Uh Oh, Here We Go Again with Ebonics 2.0

Teacher U, a collaboration of teaching organizations—including Teach for America—made a frail attempt to exhume the 1990’s Ebonics debacle by acknowledging African American English in their training curriculum. After having their teachers-in-training read the article, Phonological Features of Chile African American English, which appeared in a June 2003 use of American Speech-Language Hearing Association, they were assigned to “translate” the following sentences into their “African American English form:”

1. My aunt used to live in Baltimore with my three cousins but last year she moved to New York.

2. John doesn’t mind being late for school because he doesn’t like to go to Ms. Johnson’s music class.

3. Deborah liked to play with the girl that sat next to her at school.

And so on. (Unfortunately, I don’t have access to the teacher’s guide so your translation guesses are as good as mine.)

Giving Teacher U the benefit of the doubt, they may have had good intentions. They may have been trying to make their next generation of teachers aware of inner-city culture. Sometimes, you have to know where someone is coming from before you can help them. For instance, years ago, I worked with an attorney from upper-middle San Francisco who had difficulty communicating with our African-American clients because she didn’t understand that “having sugar” meant having diabetes.

However, what is African American English? With the mainstream using terms such as “kickin’ it old school” and “holla,” African Americans lost any market share they had on urban slang a long time ago.

Recognition of misspoken English will do nothing to help these children or Black people in general. The children cited in the study were just 4-6 years old. These children are at a crucial age where they are developing their vocabularies and rapidly gaining a better understanding of the English language. Like all children, the children in the article probably used a wrong verb tense or two. African-American children are not alone in mispronouncing words and having an occasional verb-noun disagreement. As any English as a second language learner will tell you, the English language is probably the most difficult.

Although Teacher U teachers may be patient and willing to translate incorrect English, Corporate America is not. I cannot tell you how many discrimination cases I’ve come across where someone was fired for pronouncing “asked” as “axed.” Sorry Teacher U, but this assignment gets an F.

When Comedy Meets Workplace Diversity

Last week, as I was piecing together a diversity training presentation, I came across my “Two Wongs Don’t Make a White” slide. This corny play on words was used as a t-shirt graphic by the clothing company Abercrombie & Fitch in the earlier part of this decade. Thank goodness those t-shirts didn’t get much play and were dragged off of the market, along with Abercrombie’s image as an equal opportunity employer. (The retailer has also faced failure to hire and promote discrimination lawsuits.) Although the retailer, today, is making an effort to redeem itself, I couldn’t help but wonder what they were thinking when they exposed the market to those t-shirts. Have the lines of culturally insensitive jokes been so drastically moved that even a large retailer doesn’t know the difference between wrong and right?

With the advent of diversity and multi-culturalism, many of the invisible racial barriers in society are slowly fading away thanks, in part, to entertainment. With Justin Timberlake and Amy Winehouse producing some of the best R&B music, it’s hard to have white radio stations and black radio stations. Reality television shows openly parade mixed race-couples, making them less of a taboo or head turner.

Comedians, especially, have been the greatest catalysts for making other cultures less mysterious by lifting the lid off of what were once private inside jokes. You have Rex Navarrette openly joking about Filipino time (that is, being 20 minutes late to everything). George Lopez pokes fun at his Latino brothers and sisters on HBO specials and his network television show. Larry the Cable Guy gives Northern urbanites comedic insight to redneck life.

What happens when people at work decide to re-tell a joke they heard from Navarrette, Lopez, or Larry? Is it ok to laugh at or make a joke about another race, culture, or religion? These were the questions underlying my reasons for not watching the Dave Chappelle show.

Now, I never started a mass boycott against the show, but I was vocal about why I didn’t tune in. While I never judged anyone for watching the show, I just couldn’t support a show that profusely overuses the “N” word on national television. I felt that his show, which was written by a multi-racial staff, could be used to defend the use of the “N” word. I knew that some would argue that the word had evolved to the point where it was no longer an offensive racial epithet to denigrate black people and could be used by any and everyone. I was not ready for that level of evolution.

Comedy is tricky. The same slurs, epithets, and offensive language that comics use to get laughs, can create disrespect in the workplace, school and in other social settings. I’m sure that some snarky designer at Abercrombie & Fitch probably thought he or she was appealing to the public’s sense of humor about Asians with the hideous “Wong” t-shirts. As Abercrombie reminds us, context matters. Material that works in a nightclub often falls flat in the office.

Hell Hath No Fury Like Hillary Clinton

Yesterday, I cheered when I read the transcript of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's response when a student asked about Bill Clinton's thoughts on foreign policy. Her words crisply asserted that she was the Secretary of State and that she would not be "channeling" her husband's thoughts on any foreign policy issues. Her tone was everything I want in a chief foreign affairs adviser--clear, no-nonsense and direct. However, reading Sec. Clinton's exchange and seeing it have become two different stories.

When I saw Secretary Clinton sitting slightly slouched, looking like she was ready to jump out of her chair and into the face of the student-audience member, I could see the double standard coming. Many of the news reports were quick to conclude that she was just raving mad. "She lost her cool!" "She just lost it." The news sound bites are already buzzing about Sec. Clinton's infamous temper and have hurled the sobriquet "Hitlerly" at her. This will probably be the news story that will get more coverage than all of the good work she has done on her international tour.

Many of the women news reporters, though, were willing to find the back story of the situation. Some reasoned that Sec. Clinton was probably jet lagged from an arduous tour of the African continent and she probably snapped because was tired. The more courageous women reporters felt that Sec. Clinton was standing up for herself: why was someone asking her about her husband's, or any man's, thoughts?

