We all know that on the evening of February 26th, Trayvon Martin – an unarmed 17-year-old African American student – was killed by a neighborhood watch captain in a gated community in Orlando, Florida.  And that Florida’s controversial self-defense laws have allowed vigilante George Zimmerman to avoid arrest under the 2005 “stand your ground” law, which allows Florida residents to use deadly force against a threat without attempting to back down from the situation (other states require that gun owners have a “duty to retreat” before killing.)

What’s surprising is the history of hate crimes that have accumulated in Florida without our knowledge.  In 2006, two private security guards – one the son of a Sanford police officer – killed a black teen with a single gunshot in his back. Even though the guards never identified themselves to the teen, they were released without charges.

In 2010, the son of a Sanford PD lieutenant sucker-punched a homeless black man outside a bar, and officers on the scene released the assailant without charges. Only after a video showing the incident was posted on the internet was the police chief forced into retirement.  The Sanford patrol sergeant in charge on the night of this incident was also the first supervisor on the scene of Trayvon Martin’s shooting death.  His name is Anthony Raimondo.

We have learned three lessons from these incidents:

1.  Neighborhood watch societies can be as deadly as the guns their citizens are allowed to carry;

2.  The chance of justice is substantially enhanced thanks to the internet – without Huffington Post’s Trymaine Lee, the New York Times’ Charles M. Blow and The Atlantic’s Ta-Neishi Coates, who kept on the story, Trayvon Martin’s killer may well have gone unpunished. We shall see whether this exposure provides justice to Trayvon’s family, and serves as a lesson to police in any similar future crimes.

3. Despite the election of Barack Obama, the United States is far from a post-racial society.  It appears that in these instances of white men who shot black men, the shooters might have been protected from consequences without the black media.  This illustrates another compelling reason for diversity in all of our organizations.

Olympic volunteers will be asked 6 questions to find out how they would respond to “sensitive” issues.  Take the quiz and find out how you would do.  Admittedly, the questions aren’t very hard, but how many people do you think wouldn’t be able to answer them?

b) You want everybody to feel comfortable and welcome at the Games, so you politely ask the couple to stop holding hands.

c) You explain that there is a huge diversity of people at the London 2012 Games, which includes gay, lesbian and bisexual couples.

2. Ethnicity/Race: You need to point out one of your team members to another colleague who requires his level of expertise. How do you describe him?

a) The tall black guy with short dark hair.

b) That guy over there, who looks like an athlete.

c) As your colleague is black, you are worried about sounding racist when you describe him, so you select another less qualified team member to assist instead.

3. Gender/Gender Identity: A spectator approaches you asking politely where the nearest toilets are. You are not sure if the spectator is male or female. What do you do?

a) Panic – you are not qualified to make this decision. Explain politely that you do not know, and sadly cannot be of assistance.

b) Just in case, tell them where the male, female and accessible toilets are.

c) Ask the spectator politely if they are male or female, so that you can direct them appropriately.

4. Disability: You are stopped by two spectators. Your attention was drawn by the man as he called over to you politely from a short distance away. The man is accompanied by a lady in a wheelchair. She has a speech impairment and speaks very quietly. She is asking you a question but you are finding it very difficult to understand her. What do you do?

a) Turn to the non-disabled man and ask him what she is saying.

b) Tell her politely that you are unable to understand her, and you are very sorry, but you need to be at your team briefing in two minutes.

c) Tell her that unfortunately you are unable to understand her, and ask if there is anything you can do to help her communicate with you.

5. Age: You have been asked by your Team Leader to assign several duties to you and your team members. One of your team members is a great deal older than the others, what do you do?

a) Ask your colleagues if they have any preferences or issues with any of the duties you need to share out, and then assign appropriately. Your older colleague does not raise any issues, so you give him one of the more physically demanding roles, as he says he has done it before.

b) Assign duties regardless of the colleague in question.

c) Wink cheekily at your older colleague and explain that you will be kind on his ‘old bones’ and the ‘young ‘uns’ can do the running around today.

