The Marine Corps’ purpose as stated on its webpage is to, “Defend the people of the United States at home and abroad. To do that, we make Marines who win our Nation’s battles and return as quality citizens.”To the casual reader, the first half of the purpose, which is to defend the United States, is stated in simple terms and easily understood.However, it is the latter half of the purpose that bears some investigating and begs the question, “What does make a better citizen mean?”To answer this question, I want to take you on a journey through the process of becoming a Marine, the transformation that occurs and the life-changing impact of being immersed into a sea of diversity creates.
Citizens from every walk of life you can imagine arrive by bus to one of three locations.Young men and women who have signed an enlistment contract arrive at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina or Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego.Officer candidates receive their initial training at the Officer Candidate School located in Quantico, Virginia.For the purposes of this journey, we will focus on the experience of the recruits who matriculate through one of the training Depots.
Bullying can be based on various things. A person, most likely, a school student, might find themselves bullied by others because of their race, gender, sexuality, appearance, academic or athletic performance, personality, and other aspects of their identity.
A solution to the problem as complex as this one must be equally comprehensive. Today, however, I would like to tackle but one element of this problem: religion-based bullying.
Roots of faith-based bullying
Religion-based bullying is a horrible trend that is still going strong in our schools. It happens both in the physical world and online and shows no signs of stopping. It would be preposterous for us to blame it exclusively on children, equally as preposterous as to turn a blind eye to it.
The diversity movement has raised myriad issues regarding language and the exercise of speech.Indeed, some critics of diversity efforts have accused its advocates of undermining the U.S. tradition of free speech.Yet that argument is ill-founded, for two reasons.First, because totally “free” speech does not exist in the United States.Second, because establishing selective legal limits on speech is as historically American as apple pie.
This is the fifth in a series of columns based on my research as a past fellow of the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement. In earlier columns I argued that diversity advocates should not be drawn into the position of opposing free speech, because it does not really exist.Rather they should clarify and reframe the issue.
This fundamental concept is one of the core principles of my work and integral to DTG’s approach to dealing with diversity issues in the workplace and marketplace.Diversity issues or employee relation issues (among people who are different) typically involve two people.The perpetrator or the initiator of the behavior is one party and the target or the receiver of the behavior is the second party.
The diversity issue or incident (sometimes it is one “moment of truth”) is defined as a behavior, an action, or a series of behaviors (a pathology or trend) that one party (the target) feels or concludes based on the behavior(s) was wrong, inappropriate, disrespectful, discriminatory or illegal.
First – We Don’t Know the Intentions of Others
We all mean well.I never question the intent of any person’s actions.We actually don’t know the intentions of the other person but we assume their intentions based on the behavior we see, how we react (our feelings) or the kind of relationship we have with the perpetrator.This is the first mistake. We should look at the behavior(s) in question and only the behavior(s).Looking just at the face value of the behavior is a good start.
I tend to focus on the actual behavior and how that behavior might affect or influence other people.In other words, I focus on the impact said behavior(s) has on other people.The consequences of any action, how the behavior might be received or perceived or experienced is what I tend to scrutinize.
Second – “I didn’t Mean It”
I find too many people will get defensive when the target confronts the perpetrator about the behavior(s).The perpetrator typically responds with, “I didn’t mean it the way you took it.”Often, in my travels, people don’t want to be held accountable for their actions.Unfortunately, this does not take the “sting” out of the behavior(s).What matters is what you said, not what you meant.
What Is Appropriate
Don’t take it personally – apologize for your comment.Don’t try to avoid your responsibility – step up to the plate.Don’t focus on your intentions – no one knows your intentions.Try to put yourself in the target’s shoes and understand their feelings.Put your feelings aside.This is not about you – the perpetrator – this is about the target.Try to empathize with the target.Apologize and ask the target to always come and share with this person their feelings whenever they feel wronged.You want to be perceived as humble, approachable and “bigger” than any one incident.What you don’t want to do is seem defensive, stubborn, or stubborn.Reach out!This is a wake up call that you need to improve this relationship.Misunderstandings are more likely to arise among strangers or people who have strained or weak relationships.
