One of the exercises I do in diversity training is to introduce a list of cultural variables and then have the participants choose and rank their top five. It’s interesting to hear them discuss the variables that are important to them and why. One of the variables is freedom. One participant said that she never thought much about freedom until 9-11. In a different workshop one group shared how that freedom was important to all of them, but that it had different meanings depending on the age and personal situation of the individual. As an example she said that the younger single members of the group defined freedom differently than their peers who were married with small children. It’s a matter of perspective.
During a trip to China in 2006 one of the tour guides continued to make reference to “when China was liberated in 1949…..” It was a perspective that I never considered. The Washington Post ran an article on June 4, 2009 regarding the many faces of liberty in China 20 years after Tiananmen Square. The points of view of Chinese citizens ranging in age from 11 to 76 were explored. The 11-year-old boy wanted freedom from his parents telling him what to do. The 22-year-old college student felt free to reject her parent’s wishes regarding her course of study at the university. The 29 year-old salesman defined freedom as financial freedom, while the 35 year old migrant worker was “free physically” to leave the countryside to work in the city. The 70 year-old couple lived through the government under of Chiang Kai-shek, Mao Tse-tung and the Cultural Revolution. One of them is concerned that perhaps today there is too much freedom, especially for the young people, while the other feels that since Tiananmen Square, life has been good, there is progress and harmony is being promoted.
Earlier in the week, on May 31, there were two other articles about freedom in the Post. One discussed the influence of American culture on Iraq’s language, culture and sensibilities. Ancient Mesopotamia was the birthplace of Western Civilization. Now it is influenced by American pop culture. A Baghdad sculptor was quoted as saying that “Yes the Occupation brought freedom, but it destroyed a culture too.” It’s a different perspective that needs to be considered.
The second article, about healthcare, discussed how doctors are not free to prescribe the drug they determine to be the most effective as that drug may not be on the approved list of drugs on the patient’s health plan. Rather, a less effective, but approved drug will have to be prescribed. Managed care and health plans have taken away the freedom of the doctors and patients. It’s a perspective that everyone should be considering and weighting in on as the debate about health care reform progresses.
Freedom is just another word that had different meaning for different people. It can also have different meanings for the same people in different situations. It’s a matter of context and perspective.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
A Different Set of Lenses
Steve Long-Nguyen Robbins writes in his book "What IF?" that crucial conversations about diversity tend not to take place because we lack certain requisite skills. The most important is the skill to temporarily suspend our beliefs and worldviews to nonjudgementally entertain the beliefs and worldviews of others. In other words, we don't want to see the world through a different set of lenses because doing so may challenge our own beliefs and socially constructed reality that has become our truth. Yet if we never begin the conversation, we'll never break down the barriers.
I'd like to begin a conversation with a simple story about seeing things differently. About five years ago, we had a young relative visiting us from Norway. He and our son are the same age. One hot, humid Friday evening in June they were driving down Interstate 95 in Virginia when they encountered a rather sever storm - driving rain, thunder and lightening. My son cautiously pulled over to the shoulder of the highway until the worst of the storm passed, annoyed about the delay. Our cousin, on the other hand, was filled with awe, marveling in this show from Mother Nature. It was weather he had never experienced in Norway. It was a matter of perspective.
After he left the East Coast of the United States, our cousin continued his travels across the country. A year later, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, he wrote that during that stormy night he remember saying to our son, "I would love to experience a hurricane some day." My son answered, "No you wouldn't." His e-mail continued: "I cannot believe what is happening in New Orleans ... I didn't care too much for the city when I was thee, but now it is like a science fiction war zone and knowing that I've been there, I really fad sad." His experience changed his perspective.
We can't live another person's experience, but we can begin a conversation that will give us insights into their beliefs and views. having those conversations in a nonjudgmental way can broaden our own perspective. Begin a dialogue and try on a new set of lenses.
I'd like to begin a conversation with a simple story about seeing things differently. About five years ago, we had a young relative visiting us from Norway. He and our son are the same age. One hot, humid Friday evening in June they were driving down Interstate 95 in Virginia when they encountered a rather sever storm - driving rain, thunder and lightening. My son cautiously pulled over to the shoulder of the highway until the worst of the storm passed, annoyed about the delay. Our cousin, on the other hand, was filled with awe, marveling in this show from Mother Nature. It was weather he had never experienced in Norway. It was a matter of perspective.
