Modern Institutions are Fighting Racism with More Race

This entry identifies how modern institutions are fighting racism through a hyperactive preoccupation with meaningless physical characteristics to counteract the symptoms of social and material disparity, originating well beyond the effectual control of individual organizations. Subsequently, organization executives and directors engage in often relentless racial campaigns evoking partisan definitions of equality, equity, and inclusion while simultaneously contradicting and defeating these originating principles at every turn, projecting the presence of unconscious bias in others while ignoring the possibility of their own, and prioritizing participation based on demographics versus content and contribution.

A Healthy Dose of Racism

Within our current socieo-political climate, I have been reluctantly conditioned to expect a relentless bombardment of racially motivated and divisive propaganda in nearly every nook and cranny of civilized existence.  It seems impossible to clip a coupon, watch a football game, purchase art supplies for my children, buy a carton of eggs, or do any of the most basic daily tasks without having someone else’s physical characteristics shoved in my face at every turn. 

I’m told to buy “black products” when I never cared enough to look at a business owner’s racial demographics in the first place, so why would I start now?  I’m told to “celebrate black voices” when I thought we were supposed to celebrate content, not skin.  I’m told to celebrate black history when I’m more interested in American history which inevitably includes heroes and innovators of diverse backgrounds and ethnic origins. 

How is this political fascination with race leading to any improvement, in any category, for effected populations?  Do racial minorities really want to be celebrated for their skin and not their accomplishments?  Do you want me to buy your product because you are black, or because your unwavering motivation, relentless ingenuity, and unstoppable ambition is reflected within the quality of what you produce?  Are achievements not cheapened if we have to add skin color to evoke any significant recognition?  Are we actually giving opportunities to individuals that did not previously have one, and where is the evidence of this?

Are we attempting to artificially manufacture superficially interpreted diversity, waging an ethnic and cultural war on “whiteness”, while those communities who are disproportionately suffering experience little to no improvement within a system predicated on optical change to symptoms and false generosity, with root causes remaining predominantly unaddressed?

That being said, whenever I receive a flyer, journal, or some variety of publication in the mail, I automatically assume it will contain commentary on race to some degree.  Does this reflect the importance of racial dynamics in our country, or are politically motivated entities exerting psychological manipulation the most seasoned advertising experts would be envious of? 

Are we improving issues, or utilizing the same strategies that created these problems in the first place, ultimately repeating exactly the same mistakes?  Are we subjecting new populations to the same social afflictions, applying more attractive and persuasive labels to reverse who experiences a problem, rather than eradicate it? 

Some time ago, I received the March 2022 edition of Froedtert Today, a triannual medical periodical and advertisement for the health organization.  Within the very first page, President and CEO Cathy Jacobson identifies the effects of racism within her organization, and the applied strategies intended to manage discrimination.  There is apparently even an entire webpage devoted to this topic. 

These strategies include staff training concerning “unconscious bias”, identifying minority owned suppliers to invest in, and improving the level of diversity within the upper echelons of the organization.  Unfortunately, despite being more than a year removed from publication, the content remains socially relevant. Let’s critically address how modern institutions are fighting racism.

If Your Bias is “Unconscious”, How Are You Aware of It?

One way in which modern institutions are fighting racism is through so-called “unconscious bias”. But doesn’t this mean that the people who are unknowingly racist are the same ones applying initiatives to counteract unconscious bias?  How do they know their initiatives are not rooted in racism if they didn’t know they were being racist in the first place?

How do we know those who designed racial bias and sensitivity training didn’t do so partially based on skewed racial perceptions?  Does it matter what race they are?  We seem to put a superficial focus on “racism”, applied to only one “kind” of people, as an all-inclusive blanketed judgement without any consideration for what may be motivating potential bias. What if those who identify bias in others are motivated by their own without knowing?

If you commit a dangerous act “safely” over hundreds of attempts, does that prove that the nature of the activity is not actually dangerous, or does the perception of your experience create a false impression? Should it be implied that you are an idiot for such narrow-minded thinking, only analyzing known factors, or should someone kindly show you additional evidence that clearly illustrates the potentially devastating results of your actions?

