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.

Where You Sit Is Where You Probably Stand (on Crowley-gate)

Last night’s teachable moment was a bust for me. My grandiose expectations in the days leading up to what was supposed to be a conciliatory meeting were steadily deflated. The meeting, which some viewed as a grown-up way of dealing with a tense issue that was blown out of proportion, was trivialized by many others. Commentators referred to the gathering as a “beer fest”, the “beer summit” and asked foolish questions about the types of ale the men would be drinking. These dis-missives were only the beginning.

Was it just me or was the actual meeting anti-climactic? The only stirring action was learning that Sergeant Crowley appeared at the White House with his attorney and his union representative. After it was all over, I wondered if I was watching the same press conference as Chris Matthews, who seemed to think that Crowley walked on air after the press conference. Seeing a different story than my brethren in White media has been my experience throughout Crowley-gate.

Most likely, if you are White you sided with Crowley. Even if you believed that Crowley may have gone too far, you wanted to see him survive. The will to see Crowley vindicated was clearly drawn down racial lines in the press I followed—your New York Times’, MSNBCs, and CNNs. With the exception of Lawrence O’Donnell, every white commentator who admitted to empathizing with Professor Gates’ and acknowledged how race plays a significant part in the criminal justice system, couldn’t wait to deride the President for talking out of turn on such a local issue. Some even called for him to apologize. Many didn’t talk about how the 911 recording (which didn’t mention race) turned Crowley’s race-riddled police report into fiction. Let’s face it, no one wants to look bad, and that’s exactly what officer Crowley did for many liberal White Americans.

So, after Crowley closed the book on this ugly chapter of his life with a lackluster press conference, his supporters—many of whom shared his race—were eagerly awaiting with three cheers. He was a natural! He could be a spokesperson for Blue Moon Beer! He may even have a career in politics!

Meanwhile, many in the Black community wanted more out of last night. From the outset, many sided with Professor Gates based on their reality of encountering overzealous police officers. Many cheered Obama for saying that Sgt. Crowley acted stupidly. They wanted more public dialogues on race. Instead, last night they saw a white guy get over again. Many saw Crowley, a man who abused the power of his badge, get a pretty cool reward—a beer with President Obama.

The only teachable moment for me was that even in “post-racial,” America where you sit as a race is probably where you will stand on an issue. Crowley and Gates were not the only two to walk away from last night’s event agreeing to disagree. The rest of America, polarized by race, dug its heels into the positions and sides they took on this issue, and as usual, our communities will continue to agree to disagree.

Workplace Diversity: What Happens When White Men Don't Want It

Thomas Friedman probably did not intend to offer any insights about white-male bias in yesterday’s New York Times Op-ed “59 is the new 39,” but the diversity consultant in me could not ignore how his underlying theme explained why diversity is a dilemma in Corporate America and law firms: diversity efforts fail when white men don’t give a damn about their employees of color.

Yesterday, Friedman gushed about how he identified with a 59 year-old golfer and how this affinity engendered a personal stake in the golfer’s tournament, writing, “…if you are a baby boomer you could not help but look at him and say something you would never say about Tiger or Kobe: ‘He’s my age; he’s my build; he’s my height and he even had his hip replaced like me. If he can do that, maybe I can do something like that, too.”

To a certain extent, we are all guilty of identity-bias. Friedman and I share a healthy bias in wanting to see those who we identify with succeed. (I’ll admit that every time I see President Obama’s popularity poll numbers slip, I wince.) However, white men, who are still the majority of executives and partners in corporations and law firms, can kill a diversity initiative if their identity bias is only based on physical affinity.

Almost every professional of color I featured in my book, “Recruiting & Retaining a Diverse Workforce: New Rules for a New Generation,” watched their senior-level white supervisor champion the success of a lucky-to-be-white guy. Whether senior white male executives identify with junior-level white men because they are reminders of their more youthful days or reminders of their children, the result is the same. Junior-level white men are getting better access to informal and formal mentoring.

A few years ago when I was giving a diversity presentation to a group lawyers, an earnest white male partner asked why associates of color tend to leave law firms after a few years. A recent study by Catalyst, the non-profit that conducts research about race and gender issues in the workplace, released a study last week that put statistics to the partner’s retention quandary. According to the study, 86% of women attorneys of color leave their law firms by their seventh year. Even more startling, all of the firms that participated in the study have diversity and inclusion programs. Why aren’t these programs working? It’s simple. Until senior-level white men take a stake in the success of their employees of color, their organizations’ retention and promotion efforts will fail.

