If you were in Goshen Indiana 55 years ago this past week
and had two bucks rattling around in your pocket, you could have gone to see
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. speak on "The Future of Integration". If you were on a tight budget, you could get
the cheap seats for $1.25. In the Union
Auditorium you would have encountered a number of passionate northern college
students deeply committed to address the scourge of racism that was wracking
the country. With any luck, you would've
met my dad there.
This past week I was asked to address Rev. Jesse Jackson's
RainbowPUSH Wall Street Project conference in New York City. This event - part of Rev. Jackson's on-going
effort to highlight the absence of minority participation in the economy with a
special focus on the tech sector - was about as diverse as the Union Auditorium
would have been in 1960. And,
regrettably, though the pages of the calendar have long faded in oblivion, the
Sheraton Time Square was not filled with evidence of the giant strides we made
as a society to eradicate ethnic bigotry.
Instead, it was an echo of aspiration to access that is still denied
humans by virtue of capricious contempt and toxic xenophobia.
The phenotype expressed through pigment is still an agency
of social division no matter how much we may wish it to be otherwise. Access to capital, interest rates, access to
business opportunities, access to education, access to housing, and access to
many other opportunities are still mediated by the wavelength of reflected
epithelial light. This is as wrong now
as it was 55 years ago in Indiana. And
our approach to addressing this human rights abuse (that's right, the U.S. is still
a supporter of human rights abuses) is potentially more harmful today than it
was 6 decades ago. Why? Well let me answer the question and then
unpack my perspective. By thinking that
we're doing something - like the Congressional debates on 49 U.S.C. § 47113
regarding "minority and disadvantaged business participation" - we
are confirming our unwillingness to have a zero tolerance policy for any form
of bigotry and racism. And worse, by the
persistent use of "set-asides" and "accommodations", we
allow racists to persist in their bigotry by imposing a participation tax where
minority businesses are seen as a necessary social cause rather than a valued
player on an equivalent field. Sure,
we'll grant minority and women owned businesses 5-10% of our government
procurement or corporate supply chain but we'll do nothing to provide the
capital infrastructure to let that glass floor ever be breached.
President Richard Nixon established the Office of Minority
Business Enterprise with his Executive Order 11458 and with it formalized the access
agenda. This unleashed the
formation of many acronym-laden committees, councils and boards all with an aim
towards…, um, well, apparently, conversations about how access should be
equivalent. But with 20% of the U.S.
population identified as Black or African/American and roughly half of the population
women, it's clear that we are not serious about the access "aspirational
goals" to say nothing about representational mandates. As recently as the past two years, we still
define economically disadvantaged individuals and businesses as, "those socially disadvantaged… whose ability
to compete in the free enterprise system has been impaired due to diminished
capital and credit opportunities as compared to others in the same business are
who are not socially disadvantaged."
But the same Congress that defines disadvantage in the past tense also
recommended limiting sole-source contracts to "disadvantaged
businesses" at values capped at $4 million and construction contracts at
$65 million. In short, what we have done
in 55 years is opened the door ajar to afford a modicum of access but we've
insured that no one actually makes it into the ballroom.
In 1969 the U.S. Census Bureau reported that there were
about 163,000 black-owned and 100,000 Spanish-speaking minority-owned
firms. You read this correctly. One wave-length of light and one cultural
acoustic discrimination. The same survey
taken in 2007 reported 5.8 million minority-owned firms. And to be sure, the MBDA, NMSDC, RainbowPUSH,
and others have done an amazing job of getting more businesses into the foyer
of enterprise. But, the idea that the
next tech IPO, the next financial services innovation, the next social media
tsunami will be led by someone categorized as "minority" is as remote
at the RainbowPUSH conference as it was in Goshen.
I don't know what it is about the Sheraton Times Square in
NYC that gives me that "minority feeling". Several months ago, I attended the Emerging Women's Summit to absorb the
wisdom of my dear friend Sera Beak.
Being one of the only guys in the room, I was acutely aware of being the
one that stands out. This week, I was one
of the few appearance-minority wave-length reflectors of a particular hue. In both instances, I had something to add to
the conversation. And in both instances,
what I had to share was indecipherable against the backdrop of
segregation. We The People are not
merely the wavelength of light our skin reflects. We are not merely the genitals which grace
our loins or the fat deposits which adorn our chests. Or the hair that some of us have! Our experiments fueled by reflexive revulsion
to our pathetic impulse to separate and segregate have morphed the impulse
towards access into an anemic
accommodation. We're willing to
tolerate each other on the best of days.
But as we are not engaging conversations or experiments in integrated activation leading to emanating
productivity we are destined to aspire to much and achieve very
little.
This is not a U.S. phenomenon. Segregation and the violence it engenders
shows up in religious, political, class and gender illusions the world
over. It comes in the form of ethnic and
gender adjective-laced population generalizations, colonial
"development" bribes to usurp landowner and citizens of the rights
and resources, impulses to "development", "poverty
eradication", "Aid", and other insidious social schemes to
reinforce disintegrated illusions to reinforce power delusions. And it's as likely to show up harming and
diminishing communities of persistence from the Lakota and Navajo to
Bougainville and Amazonia - all justified by the appearance of "the other"
at the expense of their explicit engagement by those who wield the agencies of
power and domination.
So rather than lament the hopeless state we're in, we're
actively changing the game. Working with
my amazing friends and colleagues Theresa Arek, Lawrence Daveona, Rodney Woods,
Tracy McGrady, Michael Redd, Josh Childress, Duane and Kim Starks, Pam Cole, Robert Smith, Progress
Investments, Valerie Mosely, Michael Lythcott, Jennifer Carter-Scott, Dustin
and Michael DiPerna, Leo Burke, Colleen Martin, Pieter Fourie, Jimmy Smith,
Katie Martin, Karen Knowles and dozens of others, we're answering the questions
that Martin Luther King Jr. posed 55 years ago this week. We're not waiting for a future - not
tenaciously holding onto a dream. We're
forging a path defined by integrity and character - not by any agency of
division. We are deploying a technology
in the social media space which will include a diversity ownership
structure. We have launched and are
launching sophisticated investment platforms and products not available from
any "majority" owned firm.
Silently placing fulcrum under systems of oppression and segregation,
we're beginning to introduce a wobble that sees the vision articulated from the
mountaintop and raises it to a whole new level.
And who knows? Maybe we will, in
so doing, form a More Perfect Union! And
it might not take us another 55 years.
On this Martin Luther King Jr. Day 2015, let's wake from the
Dream and start living!
x
I was indeed present at that lecture in Goshen in 1960. One of the big issues in race relations at that time was interracial marriage, even for those who accepted the concept but saw that children of those marriages often had a rough time. During the question and answer period someone asked Dr. King about the issue. I shall always remember Dr. King's classy reply. To the question he replied "we want to be your brother, not brother-in-law".
ReplyDeleteDad
What a great response and thanks for adding the perspective from the actual attendee's view.
Delete