Institutional leaders: Stop practicing `checkbox diversity'
So-called “checkbox diversity” occurs when a person of color or woman is hired, then leaves without a similar backup replacement to show real commitment to diversity.
It appears to have just happened at Harvard with Claudine Gay, the university's first Black female president.
Many Harvard grads — including me — took note when, in 2007, the university named its first female (Drew Gilpin Faust, who is White) to head the esteemed institution of higher learning.
As a graduate of Harvard Law School, I remember the struggle my African American professor Derek Bell engaged to appoint its first Black female professor. He told me the resistance even went so far that one of his colleagues countered: “Derek, this is not a lunch counter in the South.”
A few decades before, one of my professors turned down civil rights leader Howard Thurman's daughter Anne's inquiry for a summer internship, telling her, “I wouldn't consider you for two reasons: one, you're a woman and. two, you're Black.”
Harvard was proud to appoint Gay as president in 2022. When she was recently forced to step down following a controversial discussion about antisemitism before Congress, a backup person of color should have been waiting in the wings to demonstrate a real commitment to diversity.
A Black colleague of mine did diversity consulting for Fortune 500 companies in the 1980s and '90s. He challenged executive decision-makers: “I guarantee you: If you hire a White male and he doesn't work out, it won't be the last White male you'll ever hire.”
So often, you'll hear the excuse: “We hired a woman or a person of color, and it just didn't work out — box checked.” Then it was back to the status quo.
From the beginning to end, Gay's Q&A with Congress was a public relations disaster. It's a rule to never send anyone into an adversarial situation without thoroughly preparing them for whatever question might arise and what answer is a suitable response.
It's called debate prep. Further, this was not a law school exam where the issues were theoretical. Gay's appearance before the committee was a highly heated arena where it was easy to anticipate the traps.
A school of thought holds that only Jewish people can tell you what is antisemitic, only women can identify sexism and Black people are the only ones who can say what is racist. Rightly or wrongly, issues that generate more heat than light need to be looked at from the point of view of the aggrieved party.
One way private industry has made headway in diversity, equity and inclusion is to attach monetary rewards to demonstrable numbers. If you don't find or hire a certain percentage of qualified women or people of color who are capable and do the job, your bonus or salary will be impacted.
In the 1980s, I worked for a public agency in San Francisco where upper management employees were freezing out people of color. The executive director called them in and said: “If they don't work out, you don't work out.” Things changed.
The same holds in local government. Municipalities that once led the way in early equity progress can slip into complacency when quantifying deliverables. When resolutions for celebratory events such as Juneteenth, Diwali or Women's History Month are passed, the serious work of diversifying employment numbers can be forgotten, especially when there are not enough people of color in town to compel decision-makers to pay attention. It should not be just constituency driven, but a morally driven decision.
We must continue to shine the light on the remaining work, holding office seekers accountable for the changes needed.
At heart, Marin takes pride in doing the right thing, even if it takes a while to get there. Consider the Dixie School District name change or the renaming of Sir Francis Drake High School to Archie Williams.
Equity efforts need to be at the forefront of every decision. Hiring, retention, and promotions are equally essential to enhance the ceremonial displays of diversity.
As a nation, a county or municipality, we cannot afford to look to the year 2042 when we will be a “majority minority” and not pay attention to what that means. The time for change is now.