6. Belief: You are chatting to a fellow Games Maker at the security line while waiting to access the venue. They point out a woman in front of you who is wearing a scarf on her head and remark ‘surely she won’t be allowed to wear that in the venue!’. What do you say in response?

a) Ignore the comment and change the subject.

b) Point out that the woman is wearing a hijab, which is a form of Muslim headwear some women choose to wear as part of their faith.

c) Wait until your first shift with the colleague wearing the headscarf and raise your issue in front of them and your fellow team members.

Answers: 1) c; 2) a; 3) b; 4) c; 5) a; 6) b

Check out http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/9125379/Olympic-Quiz-Diversity-and-Inclusion.html

Editorial: Barack Obama, Diversity and the New Real America

By Stewart David Ikeda, IMDiversity.com

On this day after an election that has seen every form description — “historic”, “epic”, “unprecedented”, “seachange”, etc. — punditry and surveys and Twitters and number-crunching will abound. Analyses will be piled atop analyses for days, weeks, or months to come — maybe longer.

And this prolonged social moment we’ve been through is all those things — unprecedented, historic, and indubitably worthy of very careful counting, parsing, and reflection upon what we’ve just seen.

That said, one immediate implication of this election’s final days and result goes to the very heart of this publication’s meaning and mission — the recognition and championing of diversity as the strength of America.

Obama’s victory is a clear vindication of the argument for diversity, and not only in the relatively limited sense of representational politics. Yes, that he “happens to be” Black, or half-Black, and as such fulfills the once-unimaginable aspirations of a country haunted by a racist past, is momentous. However, it is probably of more psychological importance to us — to the electorate — than it will be for Obama in leading us.

To call Obama the first Black president is something of a misnomer, and it is tokenizing. It would be tokenizing to assume that he will, by himself, “part the seas” and correct all the uglier aspects of race relations in America. The hopes and expectations Obama’s supporters have laid on him are hefty. And while his accomplishment is inspiring, he will have weightier items on his agenda on Day One than to sit basking in the fact of being the first half-Black president. On the other side, already, anti-Affirmative Action pundits have also been tokenizing Obama, using his ascent to deny racial disparities and inequities throughout American society, from schools to healthcare coverage to the work place.

As Al Sharpton recently observed on CNN’s D.L. Hughley show, the particular alchemy of Obama’s mixed background is what makes him a well-suited figurehead for our times and our diverse country. He will be the White President and the Black president and the Brown president, Sharpton said, and he will have to perform to lead us out of the crises, domestic and foreign, our still largely divided nation faces.

But the importance of Obama’s background and feat is more symbolic, subtle and complex than it is literal. It’s in how he won and in the movement he inspired. First, he ran a campaign that attempted to sidestep, and to “transcend” race, and that succeeded insofar as he did not “play the race card,” even when the opposition attempted to wield voters’ race fear against them — a tactic that thankfully failed, for once and at last, to win the day. Second, he never allowed himself to be “the Black candidate” — initially to the dismay of some Black voters and commentators. He always presented himself as multiracial, product of a multicultural family, a global-era family, raised as a “hapa” in the most multicultural of states, and routinely pictured against the backdrop of his white mother and grandparents, his Asian siblings, with his Midwestern constituents. Third, his election was possible only through creation of an effective multicultural, multiracial coalition of supporters that reflected the emergent “New America Majority” predicted since the 2000 Census, but slow to represent itself it at the ballot box.

He built a campaign that was as diverse as this country, and where everyone could “claim” a piece of the candidate and the future. He led a largely transformed Democratic Party, marked and revitalized by unprecedented diversity. This was evidenced in its 50-state strategy, its slate of presidential and state candidates this year, its investment in minority outreach, and even more obviously at the convention. In Denver this year, and on the campaign trail with Obama, we saw a picture of us as we are — the real America, which was very different from the one that the likes of defeated Virginia senator George Allen, and Sarah Palin, tried to sell us.

