Jessica Mulroney was in the news yesterday as her actions demonstrated textbook White privilege in action. Influencer Sasha Exeter, who is Black called her out for her threats. Jessica got offended at a generic call to action regarding the Black Lives Matter movement that Sasha posted and spoke with people who Sasha had brand partnerships with to retaliate against her for the "way you have treated me unfairly". Not one to back down, Sasha posted their conversation on social media and while Jessica issued a public apology to create an appearance of being self-aware, her insincerity was revealed when she soon after sent Sasha a private DM insinuating that she would take legal action against her for libel. Sasha posted the DM showing the threat of libel and as a result Bell Media pulled Jessica's show "I Do, Redo" off the network and organizations such as Cityline and Hudson's Bay cancelled their partnerships with her.
"Bell Media and CTV encourages our entire team including our on-air talent to practice respect, inclusivity, and allyship as we pledge to work better and more openly to listen to and amplify Black voices, and not to minimize them. Because recent conduct by one of our shows hosts, Jessica Mulroney, conflicts with our commitment to diversity and equality, CTV has removed I Do, Redo from all Bell Media channels and platforms effective immediately."
It is encouraging to see that abuse of privilege finally results in tangible consequences for the perpetrator, despite her immense wealth and powerful social network. I am grateful to Sasha for her courage to take a stand despite the potential setbacks she may face down the road. I am also hopeful that this is the first of many occurrences to send a message to everyone who abuses their privilege that their time is up. Likewise, everyone who experiences discrimination and oppression should be encouraged that their voices can cause change, however small or big that may be. We don't all have the same size of platforms to call attention to injustice but it is important to be a catalyst for change in whatever circumstances you are in.
Sasha stated: "Listen, I am by no means calling Jess a racist but what I will say is this, she is very well aware of her wealth, her perceived power and privilege because of the color of her skin. And that, my friends, gave her the momentary confidence to come for my livelihood in writing". Sasha terms this White privilege and I agree this is what it truly is.
White privilege does not just manifest in openly racist comments and behaviour. It is the belief, whether conscious or unconscious, that one can easily get away with unfair behaviour, or otherwise that the consequences they face would be minimal enough not to affect them in any significant way. This belief has been reinforced by events and power structures in society for a very long time. To quote Vinay Menon from the Toronto Star,
"Jessica Mulroney made Sasha Exeter feel endangered because she felt safe doing so. In fact, she felt so safe, it’s possible she didn’t feel anything at all."
Recently, I was banned from seeing my 86 year-old dying uncle, who was like a second father to me, at a hospital in Ontario. The hospital had banned me because my Uncle's sons did not want my family to see him (even though they knew about our extremely close relationship). The hospital staff enforced the ban, having security kick us out each time we visited, despite hearing in person and via recording that my uncle wanted to see my family. They enforced the ban even though they did not have the legal right to do so solely under the family's wishes. They did not issue my family any written communication regarding the ban for nearly a month after they implemented it.
When the Patient Ombudsman intervened on my behalf, and inquired with the hospital, they said the ban was due to the family's wishes. When I filed an official complaint with the Patient Ombudsman, they informed the hospital that they could not ban my family based on the wishes of the sons and told them they needed to explain their reasons for the ban to my family. At that point the hospital started claiming that I was violating their respectful workplaces policy and my "aggressive behaviour" was the reason for the ban. For example, one of the reasons given to me via an official letter was that I "threatened" to file a court case because my uncle (who has a severe hearing disability) did not have his hearing aid in his ear on multiple occasions. One nurse told me it was making noises that could be heard in the hallway. I had calmly told the nurse to put it back in, and that it was a human rights violation that was upsetting the patient and that this could be taken to court. This was not a threat, it was a promise that I am working on fulfilling now. I had also informed patient relations of his disability and the lack of accommodation via email a few days later. They didn't seem to care stating that his son was power of attorney (he actually was not) and they would only discuss it with him. They did this even though they should have known it was causing my uncle severe emotional distress not being able to hear. Their duty was to the patient, not to the sons. It was easy for them to ignore his wishes, he was disadvantaged in many ways: he was old, disabled, a visible minority and powerless in his rapidly deteriorating condition to do anything. The portrayal of me as aggressive is racial discrimination as minorities are often portrayed as aggressive when they are asserting their rights.