In comparison, what if a “white” person living in a lower-class neighborhood perceives consistent participation in violent crime and various illegal activities exclusively by black residents as an inherent characteristic of “blackness”? Should this person be automatically judged and socially ostracized for getting the wrong idea from a circumstantial observation without knowledge or appreciation for the historical systemic oppression of African Americans contributing to disproportionate impoverishment, or the strong correlation between socio-economic status and certain brands of crime?

Now, what if a black person perceives a mutually exclusive relationship between racism and “whiteness” as the result of legitimate experiences, assumptive perceptions, emotionally charged literature inspired by Critical Race Theory, and racially manipulative narratives propagated by the liberal mainstream establishment, projecting qualitative examples of potential discrimination as quantitative evidence of a pervasive condition?

Ironically, activists can identify “unconscious” bias in others, yet are deeply motivated by their own without realizing it.

So what’s the point? Maybe racial “bias” is not as “black and white” as the self-righteous defenders of “equality” want you to think. Under almost identical circumstances, we will brand one person as a monster and the other as a helpless victim. Maybe the real “monsters” are those stoking the flames of fear and division. Maybe wisdom and “kindness” are far more effective tools against the looming shadow of racist sentiment than simply fulfilling an internal desire for fighting racism with aggressive, antagonistic, and passive aggressive strategies. “Kindness is everything” up until we are afforded an opportunity to prove it. Unfortunately revenge, power, and control are far more satisfying.

Some people seem convinced that victim and perpetrator roles are exclusive to certain races.  It is often asserted if you are Black in America, you are automatically oppressed and impossibly immune to your own acts of racism, especially against privileged white supremist terrorists who themselves cannot experience racism and instead are accountable for racist acts committed by other white people up to but not limited to hundreds of years ago.  

Of course, these rules change if you are a black conservative or moderate who is tired of this garbage in which case you are labeled an “Uncle Tom” in some cases, or ignored in others, which doesn’t exactly reflect a celebration of “black” voices or racial tolerance, does it? Of course, under no conceivable circumstance could those asserting the liberally conjured racial narrative in America be guilty of bias themselves, unconscious or otherwise.

Does Removing “Whiteness” Improve Diversity?

Another way in which modern institutions are fighting racism is through so-called diversity initiatives, which requires prioritizing skin color over qualification while artificially diminishing the presence of “whiteness”, which in theory is illegal as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

So, does Froedtert Health need to be investigated for racially discriminatory practices?  Their President and CEO seems to think so, since she believes that her leadership team needs to be “diversified”.  Does this mean they previously discriminated under the basis of skin color, which is illegal?  If they didn’t, doesn’t that mean they hired the most qualified individuals for available positions? 

Ironically, within a periodical where improved “diversity” is claimed to be a high priority, very few of the people depicted in the magazine have an outward appearance of “racial diversity”.  Of the 39 individuals shown throughout the magazine, whether doctors, patients, or hired stand-ins, 31 of them appear Caucasian.  In addition, only two of the 39 individuals have a noticeably darker complexion.  How does this reflect the supposed values of the company? 

A legal notice on the same page asserts that Froedtert Health does not discriminate on the basis of various demographics, including race.  Yet, does an intension to improve “racial diversity” within the organization not require excluding some people under the basis of race to manufacture an “improvement”?  If you are not hiring people as a result of their race, how do you improve “racial diversity”? 

If you are considering all candidates regardless of race, instead judging them based on qualifications, experience, education, skills, and unique perspectives, were you not doing this in the first place, in accordance with the Civil Rights act of 1964?  Does this strategy not reflect your legal disclaimer to a higher degree than applying a politically subjective and purposefully integrated initiative like superficial diversity campaigns? 