Not everyone liked what they saw, and this election showed us that with great change comes great anxiety. The uglier threads in this campaign season — from the primaries right up to the booing at john McCain’s concession speech — showed that race, gender, religious and class tensions among us are real and palpable, even as they are becoming more difficult to discuss explicitly. For many Americans, Obama’s victory symbolizes that we are living in a “new” country whose rules may not be seem familiar. Some opponents have worried aloud about political suppression, a concern over being able to criticize Obama for fear of “political correctness” or being branded “racist”.

This day after the history-making election of Barack Obama as our first not-wholly-white president leaves us to face an overwhelming question: Now what?

Some Americans accustomed to — and expecting to — always and only seeing themselves at the head of the table may find it difficult for a while coming back into the room and figuring out where to sit. But what sober Obama’s acceptance speech underscored last night is that at his table, everyone will be welcome — and needed. And it is up to those hesitant Americans to find the resolve and purpose to overcome their natural apprehension and take a seat.

This is a similar phenomenon to one that we’ve observed over the years of publishing this site, where occasionally — not often, but a few times a year, perhaps — the editors will receive a flame message raging against the audience structure of this site network, condemning us for “excluding whites,” charging a “reverse-racism,” demanding “where’s the White Village”? This is a false position that sees “diversity” as oppositional to “whiteness”; it sees work opportunity as a zero-sum game, and equal opportunity as oppositional to white-opportunity. Because it does not adhere to the old rules, positioning whiteness as the default center of the experience, it is presumed to be exclusive. It too seems to say, If I can’t be at the head of the table, I’m not sitting.

The editors take these concerns seriously, and for many years attempted to address them both through our content and direct correspondence when possible (they are almost always anonymous). We try to explain that the founding purpose of this site was to represent the concerns and interests of under-represented minorities in the U.S. workforce, including women, those who faced specific discriminations and protections. We also seek to help employers interested in providing equal opportunity and building a diverse workforce to present open opportunities to these groups. We stress that the opportunities presented here are not jobs set aside for or open exclusively to these groups, and that we encourage any qualified candidate to apply to the jobs. We also point out that whites are well-represented in our staff, leadership teams, prominent contributors and business partners, article subjects and readers. We observe that among those who do make use of our free, open job seeker tools and apply for jobs are users of all backgrounds, regions and abilities, including high numbers of users who choose to self-identify (ethnic self-identification is encouraged but strictly optional on our site) as “Caucasian/white”. We argue that “diversity” is not code for “non-whites-only”; “diversity” means “diversity”. Those who have ears to hear sometimes engage with us appreciatively, write us back and participate as users in the site, but it’s not satisfactory for everyone. Some must come around to it on their own.

Barack Obama’s huge victory illustrates what the most progressive employers and users of this site have known for some time, but writ large: that investing in diversity is not a matter of parsing, tokenizing and dividing for any “politically correct” purpose, but a competitive imperative in the “new America” and the shrinking global village. It makes sense and it works.

It is to the credit of both presidential candidates that on election eve, they attempted to deliver a message of conciliation, unity and seriousness of purpose in moving forward to tackle the country’s problems. But unlike the past eight years, in which “unity” served as code for homogeneity and towing a party line, in the Obama era, unity will be achieved through our variety and the strength of our differences. Out of many, one. e Pluribus Unum.

That is diversity.

Angry Eye hailed as “Fascinating”’and “Important”’in Fighting Discrimination
School Library Journal Review. April 2001

The Angry Eye is a fascinating revisit to the famous 1968 blue-eyed/brown-eyed experiment in discrimination by Jane Elliott, a third grade teacher from Riceville, Iowa. This video is geared toward the MTV generation; the music and graphics have a contemporary appeal that will engage today’s teens. Elliott is older and wiser. Her captive audience is now college students of various racial and ethnic backgrounds who are articulate and thoughtful. This new generation is one that has grappled with the issues of racism and discrimination and perceives themselves as “enlightened” thinkers. It is surprising that Elliott could get this audience of young adults to feel the experience of what it is like to be discriminated against. What actually occurs in an afternoon spent tearing down the defense mechanisms of the “targeted” blue-eyed group is the realization of what it feels like to be a minority in this country.