The hospital's allegations tried to portray me as "aggressive" and "agitating" when I was speaking up for my rights and the rights of my uncle. They did not have allegations against my dad, mom and brother and still enforced the ban anyway. When the hospital found out I had recordings to expose their behaviour, they threatened me to delete them or they would take me to court and I may have to pay $100 000 as a fine and their legal fees. I did not delete the recordings because they were my lifeline against defamation and I knew I had the right to keep them. I never heard any follow-up about deleting the recordings because they probably realized they couldn't force me to do it. Why would I further disadvantage myself in what was already a David and Goliath scenario? The hospital knowingly inflicted trauma upon my uncle and my family at not allowing us to say our final goodbyes. I believe they did this because of White privilege. They believed they could make it a he said- she said scenario where they would have the upper hand and I wouldn't be believed even if I took it to court. They relied on their staff saying things about me, so they probably thought they had more credibility than me. When they realized I had the recordings to back up my narrative, they started threatening me. At the very end, they offered a supervised, time limited visit with patient relations present but this was set for the same evening on which they demanded I delete the recordings. I interpreted this as delete the recordings or you will not see him at all.
Their actions felt very emotionally abusive at a time when my family was already under great emotional turmoil thinking about the death of our loved one. He died one day before my family was set to see him under these humiliating conditions. We were held back like animals. All the decision makers at the hospital were White.
They should have known better and done better. And when they realized they made a mistake in erroneously enforcing the ban according to the sons wishes, should have had the integrity to apologize and rectify the situation as soon as possible. Instead, when they found out they lacked grounds to enforce the ban based on family wishes, they started concocting inconsistent, weak and baseless accusations to uphold the ban, thereby inflicting unspeakable grief onto their patient and my family.
Even after he died, I was issued a letter from the hospital "apologizing" for not communicating the reasons for the ban sooner. They did not address the fact that they had no real evidence to justify the ban. It was sickening to see this letter from a psychiatrist who was a senior hospital official. She should have known about the impact an event like this could have on a family. Because of white privilege and the deep pockets of the hospital, they thought they would get away with it. Unfortunately for them, I have every intention of holding them accountable through the proper legal avenues.
While people are more likely to acknowledge White privilege, to make themselves look more self-aware and broad-minded, there are few concrete systems in place to reduce the effects of it. The process has been extremely slow because the people in charge have no lived experience of the damage that is being done. The lack of urgency is due to the fact that it doesn't affect their lives in a direct way.
Most people don't think they are abusing their privilege as it doesn't fit in with their self-concept as being a nice or socially progressive person. Despite what she says, it is unlikely Jessica feels remorse for what she did, her only regret was that her lucrative partnerships were cancelled. I bet that she (like most people in high status positions) is thinking she has always gotten away with it before and this time would be no different. Well, it is different because one day you will run into a confident person who isn't afraid to expose the harsh treatment you inflicted upon them. It's no accident that Jessica's intention was to inflict pain on Sasha by influencing her brand partnerships and instead she lost her brand partnerships instead under very humiliating circumstances. Karma comes around faster than one thinks.
It's interesting that Jessica used her friendship with Meghan Markle to try to give credibility to her being aware of White privilege and racial issues. She writes, "As I told you privately, I have lived a very public and personal experience with my closest friend where race was front and centre. It was deeply educational. I learned a lot from that." This perfectly illustrates the point that just because you have close relationships with racialized people, or people from other oppressed groups, it does not mean you can not discriminate on an unconscious level towards those groups. This is not a valid argument to be making to avoid having to do active work to change your unconscious biases.
What does White privilege look and feel like to you if you are a racialized person? If you are White, what are some of the concrete things you have done in order to equalize the power imbalances stemming from your privilege? What are some of the ways in which you acknowledge you have abused your power in the past?
Update: June 17th 2021
I was asked to link the following site to help support black owned businesses. Hope you have a chance to browse some of the great offerings there.
I think that when you work with people from disadvantaged groups and offer them a reduced rate (or are aware they were offered a reduced rate through your organization), you do have a moral obligation to honestly examine whether you are interacting with them in the same way you would if they were able to pay the full rate. This does not just apply to those with White privilege, it is true even when you are a member of a disadvantaged group. Don't assume that because you have the same group membership that you automatically understand what someone went through or is experiencing now. Don't undervalue their experience because you haven't had the experience. Be mindful of the words you are using and how they may shape other people's opinions, especially if you are publishing your opinions publicly. For instance, I've heard multiple racialized people say that racism doesn't exist and proceed to blame and shame the victim.