Does collecting “one of each flavor” or checking boxes improve diversity or cheapen and diminish humanity?  What happens when you have a group of people that all look different yet essentially think the same way?  Are we not feeding an emotional perception of artificial diversity versus removing hindrances that prevent equal opportunity as opposed to equal participation?  What happens when the quality of product or performance diminishes because we are not exclusively prioritizing qualification and personal content with associated hiring practices?

If you have to coerce supervisors and executives to hire a more “diverse” workforce, who does this reflect more negatively on?  It makes everyone look bad.  The issue is of course, most liberally concocted diversity initiatives are primarily designed to remove “whiteness”, not improve diversity.  If diversity is a matter of insight, perspective, background, and cultural influence, then how does a primary focus on physical characteristics ensure that is what you are getting?

No one should be excluded based on skin color, hair style, or expressions of culture.  However, no one should be included because of these things either.  Inclusion and exclusion in this regard are essentially the same, the only thing that changes is personal perception, emotionally motivated justifications, and who is receiving the short end of the stick.  Explain how that practice achieves either equality or equity? 

Of course, it isn’t considered racist to insinuate that white people, a large population judged exclusively by a singular superficial characteristic despite a vast diversity of cultures, origins, and backgrounds, are the antithesis of diversity and culture, and in fact an enemy to these things; a concept social justice rhetoric is often unapologetically reliant on.  But actions speak louder than words.  We aren’t looking for “justice”, we are looking for revenge. 

“Kindness is everything” up until we are afforded an opportunity to prove it

We are attempting to improve “equality” with unequal treatment, which is why the word “equity” is a reoccurring replacement.  Whenever gaps in logic, reason, and common sense are identified, it seems we are making minor adjustments to maintain a faulty argument which leads to superficial results but no actual improvement to root sources of inequality, instead of identifying intellectual flaws in our ideology while adjusting our subsequent approach.  Which is why we defund the police, only to have murder and other crime increase at horrifying rates.  Not even our president, who is at perpetual risk for a “silver alert”, supports this initiative. 

We are hyper focused on providing increased opportunity based on skin color, which is not an adequate measurement of case-by-case need, attempting to address symptoms of inequity within a workplace when the true source of disproportionate negative outcomes extends far beyond the scale and scope of individual organizations.  Does attempting to artificially manufacture diversity within an organization do anything to address or alleviate the root causes that fuel a lack of equal opportunity?

In this regard, until we adequately address the substandard conditions within our inner cities including but not limited to crime, incarceration, nutrition, education, housing, and income, disproportionately experienced by “black” Americans, addressing inequality through racial participation on an institutional level is analogous to giving cough drops to a lung cancer patient. It may defer symptoms, and it may help a select number of individuals while incubating new problems, but it won’t rectify the root cause. If the true sources of social disparity were adequately addressed, artificially manipulated diversity initiatives would theoretically cease to exist. The discussion around how modern institutions are fighting racism requires a diverse set of perspectives rather than the same failed, counterintuitive, racist applications of policy.

Wait…Your Black Products Look Like My White Products!

Another manner in which modern institutions are fighting racism, as identified in the Froedtert publication, is purchasing materials based on the demographics of the supplier. Does contracting a supplier based on their physical characteristics really combat racism and inequity?  I’m still waiting for an unbiased, logical assessment of this counterintuitive practice. 

Minorities do not require racially motivated handouts from their white liberal saviors.  They simply need to be judged according to their content, not their skin, their eyes, their nose, or their hair.  We went from judging people negatively based on these things, to judging them positively based on these things, when in reality both practices ultimately yield the same result.  This really isn’t that hard. 

How does hiring “minorities” prove you are giving a chance to someone who didn’t already have one?  Are we saying that minorities are so incapable of paving their own way that they require guilt driven, shamed, and privileged individuals to provide an opportunity otherwise unavailable to them, cheapening their accomplishment by prioritizing their skin rather than their qualifications, suggesting they couldn’t do it otherwise?  Conservatives would never get away with such perverted ideology.  It seems as though we are fighting the right war with the wrong strategy.

