In 1999, Malcolm Gladwell weighed in with his praised and criticized bestseller, The Tipping Point, a provocative exploration of the process of social change. A quarter century later, in 2024, Gladwell revisited the topic via Revenge of the Tipping Point, a meditation on where he had been right and where he had gone wrong with his broad thesis. Musing about his personal journey, Gladwell observed: “Maybe it would be a good idea for anyone who writes a book that tries to make sense of the world to be forced every 25 years to go back and revisit the original thesis.”
Gladwell was lucky. When The Tipping Point was published, he was 36, so he was only 61 when the quarter century bell tolled. I, however, turned 90 on April 6, 2024. So I’d better get on the stick when it comes to looking back.
In 2002 I engaged in such a revisiting with my book, The Making – and Remaking – of a Multiculturalist, a compendium of some of my previous writings about diversity paired with my reflections on those pieces. But in this column I want to revisit something more recent, the American Diversity Report column that I wrote in the immediate aftermath of the May 25, 2020, Minneapolis police killing of African-American George Floyd. In that column I proposed how diversity specialists should respond to Floyd’s death.
“Diversity advocates will need to develop more incisive language for illuminating racial inequities, better ways of exposing and explaining structural insights, and more effective means for unmasking the cultural practices that support oppressive, racist systems. In our workshops and consulting we’re going to have to ask tougher, riskier questions and keep probing when are met with evasive clichés and platitudes. “
Further on I wrote: “We don’t need more rituals of white shaming or proclamations of white repentance. We don’t need to wallow in cultural studies jargon. . . . . George Floyd did not suffer a microaggression. He did not die because of implicit bias. His lifeless body is not an example of intercultural insensitivity. Celebrating diversity or sharing ethnic food or holding privilege walks are not going to bring him back to life. . . . In addressing systemic racism we cannot rely on diversity buzz words, slide by with recycled ideas, or depend upon workshop gimmickry. We can’t because George Floyd will be present, eyeing us, in every diversity workshop for the near and maybe the distant future.”
Well, I was wrong. Instead of rising to the George Floyd challenge, many diversity trainers have doubled down on tired ideas. Instead of addressing oppressive practices and marginalizing structures, they have invited participants to wallow in their own feelings, explore their angsts, and sanitize their language.
My ah-hah moment came at a meeting a few months after Floyd’s death. As we gathered, I perchance asked someone where she was from, precipitating a getting-to-know-you interchange about places where each of us had lived. A minute or so later I felt a tug on my sleeve from a friend of mine. “Carlos, we’re not supposed to ask that question anymore.” “Why not?” I responded. My friend then launched into a solemn dissertation about having recently attended a post-George Floyd microaggressions workshop where the presenter had projected Derald Wing Sue’s well-known microaggressions list on the screen, led by “Where are you from?” “We’re supposed to avoid saying those things,” said my earnest friend.
Let me be clear. I like the concept of microaggressions and explore it some of my workshops. Explore it, but not bow down to it. Sue’s list is a fine entry point for exploratory discussions about interpersonal relations. However, it should not be used as a definitive list of do’s and don’ts.
It is absurd and counter-productive to teach that you should automatically react to “Where are you from?” as if it were a form of othering. Instead of building interpersonal bridges, such a training approach breeds suspicion by encouraging people to come up with the worst possible interpretation of another person’s statement. (Note: if somebody follows up “Where are you from?” with “Where are you really from?”, then we’ve moved into real othering territory )
That ah-hah moment raised my suspicions. Unfortunately, my observations of diversity training since that time have confirmed those suspicions. Many diversity trainers have let George Floyd down. Instead of helping people analyze structures and practices while developing constructive strategies that can further substantive equity, inclusivity, and social justice, many continue to encourage people to mope about themselves (“do the work,” whatever that cliché means).
I recognize that some of my readers might write me off as a cranky old timer, which I admit to. So be it. I make no apologies when I say that I far prefer the action-oriented “We shall overcome” of the 1960’s to the self-absorbed “I’m offended” or “I don’t feel safe” of the 2020’s.
Since the death of George Floyd we have witnessed the rise of powerful, relentless, and well-financed attacks on all diversity training. Likewise against diversity-related K-12 and higher education. As a result I often find myself in public forums debating against those dedicated to eliminating equity and inclusion efforts. Yet while I champion the idea and principles of DEI, I don’t defend the self-indulgent practices that have unfortunately infected diversity training, thereby tarnishing the entire enterprise..
Diversity efforts are long overdue for renewal. To confront anti-diversity forces, we need a thorough rethinking of purpose and reshaping of practice. The continued reliance on mushy ideas, lazy clichés, and gimmicky strategies offers no match against the dedicated enemies of diversity.
Photo by Clay Banks on Unsplash
He also edited the four-volume Multicultural America: A Multimedia Encyclopedia (2013).
- Renewing Diversity No. 4: A Sliver of Bone – by Carlos Cortés - December 1, 2024
- Renewing Diversity #3: We Failed George Floyd – by Carlos Cortés - November 4, 2024
- Renewing Diversity # 1: High School Ethnic Studies – by Carlos Cortés - September 4, 2024