Lately, Black conservative U. S. political activist, Candace Owens, has come under fire for being critical of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement. I am sure she honestly believes what she is saying is true (and she does have the right to her personal opinions) but she doesn't understand that voicing her opinions on a platform as large as she has access to, causes great disturbances and feelings of betrayal from not just the majority of Black people but all people who support Black Lives Matter. She lacks self-awareness of her impact on others and is not interested in learning more about her unconscious biases. Candace raises money for a conservative business who has openly made disrespectful comments about George Floyd and then chooses to view the behaviour of GoFundMe as discriminatory rather than trying to learn about the larger social reasons as to why they may have suspended her account. In my view, she fails to realize the crucial point: George Floyd may not have been a hero or a martyr and yes he had a criminal history but he did not deserve to die the way he did. His past does not make him less human or have less of a right to life. That is why he is a symbol for BLM and worthy of all the anti-racism protests that have been happening in his name. This is just like blaming a woman who had too much to drink for her rape; her choice to drink does not give a man the right to touch her body without her permission. I am not sure why this is still used as a defense because if she was drunk, then she could not have given consent.
Keep in mind the role of intersectionality and how that ensures that no two people from the same group have the same experiences. Your clients are already vulnerable due to factors beyond their control. They are dealing with systemic forms of discrimination in society. You do not want to inflict more harm. Solicit feedback and create a safe space for people to respond honestly to you.
Ask yourself the following:
Do you have sympathy or empathy for this client? If it is sympathy, what can you do to become more empathetic? Sympathy usually results in a patronizing attitude while empathy creates trust and a feeling of being heard.
"Empathy fuels connection. Sympathy drives disconnection"
– Dr. Brené Brown
Are you putting the same level of time and effort in?
Do you try to evade their phone calls, emails or reduce the number of times meeting with them?
Do you answer their lengthy queries with brief or vague responses? Short responses give an impression of not wanting to spend the time to look into any given point, question or concern. They convey that you are not worthy of my time.
Do you respond to all of their concerns or ignore some of them?
How do you feel when interacting with them? How may it come across in your tone and nonverbal body language? While people can not read your thoughts, your thoughts and feelings do influence your energy (which can be felt by others).
Is boosting your professional reputation a bigger motivation for offering the reduced rate than helping people? If you are a vocal advocate for the rights of a disadvantaged group, this can make you more of a target for criticism as people can feel when actions are taken due to self-serving motives.
Are you as considerate of their feelings and speak to them with the same level of respect as you do others? This is a tougher one to look at because most people will act in a way that they believe is respectful. However, to the other person it does not come across that way.
Are you trying to find other ways to get more money from them because you feel the rate you originally offered was not reflective of the work you put in or will have to put in the future? This is especially true if you are in a high-paying profession and don't need the money as much as the client, if not having it would result in you not having a luxury in comparison to them not being able to afford a necessity. It is also most ethical to stand by the original agreement even if you miscalculated the time involved (which would have been your fault and not the fault of the client).
If they don't agree to pay you more, are you still as motivated to do the work or do you try to finish as quickly as possible and/or end the client relationship as soon as you can? Don't penalize the client for your miscalculation. If you are truly interested in social justice, try to obtain the best results for them instead of encouraging them to settle for less than you know they can get.
Do you follow through on promises you made even if the client can not hold you accountable if you don't? Or do you follow through with what you said you would do even if they have already made the last payment? It is better to not promise anything rather than state you can help with something that you don't really intend to help with later. This puts the client in a position of waiting for you to help them rather than looking into other avenues to help with the issue. And then feeling hurt when you don't help them in the way you said you would.
Have you done the IAT (implicit association test) to assess the extent of your unconscious biases?
Have you done inner work to reduce your own unconscious biases about oppressed groups? I have detailed some ways we can do this in my last blog post about implicit bias.
Having a desire to help disadvantaged groups isn't enough. If you aren't able to offer a reduced rate without being able to treat these clients the same way as others who can pay your regular rate, you should not offer the reduced rate at all because it harms more than it helps. People know when they are not being treated equally and it is very hurtful and negatively impacts self-esteem.