Ironically, we aren’t concerned about creating “stigmas” by overusing generalizations that blacks or other racial minorities as underserved, underprivileged, under-educated, racially disenfranchised, helpless victims of oppression despite this constant narrative.  Conservatives can’t sneeze in the wrong direction without being called racist, yet this flies?  

Valuing skin positively or negatively is rooted in segregation and racism, so why therefore if we are supposedly fighting racism is this such a pervasive trend?

Explain how being racially motivated undermines racism?  Why can we not just be motivated by substandard living conditions faced by humanity, focusing on a problem instead of the skin of affected populations?  If your focus is skin, there is no guarantee you are helping those in need, and no guarantee you are actually addressing the true source of an issue.  But, if you focus on an issue, say inner city poverty, are you not by default aiding any population disproportionately affected by that issue?  Could an obsessive focus on skin color be inadvertently illuminating your own bias you think you’re immune to?

For argument’s sake, what if you have a well-established and prospering African American medical product supplier with multiple existing contracts on the one hand, and on the other you have a white owned supplier who is struggling financially despite offering the same level of quality yet improved customer service and quicker delivery times because they currently have fewer contracts?  In the name of racial equity, which one do you choose? 

Inequity began with a superficial consideration of skin color; do we really believe we will improve racial inequity by applying unequal treatment motivated by skin?  Where will our society be in 50 years if we continue to celebrate one race and antagonize another?  Chances are, “historical context” will be evoked to justify any level of racially inequitable treatment, giving “blacks” their turn on the top while “whites” are slowly phased out of society for their “violent” and “racist” nature.

What is the redeeming value of separating EVERYTHING by skin color?  Were “white” people not interested in “black” things before it was popular to explicitly identify content by racial designations?  Growing up, I enjoyed watching the Fresh Prince of Belair, In Living Color, Moesha, Family Matters, The Bill Cosby Show, and a slew of other shows that would be labeled as “black” shows in today’s environment.  Of course, we didn’t need a racially charged incentive to motivate viewership by a non-black audience.  They were well written, entertaining, and relatable, containing universal values with real world issues without serving an overbearing political agenda. 

If “white” things are not identified as “white”, doesn’t that imply that “whiteness” is normal, which is the exact opposite intension of this non-sensical practice?  How is this practice not incredibly insulting and incredibly racist?  Valuing skin positively or negatively is irreconcilably rooted in segregation and racism, so why therefore if we are supposedly fighting racism is this such a pervasive trend? Do the applied strategies indicate modern institutions are fighting racism…or contributing to it?

When Fighting Racism Becomes More Important than Fixing Problems

While it is certainly true that racism is a threat to physical, mental, and spiritual health, the strategies employed to address this threat are equally instrumental.  How modern institutions are fighting racism is important. Imagine fighting a pervasive inner-city culture of violence, substance abuse, crime, malnutrition, substandard education, material hardships, and an inescapable hopeless compounded by politically manipulative rhetoric…with “pro-black” advertisements in department stores darted across the suburban landscape.  Imagine fixing this problem by teaching white school children who have no sense of race that there is something wrong with them because of their skin.  Imagine prioritizing unqualified employment candidates with particular demographic characteristics to solve a problem that can’t be fixed at the employment level. These initiatives will surely end the negative effects of “racism” rather than exasperate them…right?

In the current era, it seems we don’t have to actually fix anything, just play the politically commanded part, make appearances attractive, and ignore adverse ramifications of collateral damage.  Fighting racism has become more important than actually solving any problems. To see more illogical, contradictory social mandates in action, click here.

Ironically, activists can identify “unconscious” bias in others, yet are deeply motivated by their own without realizing it.  Those projecting unconscious bias are attempting to solve racism…with more racism.  The damage being caused seems pretty irrelevant, as does the lack of significant and sustainable improvement for disproportionately affected populations, appeased by pretty words, emotional manipulation, patronizing conformity, racially divisive hysterics, and insincere promises producing decades of superficial effort and logistical futility.