When white male executives sincerely ask how they can keep more of their Black, Asian and Latino talent, I ask, how much do they really want them? If senior-level white men siphoned some of their identity bias toward the Asian man or Black woman in the office, racial diversity wouldn’t be an issue. More white male executives have to want their employees of color to succeed. More white male executives need to stop by the offices of their employees of color to check in and see how they are doing; give unsolicited and invaluable advice about career tracks; or make it their business to assign the next high-profile matter to a person of color. White men are capable of this type of obsession with another’s success. If you don’t believe me, just ask Thomas Friedman.

Why America Needs the Rage of the Privileged Black Class

After gathering the pertinent facts surrounding last week’s arrest of distinguished Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates—reading the police report, reviewing Massachusetts’ disorderly conduct statute, and watching the Cambridge police’s press conference—I’m confident in my assessment. Sergeant Crowley acted stupidly.

Leave it up to Professor Gates—noted scholar and documentarian—to unknowingly stoke the fires of a national conversation about race and our criminal justice system. As many of us looked at the pictures of Professor Gates being carried out of his house in handcuffs, regardless of race, many of us could relate to his sense of indignation. After all, our home is our castle. Sgt. Crowley practically admitted that Professor Gates was not a threat when he wrote in his police report, “While I was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence, I was quite surprised and confused with the behavior he exhibited toward me." However, he still decided to charge Professor Gates with the same statute that applies to a “common night walker,” “brawlers,” and “persons guilty of indecent exposure.” The only threat Professor Gates presented was a threat to Sgt. Crowley’s ego.

America needed someone like Professor Gates to “overreact” to Sgt. Crowley. The pictures that captured Professor Gates with his mouth wide open and handcuffed, captured his rage as a member of a privileged intellectual class. In sharp contrast to the no-named men and women who have kowtowed to the police to avoid bogus arrest charges, Professor Gates got loud with his arresting officer. Professor Gates’ prestige and stature brought a spotlight to the uglier side of police culture.

We live in a country where some police officers have gone wild and act like adrenaline cowboys. For instance, earlier this year, we watched the video of a Dallas police officer detain a distressed NFL player in a hospital parking lot as he pled to see a dying family member. Two years ago, we felt for Melissa Langston as a Tampa police officer slammed her to the trunk of her car and arrested her as she tried to explain that she was speeding to see her father who had just suffered a heart attack. For anyone who has ever felt disrespected by a nasty cop, Professor Gates is giving you the national voice that you never had.

Our country also needed to hear President Obama’s visceral response to the Cambridge police department. While some believe that the President should not have gotten involved in such a local issue, the reality is that the Gates arrest was not a news story until President Obama entered the scene. Who else could get our media obsessed with the issues of race and our criminal justice system? Who else could make this a teachable moment? Over the next few weeks, we are bound to have more community forums about the police and their relationship with the communities that are supposed to protect and serve. Given the opportunity for improved police-community relations, it’s actually a good thing that Sgt. Crowley didn’t know who he was “messing” with.

Greetings,

The civil rights activist Charles Hamilton Houston once said that he would rather die on his feet than live on his knees. I often see this quote play itself out when I watch the allies to diversity stand by their decisions to support difficult positions or unpopular groups.

A few years ago, my husband took a stand and supported the rights of the LGBT community in Connecticut. I'll admit, I thought this was a risky and unnecessary move. America has still not fully embraced this community and I felt that he would gain more enemies than supporters. However, his moral compass was right.

My husband's decision to die on his feet if it meant standing up for the LGBT community was not in vain. Last week, he won the Democratic primary for State Representative in Connecticut, in part, because of the full support of the LGBT community. In addition to receiving an endorsement from Love Makes a Family, an organization that is dedicated to advancing LGBT equality, members of the LGBT community volunteered numerous hours working for Gary's campaign.

This experience reminded me that when we are on the right side of an issue, we may have to wade through difficult waters, but eventually we will prevail.

Click here to see video from the opponent's premature election party
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2008/08/blango.php