From my experiences both personally and professionally, I know that people can remember these experiences for a very long time. As a service provider, people rely on you to help them and it is a serious responsibility. Your words and actions can be just as damaging as the incident they hired you to help with in the first place. Be mindful and do the inner work necessary to help rather than harm.
Racial injustice has been a personal hot button issue for me for a very long time. My parents were born and raised in India, immigrating to the GTA in the early 80s and I was born in Canada. I've experienced racial discrimination many times before, even though I have several "protective factors" such as being educated, articulate and upper-middle class. Protective factors are in quotes because as a visible minority, nothing can protect you from racial discrimination. At the same time, intersectionality does play a role in increasing or decreasing the level and frequency of discrimination one faces.
Meghan Markle and her family were forced to leave the royal family because despite being beautiful, successful, independently wealthy, eloquent and charitable, the U. K. was not ready to accept a biracial or Black person into such a powerful position. She did not fit the image they had in their minds of who would be a suitable match for Prince Harry. She would never be good enough. The royal family refused to defend her from the constant abuse, although they defend Kate Middleton even when the level of abuse she receives is of much less frequency and intensity. Meghan was seen as 'the other' from the beginning and treated in ways that dehumanized her. She wasn't seen as worthy of protection. People refused to consider that race may be even one factor in the discrimination she was facing. The lack of empathy and compassion was probably also because she was now in one of the richest and most powerful families in the world, being partially funded by the tax payer. The expectation was that the abuse and increased scrutiny was the price she was expected to pay. All sorts of things were said to portray her as a villain in the media, when her only crime was being half Black. The U. K. as a whole will probably take a long time to admit that as they continue to vilify her for stealing Prince Harry (when it was really him who decided to move out of the U. K.). However, what happened to her did cause important conversations to come to the forefront all over the world. I hope that her lawsuit against the British media, regardless of whether it is successful in court, will be a force for change.
When I first saw the video circulating of the police officer kneeling on George Floyd's neck on facebook, my first thought was how is this still able to occur in 2020? After so many incidents like it in the past on recording, you would think that systems would have changed so that this could not happen again. Nevertheless, it happened with 3 other officers present in broad daylight on a busy street in front of numerous witnesses in a first world country. Why? People generally don't do things like this so brazenly unless they think the consequences they will face will be insignificant, or perhaps they think they will get away with it entirely. We have seen this happen before, particularly with White officers and Black civilians. The police have power because of their position in society. Power with an absence of proper checks and accountability lead to the abuse of that power. Targets are typically oppressed groups, particularly minorities, and especially Black people.
With the rise of cell phones, these incidents are being recorded and the truth being exposed so that perpetrators can be held accountable. Convenient excuses used in the past of officers taking innocent people's lives on the premise of defending themselves against aggressive Black men resisting arrest will no longer hold as the public outcry becomes louder, as society demands change. Change will not happen overnight but little victories add up and change on a micro level leads to change on a macro level. Every generation becomes better than the one that came before it.
Overtly racist comments are rarely made in public discussion but the belief that minorities are more aggressive, particularly when standing up for their rights or bringing up systemic discrimination persist. Mistakes are blown out of proportion. Punishments are harsher. Expectations for achievement are lower. The benefit of the doubt is not given as much and there are fewer second chances. There is not as much room for error because judgements of behaviour are immediate and attributed to inherent flaws rather than external changeable factors. Assumptions are made about profession, class and/or social status.
It is frustrating to observe that most people in upper management within organizations or in significant political or judicial decision making roles are White, men, middle or upper middle class, straight, and with no disability. In my view, attempts to increase diversity have been for appearances only. They are tokens to convince people that change is being made by listening to different voices. In contrast, there have been no real changes in who holds the power to make decisions that affect us at the top of organizations, public and private institutions, or at the provincial and federal level. When representatives from stigmatized groups speak up for the interests of that group, they often face consequences internally, their reputations suffer and/or they may lose their positions.
