Navigating whiteness while seeking equity for all within equity-denied groups

Have you noticed how messages regarding diversity and inclusion efforts at work often read something like this:

• “Black and Indigenous employees, women, persons with disabilities and 2SLGBTQIA+…”
• “Racialized employees and women face challenges…”
• “This program will help BIPOC employees, 2SLGBTQIA+ and persons with disabilities…”

Why are issues of disability framed as completely separate from issues of homophobia? Why is race framed as being void of gender? Why are inclusion conversations often framed as single identity issues? Why do folks claim to use intersectionality yet continue to approach workplace barriers affecting Black, Indigenous and Racialized employees as not also being a focus on persons with disabilities or a focus on women? Why do public and private sector organizations keep acting as if there are only single-issue struggles and single-issue solutions when Audre Lorde told us in Learning from the 60s, that “we do not live single-issue lives.”

I dare say that the reason for this is that we operate in spaces that centre whiteness and issues related to inclusion whether it be for accessibility, pride, gender, language are all framed from the perspective of whiteness. This leads to Black, Indigenous and Racialized perspectives and needs being “othered” and perceived as only about race. It perpetuates a narrative that Black women with disabilities only experience racism and not the intersections of racism, ableism, and gender discrimination; it masks how members of an equity-denied group, for example white women, can perpetrate harm against Black women while still championing gender inclusion; it perpetuates an approach to bilingualism that favours white francophones but not francophones from communities where language intersects with race and religion.

In spaces where members of equity-denied communities fail to account for the experiences of those within equity-denied communities who also experience interlocking forms of oppression and/or are less privileged that those with proximity to whiteness, any attempt to call for intersectionality and a truly equitable approach is viewed as a threat to the dominant group. The dominant group is unable to accept initiatives that centre narratives other than whiteness.

Too often, accessibility initiatives ignore the triple burdens experienced by the Indigenous women with disabilities. And when it comes to representation in pride and the fight against homophobia, biphobia and transphobia, Tyler Boyce, Executive Director of Enchante Network writes “Black LGBTQI+ are at the forefront of movements fighting for human rights, like Black Lives Matter. Yet, when it comes to public policies, we are excluded. It is critical to recognize our contributions and include us in decision-making processes.” https://twitter.com/TylerKBoyce/status/1664327886260543495

Why is there so much resistance to actual inclusion and addressing the harms affecting equity-denied communities and those most affected within those communities? According to the Harvard Business Review,

“DEI initiatives often involve significant organizational changes and thus can elicit threat and concern, particularly from members of majority groups, who have traditionally benefitted from being in the majority and may feel that their organizational status or resources are threatened. This is what’s known as “status threat,” and the people who experience it often perceive diversity initiatives in zero-sum terms. They assume that if members of minority groups make any gains — in opportunities, hires, the potential for promotion — members of the majority group will necessarily incur losses.” To overcome resistance to DEI, Understand What's Driving It

As a result, progress is delayed. Time is spent overcoming the resistance of the most privileged rather than working to empower those least privileged and intentionally excluded. Such is the by-product of centring whiteness rather than the perspectives of those most affected when doing work on equity and inclusion.

The Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre (ACLRC) defines whiteness as “multidimensional, complex, and systemic.” ACLRC offers the following features of whiteness: ?

• It is socially and politically constructed, and therefore a learned behaviour.
• It does not simply refer to skin colour, but to its ideology based on beliefs, values behaviours, habits, and attitudes, which result in the unequal distribution of power and privilege based on skin colour (Frye, 1983; Kivel, 1996).
• It represents a position of power where the power holder defines the categories, which means that the power holder decides who is white and who is not (Frye, 1983).
• It is relational. “White” only exists in relation/opposition to other categories/locations in the racial hierarchy produced by whiteness. In defining “others,” whiteness defines itself.
• It is fluid—who is considered white changes over time (Kivel, 1996).
• It is a state of unconsciousness:?whiteness is often invisible to white people, and this perpetuates a lack of knowledge or understanding of difference which is a root cause of oppression (hooks, 1994).
• It shapes how white people view themselves and others, and places white people in a place of structural advantage where white cultural norms and practices go unnamed and unquestioned (Frankenberg, 1993). Cultural racism is founded in the belief that “whiteness is considered to be the universal ... and allows one to think and speak as if whiteness described and defined the world” (Henry & Tator, 2006, p. 327).
• Whiteness is a set of normative privileges granted to white-skinned individuals and groups; it is normalized in its production/maintenance for those of that group such that its operations are “invisible” to those privileged by it (but not to those oppressed/disadvantaged by it). It has a long history in European imperialism and epistemologies.
• Whiteness is distinct but not separate from ideologies and material manifestations of ideologies of class, nation, gender, sexuality, and ability.
• The meaning of whiteness is historical and has shifted over time (i.e., Irish, Italian, Spanish, Greek and?southern European peoples?have at times been “raced” as non-white).