Most Common Mistakes
“You people!What do your people think?You are so articulate for a (blank); I don’t see you as a (blank).Men/women, you can’t….” These are some of the most common mistakes people make. Stay away from these behaviors.Never see people as members of a group but rather focus on the person, the individual.If you do go here, apologize immediately and reach out and ask for help and coaching from the other person.
Unconscious bias training is an admirable project but may often be ineffective. The fuzzy, vague term of unconscious bias is often applied indiscriminately, but unconscious bias isn’t a one-size-fits-all term amenable to a one afternoon of training. Yes, it can refer to the incident where the police were called to arrest two African-Americans waiting for a meeting at Starbucks. But it can also mean only smiling at customers that look like you, rejecting resumes from diverse applicants, and promoting the employees who resemble the current leadership team. If we want to address unconscious bias effectively, we need to first be aware of how the senses, emotions, and brain interact to create unconscious bias. Second, we must go beyond awareness of our biases to sensitivity to their impact. Lastly, we need to develop a system that internalizes wise decision making with ongoing reinforcement of that competence.
Dr. Nwoye is an educator and inclusion specialist. As the president of Diversity Frontier, he focuses on unconscious bias and diversity policies & practices that work. Dr. Nwoye has contributed more than 50 articles with focus on tackling social issues such as achievement gaps, race, and gender among others. He served as the Director of Multicultural Education at Illinois State University and as chief investigator on discriminatory issues. Dr. Nwoye is the author of three books. His most recent one which is the focus of this podcast. (Click for Amazon)Cultivating a Belief System for Peace, Equity and Social Justice For All.
That whole morning and night before were one long prayer for assistance. I woke at four, and sat in the living room of my friends’ river-side house, speaking aloud to the darkness, undamming the river, flooding inside.
Then I got ready, and drove to Red Clay State Park.
For years, my feet have taken me to Red Clay State Park, near Cleveland, Tennessee. This land was once the last seat of Cherokee government, and also the place where, in 1838, the Cherokee people learned that the Treaty had again been broken, their remaining land would be taken, and they would be forcibly “removed” to Oklahoma and parts unknown. Thousands and thousands of people died.
Five decades ago, the only consumer that brands cared about was the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs). The reason being that they represented the majority of the consumer market. Some years down the line, a few companies/brands realized that directing marketing material towards the African-American ethnic population has the potential to boom up their business. So, they devised multicultural marketing strategies.
But today, a few more years down the line, shows a different consumer picture. Now, the population of America has become progressively diverse. The mixed-race population and Asian people are the two fastest growing groups in the US. On the other hand, there is a lag of growth in the Non-Hispanic white segment of the US population. From July 2015 to July 2016, Asian and mixed-race population grew by 3% while Non-Hispanic whites grew by just 5,000. Research suggests that by 2040, the minority groups today would combine to attain a majority in the US population. So, the marketing strategies that used to work a few decades back would no longer work in the future. This has led to professionals diversifying their marketing procedures.
Leelee Jackson and Geoffrey Stone are hardly household names in diversity circles. But in 2019, my interactions with Jackson, a talented young playwright, and Stone, a passionate defender of free speech, helped illuminate the challenging complexities of diversity and expression.
As a fellow of the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement, I have been examining the myriad tensions created when two laudable principles collide: the defense of robust speech and the effort to create greater inclusivity. This intersection has generated considerable controversy, including among diversity advocates.
Diversity advocates cannot avoid dealing with the intersection of inclusive diversity and robust speech. Tensions between those two imperatives are inevitable. These tensions complicate our efforts to address such speech-related issues as privilege, power, marginalization, hostile work environments, and the expression of intergroup hate.
This is the third in a series of columns based on my research as a current fellow of the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement. In the first two columns I argued that diversity advocates should not be drawn into the position of opposing free speech. We don’t need to, because totally “free” speech does not exist in the United States.