Sadly, people with White privilege often make decisions about people whose lived reality they know (or care to know) very little about, though they may pay lip service to it. Or they may say they "don't see colour", or one is "playing the race card". Race is not a card to be played, it's a non-changeable factor that causes real disadvantages in many areas of life, as evidenced by research in many social contexts. For example, the fact that there is a significant wage gap between Canadian born and educated minorities, and Canadian born and educated Caucasians despite the children of visible minority immigrant parents going to university at much higher rates than the rest of the population. Refusing to acknowledge race is a way for those with white privilege to ignore systemic inequalities, maintain their power and diffuse their responsibility in considering what factors contribute to discrimination and exclusion from the highest decision making positions. By pretending the issue does not exist, it is easier to maintain the status quo that is already in their favour and avoid any change that could upset the power balance. It is easier to silence dissenting voices by inflicting punishment, to teach others vicariously not to speak up.
This lack of empathy for 'the other' dehumanizes the victim, inhibits one's ability to feel their pain, and as a result causes injustices to be swept under the rug or minimized to as great extent as possible. It greatly angers me that when someone complains about racial discrimination, that the judge or person in charge of hearing the complaint is often a White, upper middle class man or woman. Although I have seen a few notable exceptions, people from this privileged group usually lack the awareness and humility to truly understand (or to take the time to learn) the subtle nuances of racism and all the ways in which it has historically (through intergenerational trauma) affected and continues to affect racialized people. These people don't take the time to learn because there are no consequences for them for their ignorance. If you make an appeal, the higher and higher you go up the chain of command, almost all the decision makers are people with white privilege. They have the power and they abuse it because whether consciously or unconsciously, they believe they will get away with it.
As one of my favourite authors Najwa Zebian notes, they often would like to believe something is wrong with you then something wrong happened to you. You are written off as an aggressive or threatening troublemaker when you have the courage to advocate for your rights. This placing of people with White privilege in positions where they have to decide on whether racial discrimination happened, for example in regulatory bodies, organizations, courts and tribunals, shows zero sensitivity towards the complainant and most of the time risks re-traumatizing them in the process. There is usually no way for the complainant to bring up white privilege as a bias or demand that another person of colour investigate the case because it's up to the judge to decide whether they exhibit a bias and take themselves off the case. Bringing up potential bias could risk angering the judge before you start the case and puts you at a further disadvantage. Very few people will recuse themselves if asked on this ground, and there are no consequences if they don't adequately consider the evidence as to why they should.
As a racialized person, I believe the only way to fight back against this is to keep speaking up, keep recording through audios and in journals the microaggressions and keep having the courage to bring up these issues publicly despite attempts that those with power and privilege will make to ruin your reputation. Know in your heart that you are not the labels they place on you. The more people who complain about this treatment, the harder it is for the same person or organization to keep treating people badly. At some point the karma will come back to them. Success is not to be judged just through the outcome, because these justice processes are flawed and the complainant usually has less resources than the defendant. On the other hand, success comes from knowing you used your voice to fight the good fight and you can be proud of yourself for raising awareness and making it easier for the next person who finds themself in the same situation that you did. Behind the scenes the perpetrators do face consequences. This is true even if you are not aware of what the consequences are. Remember that it costs the organization in time and money to respond to the complaint, even if they ultimately settle or win the case. There are tribunals and courts in Ontario that cost very little or nothing to file a complaint, and where the defendant can't get back their legal costs even if you don't win. Organizations do not want more complaints and cases and they do talk to the perpetrators about the impact it has had (or could have in the future) on their reputation. When you put yourself out there, you take a stand for social change.
"We don't change the world when we whisper, we change it when we roar"
- Cleo Wade
In my experience, systemic racism in Canada operates at a much more subtle level, with microaggressions being the norm. As Shakil Choudhury notes in Deep Diversity, minorities do generally have implicit racial bias towards other minorities. Racism is not just from white people towards minorities. There is an automatic preference for white people from most other people regardless of race because there are more automatic positive associations for white people.
For instance, studies show that with identical resumes, those with ethnic names receive far less calls for interviews than names that sound white. This is true even if the person hiring is a minority. The result is that some minorities feel compelled to engage in a process known as whitening the resume, which could include changing one's name, leaving out job experience or achievements which relate to ethnic organizations, and adding in interests that reflect those of western culture. I realize that with a name like Samantha Samuels, I probably got a lot more interviews for desirable roles than with a name that sounds more Indian, like Shivani Kaur. As well, I do not have an accent, so my ethnicity is not revealed over the phone. However, in quite a few instances, once I got to the interview, the change in tone and attitude from phone/email was palpable from the first hello. Sometimes the interviewer would ask general questions and wouldn't write anything down, or they would spend most of the time talking about their organization instead of asking me questions, or they would end the interview in 20 minutes or less. There was an obvious lack of interest in getting to know me and assess my suitability for that specific role. Sometimes they would focus on a factor such as the city that I live in to assume the commute would be too long, or imply that I didn't have enough experience for the role (the city I live in and my experience would have been evident from my resume, so why did you call me for an interview?)
