Should the murder of George Floyd be used as a case study in diversity and inclusion education? Maybe not?

Should the murder of George Floyd be used as a case study in diversity and inclusion education? Maybe not? Please brace yourself.?

The cries for social justice in the United States have been heard worldwide. As the remembrance of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. has just passed, it reminds me that these cries have been heard before. Bloody Sunday on March 7, 1965, left nothing to the imagination of just how brutal ideological change can be when confronted with the moral and judicial need to evolve. The violence witnessed on the Edmund Pettus Bridge by the world ushered forward the signing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.?

And likewise, the murder of George Floyd seen across the globe emitted cries for equitable justice under the law and a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace. Unlike the March on Selma, which was purposeful in motivating President Johnson to act on the Voting Rights measure, Mr. Floyd was murdered by happenstance. So, while these acts of violence both resulted in motivation for change, they are different. One show of violence seen on television around the globe was explicitly racist. The murder of George Floyd was not explicitly racist. In fact, the only argument for including racism one could pose is the impact of systemic racism on George Floyd's life. But the murdering of George Floyd was not an act of racism manifesting in his death.

In full transparency, my first reaction to Floyd's murder was that racist ideology was held by Chauvin. I responded with negative emotion before I had all the facts made available. And now that I am calm, it is easier to see that while Chauvin dehumanized Floyd, there is no direct evidence that racial prejudice was at play in Chauvin's motivation to remain kneeling on Floyd's neck. Even Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison stated in response to the question about charging Chauvin with a hate crime that "I wouldn't call it that because hate crimes are crimes where there's an explicit motive, and of bias," Ellison said. "We don't have any evidence that Derek Chauvin factored in George Floyd's race as he did what he did." And if I have come to this understanding, undoubtedly, so have intelligent people in corporations that have stalled on fulfilling their commitments to DEI. And if so, now what?

There has been a great deal of money donated and invested in initiatives for racial equity by many large corporations after millions of people from around the world, including myself, took to the streets and marched. And this is great. It is excellent to witness tangible action by companies to aim their corporate social responsibility at initiatives and investments to stoke racial equity under the law! And I suppose if Floyd's murder was the catalyst for the action, then his death created opportunities for others to achieve more liberty. However, as Mehrsa Baradaran, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine, states, "The answer to these massive problems is not in capitalism doing better or more. It's not going to come from philanthropy. It's not going to come from promises. It's got to be a policy change." And policy change in the criminal justice system is long overdue as it has been appropriately named "The New Jim Crow." But again, how does the use of the death of George Floyd as a catalyst for changes in corporate operating policies help encourage companies to be more diverse, equitable, and inclusive? In short, perhaps it is best not to use Floyd in our education work within corporate worlds.?You ask why???

One of the most essential characteristics of diversity, equity, and inclusion professionals is integrity. We are not selling a product to a consumer. We are opening minds and hearts to the possibility that they have the choice to be inclusive beyond their implicit biases. We focus on removing systemic barriers to the highest level of success that an individual may seek within a company. We practice what we teach by attempting to be objective when examining policies to provide that they are appropriately inclusive of all people. We are researchers, writers, presenters, educators, policy proposers, etc. We are the bridge between Title VII laws and the EEOC actions. If we are all these things and more, we must have integrity. And a large part of having integrity is to always tell the truth whether it aligns with our emotionally centered beliefs or not. For without integrity, we cannot be trusted by our peers. And if we cannot be trusted, we will find it extremely difficult to do our work. And the truth is that we cannot prove explicit racism by Derek Chauvin or specifically how systemic racism inspired Chauvin to kill Floyd.?Am I wrong???

Any gains made in civil rights or the invoking of empathy by the masses due to Floyd’s death is positive for us all. I cannot imagine how Floyd’s family and friends felt witnessing his passing caught on video. And for many of us who identify as Black or are empathetic to the historical brutality and oppression of Blacks in the United States, the image for us played out like a modern-day lynching. But when the emotions recede and we look at all the facts, do we have an ethical responsibility to say, “My initial conclusion was wrong, and this was not an act of racism we need to learn about?” I believe we do. After all, I believe we all want to rid our world of racism. And if we can say that this act was not racism, should that not be a good thing? I think so. I am not perfect. But I do want to always try to be honest. And if I should lose my integrity, what have I to teach anyone???

Charles M. Harper Sr. has been a diversity and inclusion professional for over 12 years whose clients have included fraternal, educational, and governmental agencies, as well as some media and entertainment professionals.?He is a certified US History Educator, a published author of four books, Between Me and You being his newest, now available on Amazon. He is also a successful playwright and actor of the monodrama, Black and White: A Man Divided.?Charles has a Bachelor of Liberal Arts, double majoring in history and philosophy, with a minor in cultural anthropology.?He also has an MBA.?He completed both degrees at the University of Arizona Global Campus. Charles has served in the US Navy and spent 13 years as a Local 150 Operating Engineer.?He returned to college to pursue his degrees after a career-ending back injury in 2009. Currently, Charles is a Ph.D. Candidate in Business Management.?