Elliott, relentless in her attacks on the students’ self-esteem, constructed the workshop in such as way that those who protest the unfairness are further ostracized. Students begin to realize that this is much like what happens in society to those who speak out; those who don’t speak out live in “quiet desperation.” Viewers feel sympathy for these hostages, but also recognize the valuable experience they finally gain by feeling true empathy for those members of our society who are not viewed as equal. Elliott challenges students to rethink societal constructs and realize that “we make laws to support inferiority.” The post interviews reveal newfound insights into the dehumanizing process of racism and discrimination. While the workshop is provocative and, one could argue, unfair to the underdog group, Elliott would respond to her critics that it is necessary to “fight fire with fire.” And this is exactly what she does in this important documentary.

“The Angry Eye”-the multi award winning documentary showcasing Jane Elliott and her blue eyed brown eyed exercise in discrimination will be featured on the ABC News program 20/20 Friday September 15, 2006 at 10PM (EDT). It is fitting that in a 20/20 edition devoted to the issue of stereotypes, “The Angry Eye” would be showcased as it is recognized as a groundbreaking documentary in the field of diversity. In “The Angry Eye” the tables are turned on white college students as they experience what’s it like to be treated as a minority in America. The results are revealing and compelling.

Among its many honors “The Angry Eye” is the winner of the Gold World Medal NY Festival; the CINE Golden Eagle; the Chris Award, Columbus Film & Video; the Audience Favorite, Palm Springs International; as well as being an official selection at important human rights film festivals including the International Human Rights Film Festival, Nuremberg.

“The Angry Eye” has also been utilized by hundreds of corporations, non-profits, and schools in the US and overseas as a key tool in teaching diversity awareness among employees and management. For its success in the workplace, “The Angry Eye” was selected Best2Buy winner for 2003-2004 by Training Media Review and Training & Development Magazine as well as being named #1 – Top Diversity and Sexual Harassment Media by the Dept. of Veteran Affairs Office of Diversity.

by Cindy Huggett

The Angry Eye was selected a Best2Buy winner for 2003 by Training Media Review and T+D magazine in the video category. Here is Cindy Huggett’s explantion of her choice.

“Provocative, real, full of emotion – those words describe THE ANGRY EYE, a documentary of Jane Elliott’s famous diversity exercise. This powerful activity has participants experience discrimination firsthand and causes viewers to feel as if they’re in the middle of the action.

The diversity lesson begins as a group of participants approach a registration table. Elliott is rude to the blue-eyed participants and puts collars on them. Then the participants are separated into two rooms based on their eye color. The blue-eyed room has only three chairs for 12 participants, while the brown-eyed room has plenty of chairs for all.

Before the groups are joined together, Elliott instructs the brown-eyes to treat the blue-eyes as inferior. When the blue-eyes enter the main room, they’re forced to sit in the middle, as if they’re on display for all to see. Posters on the walls belittle the blue-eyes with such phrases as “If I have but one life, let me live it as a brown.”

As the blue-eyes read the posters aloud, Elliott talks about racism and the inexcusable treatment of people who are different. Even though some of the blue-eyes break down in tears – one leaves the room – the uncomfortable experience continues. Elliott is unapologetic, explaining her reasons for conducting the program in this manner.

Viewers can’t watch this video without having some kind of emotional reaction. It’s powerful message sinks deep. Because of that, only experienced facilitators should run this program and sponsoring organizations should be aware of the risk involved.

Such an unsettling, emotional video requires strong supporting materials. In this case, they’re excellent. THE ANGRY EYE is a fantastic diversity training program, and it deserves recognition as this year’s best.

Cindy Huggett has over 10 years experience in the training and development field. She’s currently the Learning and Development Manager for Kinetic Systems, Inc., with expertise in both technical and soft skills training programs.

tmr (training media review - www.tmreview.com) Copyright 2004 TMS