I recall one incident where I emailed a resume to which the clinic director responded that we would meet at a mindfulness conference we both were attending in the next month. He was a White male psychologist who was probably at least 70 years old. As soon as he saw me, I had the intuitive feeling he would not hire me because he was not expecting to see a brown face. Regardless, I wasn't expecting him to evade interviewing me at all. It was the start of the lunch break, I smiled and introduced myself at the time and place we agreed to meet. Without smiling, he said hello and then said "we should find a place to sit down". There were several empty rooms that he made a show of peering into but for some unknown reason claimed those wouldn't work. We could have gotten a coffee at a nearby starbucks but he never suggested that and I knew there was no point in me suggesting it. Instead he said we would meet tomorrow and he would let me know the time later. The next morning, he sent me a text message saying that he couldn't meet and he would phone me during the week. There was no apology for the late notice or reason given for not being able to meet. He never phoned but sent a brief email mid-week stating that since we first had contact that he has had several applicants for the job with more experience than me. It was clear from my resume how much experience I had, and from his website I observed that he did have people working at that clinic with approximately the same level of experience I had. The reason he didn't want to hire me was due to systemic racism, though that probably never crossed his mind consciously. He did after all have a token few minorities on his staff which was otherwise largely composed of white women. There was nothing else to judge me on because we never spoke. After decades of practicing mindfulness, his attitude did not reflect any kindness or humility. I share this story to convey that when microaggressions like this happen, the best way to deal with them is to understand the problem is not within you or with something you said or did, it's with close-minded people like this psychologist, who don't care to do the work in reducing their unconscious bias and the larger systems that enable them to do things like this with no consequences. He knew that there was no one for me to complain about his behaviour to.
This was not the first time I had experiences like this with highly educated people with white privilege and it won't be the last. I've tried to educate people on how their unconscious racial bias has reduced opportunity for visible minorities, and have had them vindictively try to ruin my professional reputation, using their status as leverage. Level of education does not reduce bias, though it often results in people displaying it in a more subtle way. When you persistently follow your goals, the right opportunity will present itself, with people who see your value and treat you accordingly.
There is also an anti-Black bias, which worsens the level of discrimination faced by Black people on top of the level of discrimination that other minorities face. In Canada, Indigenous people probably face the same level of discrimination as Black people. If interested, you may assess your level of implicit bias towards stigmatized groups at Project Implicit.
It's inaccurate to assume you don't have unconscious bias towards stigmatized groups because you have friends from those groups, are married or in a relationship with a person from those groups, that you have been nice to them or that you haven't done anything wrong towards them. The fact is that good people often hold unconscious racial and other types of bias. Holding these biases does not make you a bad person, you just need to recognize that you need to learn more about the nature of these biases and how to reduce them in order to grow as a socially responsible citizen.
One way to do this could be at work. My suggestions are based on what I wish my supervisors and professors (most of whom had White privilege) would have done instead of what they did. To start, if you supervise a visible minority, ask yourself if you are giving appropriate feedback relative to that person's education and experience. The supervisee often can't give you completely honest feedback on your supervisory style because of the imbalance of power. However, if they do, listen with an open heart instead of immediately defending yourself. For example, if you give them a performance review and some of your scores indicate that they were below the expected level of performance in certain areas, be prepared to explain why and give concrete examples to explain your rationale. This is important because there is an unconscious expectation for people to have lower expectations of minorities and be harsher when assessing their performance. If you can't come up with concrete examples, change the score because your assessment is not correct. Check yourself before you suggest that someone should get tested for a learning disability based on their performance on a test or two, or make comments to imply that the program or job they are in may be too complex for them. If they are in that job or degree program, it is because they earned their way in. Ask yourself if your beliefs about someone may be related to a stereotype of their race. For example, I had one professor (with white privilege) suggest to me the first time that I saw her individually that graduate school may not be for me because I couldn't memorize my way through it! She continued that graduate studies require critical thinking and analysis and some people were not capable of this. Although I was angry that she had the audacity to say this to me, as calmly as I could, I asked her what evidence did she have that I memorized my way through my undergraduate studies, where I maintained an A average? She did not even know me. She responded that degrees in psychology just require memorization. She had a doctorate in another subject and I don't think she was ignorant enough to genuinely believe people can do well in any undergraduate degree through memorization. What is more likely was that her belief was actually shaped by the stereotype that Indian students tend to rely on rote memorization instead of critical thinking.
