groups as diversity allows for different perspectives, views and opinions simply because of the diversity of life experiences, cultures and beliefs. No question, this is good.
However the question arises whether DEI outweighs having a group made up of the best qualified for whatever role is being chosen for.
The problem with determining who is “best qualified” is the influence of biases and prejudices in the determination. Even removing the human factor and, say, having technology or AI make the choice is that such technology or AI may have been programmed or created with biases.
Conferences, discussion groups, and seminars may be held by well-respected experts in these topics areas, but how do we get any conclusions they may arrive at, out to the rest of the world?
Indeed, what can and should be done to counter current disturbing trends?
Thank you for sharing your perspective. You might want to expand on this in a separate article. I will send you the guidelines.
There are many factors to be considered in addressing the complexities associated with divisive, hurtful language, hate speech, and dehumanizing rhetoric. To navigate these thorny issues, compassion and understanding becomes a balancing act among the more sane and civil lot.
At times there is an inability to tolerate incapacities of character, personality, mental and/or emotional stability. Due to my professional background working in the disability field, there is an added feature to account for within this complex array of touchy topics, that is of a reality that the human populace at large has varying emotional skills whereas some are psychotic or mentally dysfunctional by chemical imbalances and by injury too.
The judicial system in the U.S. often gives a pass for insanity. The other factors are – Severe cognitive impairment: This could include conditions like dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, or intellectual disabilities that significantly impair. Unfitness due to mental illness, severe mental illness like schizophrenia, major depression, or bipolar disorder. Severe head injuries or other medical conditions that affect cognitive function. Developmental disabilities: Autism spectrum disorder. Psychological trauma: Post-traumatic stress disorder or other trauma-related conditions can impair. Although unfortunate, these can have a person speak hurtful language (and have hurtful behaviors) that can trigger larger mass reactions.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. You might want to expand on this in a separate article.