by Cecil Scheib
This blog post is 3 of a 3-part series on the Office of Sustainability’s efforts to be proactively anti-racist, combat white supremacy culture,1 and embed anti-racist actions into our work. The blog series is intended to document and provide transparency about the work we are doing internally and externally and to share our process, begun in 2018 and accelerated in 2020, that is far from complete.
Part 2 of this series describes some of the actions the Office of Sustainability is taking to be actively anti-racist and address white supremacy culture. (For background on why this is inextricably linked with sustainability work, take a look at Part 1.) Perhaps it will be helpful to others if we pull back the curtain a bit on how we’ve been going about discussing this issue, which so many wish to address but that can be very sensitive.
It can help to begin by developing a sense of trust and openness among the team that desires to work on these issues, and to raise the general level of understanding of the context before starting any specific discussions. NYU has a wealth of resources available. As just two examples among many, The Office of Global Inclusion has a list of anti-racism education, programs, and resources, and the Administrative Management Council (AMC) has been holding a wonderful series called Brave Conversations: Black Lives Matter. And everyone should remember they have the full support of President Hamilton and the Office of the President.
On a personal level2 and as a unit leader, I had to choose how to position myself in the discussion in our office. After consideration and consultant, I decided it might be best if I directly initiated our discussions on anti-racist action. I didn’t want to be seen as grabbing the mic, but it was important to me to try to ensure that no one in our seven-person Office of Sustainability felt that they had to engage in a campaign of persuasion before our team would confront this issue as group, and to make clear that there was support from the head of our small sub-unit. My goal was to introduce the topic so that everyone felt included and heard, without being told what to think, feel, or do. Throughout, I’ve tried to balance the importance of top-down leadership in demonstrating commitment and initiating discussion, while ensuring that BIPOC voices are heard and centered in the discussion itself. Surely I’ve made many mistakes, but I am blessed with a team that is full of perspective and wisdom and incredibly gracious and supportive about sharing it.
My initial communication to the team went something like this:
Since social change happens when everyone feels included and heard, I would suggest our anti-racist effort begin with a team discussion. So while I have conviction that we must participate individually and collectively in anti-racism, I look forward to the reflections, thoughts, ideas, opinions, and questions from you all about what exactly that looks like as we move forward together. My goal is to be clear as a unit leader that anti-racism should be part of our agenda and work, but beyond that, to leave broad freedom for input and consensus among us all about next steps.”
For self-education, we combed through the many reading lists out there to find some resources that felt most appropriate for our use. We were looking for something that both addressed the problem at its root (not just bandaids or quick fixes – something that addressed systemic white supremacy) but that also would move us forward to actions, not just discussion. Not surprisingly, this included “How to be an Antiracist” by Ibram X. Kendi.
A key find was a list of aspects of white supremacy culture that show up in organizations.3 These included things like perfectionism, sense of urgency, defensiveness, objectivity, right to comfort that may signify the ascendance of one culture’s values over others, and that can be felt by members of any group. It turned out to be so helpful because even if an individual doesn’t identify with every possible problem statement personally or within the group, the suggested actions tended to be very strong regardless. Each team member filled out a one-question survey about which topics they felt were most impactful for our particular group, and that they’d like to begin (not end) the discussion with. This helped stop the topic from becoming overwhelming, and we used the survey to guide the first meeting since folks knew in advance what subtopics we’d be focusing on and could organize their thoughts.
At our first meeting, we set some ground rules for our discussions about anti-racism and white supremacy:
- This is a safe space.
- Focus on listening to others.
- Keep white fragility and defensiveness at front of mind, if that applies to you.
- It’s ok to disagree with others with constructive energy.
- It’s ok to have positive energy even though this is a very serious topic.
- It’s ok to be uncomfortable; in fact, you should probably expect it.
We began with each person talking about their identity (personal and group), and anything you chose to share with the group of a personal nature on this topic. There was no requirement to do so, just a space being made should someone choose. Each person had a chance to share any readings they found particularly impactful, or insights or personal stories. We used the survey results to kick off an open discussion about the aspects of white-supremacy culture. After that sharing of ideas, we transitioned the discussion into an open idea generation session about anti-racist actions that our group could take, where anything was on the table. Finally we closed the meeting with reflections and evaluations of the meeting, and discussion and agreement on next steps.4 Key items included a structure for accountability and for creating a durable structure of anti-racist actions.
Before the second meeting, our notes from the first meeting were used to create another quick poll of potential actions. All actions mentioned would still be discussed and considered, but the straw poll gave a quick sense of the actions that people immediately valued most highly. Using those poll results, we were able to focus on our first set of actions for discussions, and by the end of the meeting, we were able to create a list of draft anti-racist actions our office could undertake, phrased as specific goals to achieve.
After giving people sufficient time and invitation to consider the list of draft actions, add items, and ruminate, we met to continue discussion and refinement of our goals. Some items were set aside for later, either because they were lower priority, needed further clarification, or for some other reason that later was better than now (for example, synchronizing with the actions of another NYU group that we understood was in progress). To create accountability and a system for action, each goal we chose to move forward had to either be added to an individual’s work goals, to be considered during their annual performance communication, or else included in documents like our team contract and other official procedures.
While it seems easy to sum up this work in a few paragraphs, it took many months to accomplish what’s described here. A lot of this was because we deliberately left time for reflection in between stages, to make sure all viewpoints were heard and everyone had a chance to comment, being aware of the different modalities with which different team members were most comfortable. To continue the work and support accountability and transparency within the team, we have held ongoing meetings (ad hoc or as part of our regularly scheduled team meetings) to ensure we are meeting deadlines set for action and reviewing the action list. And you reading this blog post helps support our transparency and accountability externally, so to you as a reader, thank you!
This job is ongoing; it’s a marathon, not a sprint. There is so much we haven’t done, and so much more to do. We are trying to play our part, and we hope that sharing this information about our approach, our actions, and our process may be useful to others. This is just a beginning. If you have feedback or suggestions that you would like to share, we would welcome them. Please let us know.
1. There is a range of opinions over whether to capitalize “white” in this type of discussion. While it is not the preferred style of many, failing to do so may center “whiteness” as the default. In these blogs, we have chosen to write in a style that generally avoids use of the term, except in quotes from other papers, where we have retained the original capitalization or lack thereof, and in phrases like “anti-white supremacy culture” or “combat white supremacy culture”, where the intention seems clear.
2. My personal identifiers: White, Jewish, straight, cis-gender male. There are a range of opinions as to whether someone with those identifiers is well suited to lead anti-racist and anti-white supremacy culture work. It ‘s good for those with historical privilege to step up to address these issues; on the other hand, it perpetuates systemic power structures.
3. “white supremacy culture”, Tema Okun, dRworks, www.dismantlingracism.org.
4. Within in our team, we continually stress that since developing an anti-racist strategy is a process, it’s never too late to share thoughts and ideas. This isn’t the type of project where at some point discussion needs to be cut off so work can proceed on a timeline. We are taking real actions that will effect change, but within our team, the discussion is also a vital part of the work. Everyone should feel the safety to share their thoughts at any time, since it’s very easy for people to always self-doubt “is this the right time to say this?” and then never say it.