After he left the East Coast of the United States, our cousin continued his travels across the country. A year later, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, he wrote that during that stormy night he remember saying to our son, "I would love to experience a hurricane some day." My son answered, "No you wouldn't." His e-mail continued: "I cannot believe what is happening in New Orleans ... I didn't care too much for the city when I was thee, but now it is like a science fiction war zone and knowing that I've been there, I really fad sad." His experience changed his perspective.
We can't live another person's experience, but we can begin a conversation that will give us insights into their beliefs and views. having those conversations in a nonjudgmental way can broaden our own perspective. Begin a dialogue and try on a new set of lenses.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
More Than One Way to Define Diversity
Yesterday, May 26, 2009, President Obama nominated the first Latina for the Supreme Court. If confirmed, Sonia Sotomayor will be the third woman to serve and possibly the first Hispanic. There is some question about the ethnicity of Justice Benjamin Cardozo who served from 1932 to 1938. Apparently Cardozo did not identify or describe himself as Hispanic.
The Washington Post ran an article yesterday describing the composition of the Court beyond race and gender. The composition is homogenous in terms of education and experience. Eight of the current justices attended either Yale or Harvard Law School. Justice Ginsburg attended Harvard, but was awarded her law degree from Columbia University. Justice Stevens is the exception. He was educated in the heartland of America and received his law degree from Northwestern Law. Sotomayer will join the majority, having received her law degree from Yale Law School.
A second striking similarity the article describes is that the current court is the first in history to be made up solely of judges who came directly from the appellate ranks, and that only two justices, Stevens and Kennedy, are from courts that are not on the Eastern Seaboard. Sotomayer joins the majority, serving in the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 2nd District in New York.
Some of the striking differences beyond race and gender are religion. The article reports that there are currently five Catholics, two Jews and two Protestants on Court. Currently, Justice Souter is the only justice who has served on a state court. The last justice who served in an elected office was Sandra Day O’Connor who brought a unique measure of practicality and problem-solving from that experience.
Discussion in the popular press about diversity is often focused on those visible dimensions of diversity such as race and gender. Yet, it was in 1991 that R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr. published “Beyond Race and Gender” and challenged organizations to unleash the power of their total workforces. If we are going to truly understand and celebrate diversity, it is imperative to move beyond the visible and the obvious. What Sotomayer brings is a diversity of experience within the legal profession, including work as a prosecutor, work in private practice representing corporate interests and serving as a trial court judge before her appointment to the appellate court. Her diversity of experience, combined with the diversity of her heritage, is what makes her unique. We all need to get in touch with our personal diversity across many dimensions and celebrate our own uniqueness.
The Washington Post ran an article yesterday describing the composition of the Court beyond race and gender. The composition is homogenous in terms of education and experience. Eight of the current justices attended either Yale or Harvard Law School. Justice Ginsburg attended Harvard, but was awarded her law degree from Columbia University. Justice Stevens is the exception. He was educated in the heartland of America and received his law degree from Northwestern Law. Sotomayer will join the majority, having received her law degree from Yale Law School.
A second striking similarity the article describes is that the current court is the first in history to be made up solely of judges who came directly from the appellate ranks, and that only two justices, Stevens and Kennedy, are from courts that are not on the Eastern Seaboard. Sotomayer joins the majority, serving in the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 2nd District in New York.
Some of the striking differences beyond race and gender are religion. The article reports that there are currently five Catholics, two Jews and two Protestants on Court. Currently, Justice Souter is the only justice who has served on a state court. The last justice who served in an elected office was Sandra Day O’Connor who brought a unique measure of practicality and problem-solving from that experience.
Discussion in the popular press about diversity is often focused on those visible dimensions of diversity such as race and gender. Yet, it was in 1991 that R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr. published “Beyond Race and Gender” and challenged organizations to unleash the power of their total workforces. If we are going to truly understand and celebrate diversity, it is imperative to move beyond the visible and the obvious. What Sotomayer brings is a diversity of experience within the legal profession, including work as a prosecutor, work in private practice representing corporate interests and serving as a trial court judge before her appointment to the appellate court. Her diversity of experience, combined with the diversity of her heritage, is what makes her unique. We all need to get in touch with our personal diversity across many dimensions and celebrate our own uniqueness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)