It's baffling that Sec. Clinton's response is even a news story. Her response was completely justified. The question, as it was asked, made Sec. Clinton invisible by circumventing her opinions and asking for those of her husband's. You would be hard pressed to find a person who would not be annoyed if their work was ignored, discredited, and deemed non-existent.

Certainly, as an ambassador of goodwill, our Secretary of State needs to be diplomatic, patient, and understanding. Based on insider accounts from insiders, such as former White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers, I'm sure that Sec. Clinton probably does have a temper. She was a law firm partner after all.

However, Sec. Clinton did not loose her cool; she was merely being passionate about her job. Similar to Bill Clinton or Sen. McCain--two men whose infamous outbursts are framed as passion--she wanted to set that student straight. While she could have gone the Dick Cheney route and told the student to go you know what himself, she instead tersely corrected the student who apparently did not know realize that the U.S. Secretary of State can think and speak for herself.

Hopefully, this incident will not turn into the media frenzy reminiscent of the Gates-Crowley affair. I really could do without another teachable moment over a beer at the White House.

What Affirmative Action Babies Can Give Back

Earlier this week I realized how easy it is to throw out an affirmative action baby with the bathwater. I took a day off from my diversity consulting practice to participate in a mock interview session for an organization that provides mentoring and other support for attorneys of color. I sat across from a tense, African-American woman in a poly-blend suit who did not crack a smile. Her posture betrayed her lack of confidence and she bombed my canned interview questions. In a brief moment of smugness, I wondered if I was ever that choppy in an interview. I'm sure that Senator David Vitter would resoundingly say yes.

When I was a law student, David Vitter, in his pre-Senate days, was my mock interviewer when I participated in a leadership program for minority law students. Aside from his office (and bedroom) politics, I thought he was a great person for sharing a few hours of his Saturday to polish up my interviewing skills. Even though my style at the time was as coarse, if not more so than the young woman I mock interviewed, David did not write me off. Whether his community service was driven by ambition to get votes or was genuine, it really doesn't matter because in the end the result is the same--he was there for me.

When I learned that there was a shortage of mock interviewers last week, I was reminded that too often, those of us who have benefited from affirmative action forget how and when to give back. You have those who forget that anyone ever helped them and as a result, do not help others. Then you have those who will help out but will only invest their time in those they deem the talented tenth. Others will only write a check to support a charity fundraiser. (I think they are too afraid to have any human contact with the people who are standing in the shoes we have since discarded.)

I can already hear the ripostes from both sides of the affirmative action divide. "I'm no affirmative action baby, I worked hard to get where I am," or "Why should I have to do anything for anyone else?"

I would challenge most people (even white people), to show me that they have not benefited from some form of affirmative action. Aside from the textbook definition affirmative action or set aside programs for minorities, you are also an affirmative action baby when someone makes a phone call on your behalf, or tells you about an unposted job opening or got your resume in front of the right person. Whether it was a structured program or well-connected relative the result is the same: someone took an affirmative act to see you succeed. It is a travesty when we forget the help we received along the way.

As I congratulate Judge Sotomayor on her historic appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, I hope that she continues to remember her roots as an affirmative action baby. I hope that she continues to talk to law students, give thought provoking speeches and mentor others along the way. There is a chance that her sense of community and her willingness to run toward it (rather than away from it) might rub off on some of the other affirmative action babies who have also arrived at the court.

Why Women of Color Can't Pull a Sarah Palin

My husband has often tried to convince me that men are simple to understand. For the most part, they are motivated by their sexual desires. Each time I try to argue with him otherwise, a man proves me wrong. This time it was Donny Deutsch.

Yesterday morning, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Donny Deutsch was a guest-anchor turned into mush. A man who just a month ago accused Palin of “manufactured outrage” during the Letterman debacle and criticized her for parading her family around during the 2008 presidential election, had a change of heart. No, Palin has not defected and become a Democrat, nor has she become more scholarly and well-reasoned in her discourse about government. Instead, it was a little rumor about Palin’s pending divorce that turned Donny into a junior-high school boy with a crush. He expressed—a number of times—that he was going to cease with the aspersions and criticisms (despite how dead-on they are) because he would like a date with Palin. Donny may be on to cracking the mystery behind why white women advance where women of color don’t.

What if white women are given preferences and breaks—where women of color are not—because white men are attracted to them? It’s no secret that men don’t check their sexual attraction to women at the office door. According to the NY Post article, “Lust for Life,” 92% of male managers admitted to being physically attracted to the women they manage. Since white men still make up over 80% of the CEOs in Fortune 500s, they are in a position to create or stymie career opportunity. And since only 7% of marriages in 2005 were interracial (according to a Stanford University study), most white men are probably married to white women are most likely going to be more attracted to a white woman that a woman of color. As a result, when a white man is in a position of authority to provide promotion opportunities, dole out quality assignments, or allow someone to recover from mistakes, a white woman might get a pass where a woman of color will not.

When we apply this theory to the legal profession, it helps to explain the clear disparities between the advancements of white women and women of color. Ten years ago, women only made up only a handful of law firm partners. Today, women now make up 17% of partners and they are one of the fastest growing groups to attain partnership. To their credit, women have been very clear in demanding help, and as a result law firms have created a number of initiatives to support women’s advancement, such as professional development initiatives, women’s committees and other similar programs. However, these initiatives are mostly helping white women. Their counterparts of color are left in the dust, making up only 1.84% of partners. How could this be?

Some experts surmise that white women have an advantage that women of color don’t; they share race with white male partners—the ostensible decision makers. However, after watching Donny this morning, I would go one step further and posit that white women also have the advantage that white men are probably more attracted to. Beyond the structured women’s development programs, there are probably white male partners giving additional feedback and critical support to white women—all in the name of hormones and attraction.