Why DEI Fails When Anyone Gets Demonized

Do others have the right to force you to adjust your behavior? From whose vantage point?

“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

George Galloway

I wonder if this search for a “safe” space is all it’s cracked up to be.

We’re halfway through 2023 and already in America, there have been over 200 mass shootings, defined as the killing of 4 or more people in a single event. More than 14,000 people have died from gun violence so far, including those who have suffered suicide. The average number of degrees of separation from one living American in 2023 to one dead American who died from gun violence has been estimated to have shrunk below 3.

The gun worshipers are correct when they point out that mental health treatment is scarce in this country. Unfortunately, it is the same people who have prevented universal healthcare (or, at least, national health) to exist, which is what makes their pleas for thoughts and prayers so hollow. But this isn’t about guns. It’s about fear.

DEI initiatives continue to be bumbled through, as though every program was being managed by a combination of the ham-handed and earnest qualities of Clifford the Big Red Dog and Baby Huey.

Mostly, there is a lot of performative DEI going around. “We promise.” “We commit.” “We pledge.” “The check is in the mail.” (I’ll stop there.)

People in groups that have real issues dealing with the fairness of their plight continually seek out more safe spaces to be their authentic selves. This sounds lofty, but without follow-through, it just turns into more empty promises, commitments, pledges, and the universal disparagement of the United States Postal System. Don’t worry, however – all the groups in need of a level playing field are used to empty promises. But this isn’t about DEI. It’s about fear.

Women are tired of being objectified in the workplace (and elsewhere). And yet they continue to be objectified in the workplace, even by other women who are tired of being objectified in the workplace. There is a fuzzy logic to “professional clothing,” although the expectations are far different among women within the same company (and men, for that matter). “Don’t wear that low-cut blouse—it’ll show your bosoms,” says one woman to another. “I don’t care,” replies the woman showing her bosoms. “This is my authentic self. I should be able to wear whatever I want in a safe space. Tell the lunatic men and women not to react to my boobs. I have a Ph.D., for chrissakes.”

I was listening to “The Ethical Rainmaker” podcast, hosted by Michelle Shireen Muri. It was recommended by a development director I met recently. The last episode happened on December 29, 2022, so I don’t know if it is a going concern. Still, I listened to that episode, entitled, “The Hidden Danger of Purity Culture,” which featured Lorraine Nibut. For this article, it doesn’t really matter what they do, except that they are both skilled professionals in the nonprofit world.

Anyway, Nibut and Muri were commiserating on the unfairness of the way women are treated in the workplace. At least, they seemed to speak for all women in all workplaces, although I’m sure that even they would tell you that their stories were anecdotal and not particularly scientific.

Nibut spoke with some angst at the lack of feeling safe for women, particularly women of color.

“It’s not until you’re able to, even on a micro level, exist in a space that feels safe enough to be exactly how you are, without judgment, and be embraced in that way, that you’re like, wow, there could be an alternative.”

Lorraine Nibut

“Purity culture” has many meanings. I had always associated it with a religious (Christian Puritan) bent. That notion—that evil happens to women and men who date too frequently, have premarital sex, and fall in lust, thinking it’s love—is a great way to subjugate women. It allows for women who have been sexually assaulted to be blamed, for example. So, you might imagine that I was surprised to see it in the title of the episode: “The Hidden Danger of Purity Culture.” It’s not as though the dangers were all that hidden.

Still, in Muri and Nibut’s definition of purity culture, women are generally subjected to unwanted lust, just because they’re women. Similarly, some women are jealous of women who are generally subjected to unwanted lust. And what I gleaned from Nibut’s statement above, as well as a majority of the show, is that people of all genders, colors, and backgrounds deserve to be their authentic selves. They want to be judged for their deeds, not their looks. They want the toxic people to change their actions, not them.

Ay, there’s the rub.

If one group of people can be allowed to be their authentic selves, why can’t another? For every person in a group that has experienced discrimination, bigotry, sexism, ageism, and all the other cultural daggers that sow fear into their hearts lies another person in a group whose authentic selves find anything other than Pleasantville (the black and white part of the movie) to be revolting, insulting, and frightening.

That’s why the talk of insurrectionists being “nut-jobs” or “insane” is counterproductive. They knew what they were doing. They wanted to do what they did. They still do.

Provoked or no, they felt (and continue to feel) frightened about their futures in this country. They were already mistaken that they enjoyed “safe spaces,” and yearn for an America that can be safe to them again (which it never was).

There’s a good reason why people can’t be their authentic selves. The problem arises when you apply that kind of thinking to those with whom you not only disagree, but fear. That’s why the search for a “safe space,” one in which someone can feel free, is a search for something that has never existed in the history of mankind. If we all lived in completely “safe” spaces, we would never interact with others. It is in the interaction—the search for “diversity” and “cultures not our own”—where the danger lies and safety ends. It’s also where life and progress exist. The search for a “safe space” distracts people from dealing with the messiness, peril, and incongruity of relationships. Demonizing people who might well be demonizing you does not make either of you any less of a demon. There can be no equity when anyone believes that there is only one acceptable path to follow to get there.

Based in Kirkland, Washington, Alan Harrison is a writer and speaker specializing in nonprofit organizations, strategy, the arts, and life politics. His columns appear regularly in major publications. Contact him directly at alan@501c3.guru.

If you’re feeling generous or inspired, just click on the coffee cup above. You don’t have to, of course, but if you can afford it and find some value here, please provide the desperate need for caffeine.

Alan is always looking for good opportunities to write and consult for nonprofits that need a hand. And, of course, that elusive Perfect Opportunity™.

BIG NEWS: Alan’s new book, “Scene Change: Why Today’s Nonprofit Arts Organizations Have to Stop Producing Art and Start Producing Impact” will be published in January. CLICK HERE TO PRE-ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES. If you live in the UK, CLICK HERE.

Alan will be speaking next week (August 16) at the Association of California Symphony Orchestras’ annual conference. If you’re in Southern California and would like to join him, just click on this link and register: https://www.acso.org/conference.!

A few more copies may be made available for those booking conferences, reading engagements, and speaking engagements. Recruit your local bookstore, conference panel, or boardroom to get a visit from Alan. Let Alan know if you want bulk copies for your board!