Centring whiteness is harmful to everyone who doesn’t fit the dominant narrative.

When whiteness as an ideology is challenged, those who benefit from whiteness become defensive and feel attacked rather than being able to recognize how the critique is aimed at the organization and not the individual. It prevents critical reflection and distracts from a focus on advancing meaningful inclusion.

Mamta Motwani Accapadi’s journal article: When White Women Cry: How White Women's Tears Oppress Women of Color describes the situation so well that it is worth citing at length (emphasis mine): ?

“A group of student affairs professionals were in a meeting to discuss retention and wellness issues pertaining to a specific racial community on our campus. As the dialogue progressed, Anita, a woman of color, raised a concern about the lack of support and commitment to this community from Office X (including lack of measurable diversity training, representation of the community in question within the staff of Office X, etc.), which caused Susan from Office X, a White woman, to feel uncomfortable. Although Anita reassured Susan that her comments were not directed at her personally, Susan began to cry while responding that she "felt attacked". Susan further added that: she donated her time and efforts to this community, and even served on a local non-profit organization board that worked with this community; she understood discrimination because her family had people of different backgrounds and her closest friends were members of this community; she was committed to diversity as she did diversity training within her office; and the office did not have enough funding for this community's needs at that time. Upon seeing this reaction, Anita was confused because although her tone of voice had been firm, she was not angry. From Anita's perspective, the group had come together to address how the student community's needs could be met, which partially meant pointing out current gaps where increased services were necessary. Anita was very clear that she was critiquing Susan's office and not Susan, as Susan could not possibly be solely responsible for the decisions of her office. The conversation of the group shifted at the point when Susan started to cry. From that moment, the group did not discuss the actual issue of the student community. Rather, they spent the duration of the meeting consoling Susan, reassuring her that she was not at fault. Susan calmed down, and publicly thanked Anita for her willingness to be direct, and complimented her passion. Later that day, Anita was reprimanded for her 'angry tone,' as she discovered that Susan complained about her "behavior" to both her own supervisor as well as Anita's supervisor. Anita was left confused by the mixed messages she received with Susan's compliment, and Susan's subsequent complaint regarding her.”

As a Black, cisgender, able-bodied, heterosexual male, navigating spaces that centre whiteness while seeking equity for all within equity-denied groups, I am constantly in a state of discomfort and my discomfort is compounded by a system and its gatekeepers maintaining the status quo that seem unwilling to ask themselves and those with the most privilege, to also endure a bit of discomfort, even temporary discomfort. Why must the excluded always worry about their “tone” or “appearing professional” in spaces that are toxic and harmful to our collective well-being? Why aren’t the perpetrators of harm asked to be more inclusive in their language or to be mindful of how their actions might be interpreted? Why must the harmed continue to experience harm while waiting for those in positions of power to final feel “ready” to do better?

I leave you with the words of Audre Lorde's Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches

“Whenever the need for some pretense of communication arises, those who profit from our oppression call upon us to share our knowledge with them. In other words, it is the responsibility of the oppressed to teach the oppressors their mistakes. I am responsible for educating teachers who dismiss my children’s culture in school. Black and Third World people are expected to educate white people as to our humanity. Women are expected to educate men. Lesbians and gay men are expected to educate the heterosexual world. The oppressors maintain their position and evade responsibility for their own actions. There is a constant drain of energy which might be better used in redefining ourselves and devising realistic scenarios for altering the present and constructing the future.”