Don't use your years of experience as a sole justification for your scoring. Consider the following questions: What specific actions could the supervisee have done to be better in that area? Were these expectations clearly communicated to them in the beginning? How would you have resolved the problem if you were in their position? If they ask you to explain your scoring in further depth or voice that they feel it is unfair and they explain why they feel that way, don't immediately interpret it as a challenge to your authority. Be willing to hear perspectives of people who are different from you and understand that their experiences are just as valid as yours. Convey that you are hearing them and then work together to find mutually satisfying resolutions. This is where real change happens.
Growth comes from learning about different perspectives and experiences; for example watching films, reading stories or listening to audios/ videos from: women, minorities, immigrants, poor and working class, persons with disabilities, LGTBQ, or people with different religious and cultural backgrounds than your own. These stories are being told and it is up to you to seek them out and listen with an open heart and mind. This process of reducing unconscious bias takes time, effort and a sincere willingness to change.
After realizing to what extent the dominant narrative about these groups is shaped by people who are not a member of those groups, you will start to change your beliefs because your assumptions will be challenged.
I watched the entire series of Little Fires Everywhere in just 3 days and highly recommend it for a thought-provoking look into race and class in America and how it shapes the choices available to us. Elena, an upper-middle class White woman, (who was born into wealth and is married to a lawyer, who is also White) tells Mia, a working-class, lesbian, Black woman who is a single mother, estranged from her parents and was recently homeless, "A good mother makes good choices" to which Mia responds, "You didn't make good choices, you had good choices".
While people can be quick to judge the choices of others, very seldom do they adequately consider what factors led to them having to make that choice, or question if it was actually a choice at all? It is easy to blame others and assume you would do better if you were in their situation but since you lack that lived experience, there is no way to know for sure what you would have done. It does cause discomfort to realize that you may have done the exact same thing if you were them and had the same "choices" to make as they did.
When you have a history of micro-aggressions directed towards you from a variety of places, would you still have the same level of trust in authority figures? For instance, I believe that without recordings, most minorities know that they would not be believed over people with White privilege, particularly those in positions of authority, in court proceedings. That is a prime example of systemic discrimination and is partly due to the decision makers being White almost all of the time. Are White people disadvantaged by not having recordings when they are stopped by police officers? The answer is probably to some degree yes, but they are typically not given as harsh punishments and when in court are often given the benefit of the doubt, even without evidence. However, for minorities, and particularly Black men, recordings are for survival because the understanding is that one is not given second chances without the evidence to back you up.
The power starts to re-balance when we have a collective shift in attitudes and expectations about different groups in society. Choosing to say something is better than saying nothing at all when it comes to speaking about injustice. We need people with privilege to advocate on the behalf of those who don't have it.
When you change your beliefs towards and expectations of people, the way you unconsciously act towards them will change because you will develop more empathy and be less likely to view them as 'the other'. This is making the unconscious conscious so that longstanding behavioural patterns change and we as a society progress in the right direction. I think that's something you can find peace in.
I hope the family of George Floyd finds peace in the fact that his death has sparked a movement worldwide, unlike anything we have seen in the past. He will be used as a catalyst for change. RIP.
Black Mental Health Resources
1. The Most Nurtured https://www.themostnurtured.com/
2. Women’s Health in Women’s Hands http://www.whiwh.com/
3. Black Health Alliance http://blackhealthalliance.ca/
4. Black Youth Helpline https://blackyouth.ca/
Organizations to support Anti-Racism, Equity, and Legal Action
1. Black Lives Matter https://blacklivesmatter.ca/
2. Black Legal Action Centre https://www.blacklegalactioncentre.ca/
3. Federation of Black Canadians https://fbcfcn.ca/
4. The Urban Alliance on Race Relations https://urbanalliance.ca/about-us/
A list of anti-racism resources – including articles, books, and podcasts
Chapters has a list of anti-racism reading resources