Search

 

With Margarida Garcia and Darren (Daz) Saunders

 

 

Resume

In this episode, Margarida Garcia speaks with Darren Saunders, 2019 Scholar, a linguistics researcher, deaf rights activist and member of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation's Advisory Committee on Diversity.  Darren Saunders advocates for the recognition of sign language, its early education and the contribution of deaf people to society. He denounces the medical notion of a deficiency in deaf people, which devalues them. He appeals to the entire population to make the arts, justice, and information accessible to deaf people, while insisting that they must be consulted about their wishes and needs and that decisions must no longer be made for them.

 

With Margarida Garcia and Randall Harp

 

Resume

In this episode, Margarida welcomes Dr. Randall Harp. Dr. Randall Harp is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Vermont. He is a 2020 Fulbright Canada-Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation Fellow and Joint Chair in Contemporary Public Policy. Dr. Harp reflects on how the properties of a group cannot be seen as homogeneous, and how the unpredictability of a diverse group opens many possibilities for new ways of being and new ideas, and at the same time presents us with challenges. He contemplates the importance of recognizing that there are no easy solutions, and the changes we have to make to achieve greater diversity and inclusion will often involve costs for someone.

 

 

Transcript

Margarida

We are in need of new worldviews. Worldviews that will make us deal more humanly and more skillfully with social exclusion and racial injustice. We lack vocabularies and visionaries, and ways of being that generate belonging. Vocabularies, and visionaries being powerful enough to offer us a viable alternative to our practices of negative other.

What else could be possible, if you take seriously into consideration the fact that we can create newly our relationships and our institutions, or that we can transform social patterns of exclusion by acting in different ways and by collectively making different choices? My guest today has been considering these questions in a very deep way.

I'm happy to welcome Dr. Randall Harp. Randall Harp has a PhD from Stanford University. His main research areas are in the philosophy of action, particularly collective action, and decision theory. The philosophy of behavioral and social science in ethics and in social metaphysics.

He is interested in what it means to be an agent and in our agency changes in collective and social contract. He is also interested in how the behavioral and social sciences model actions and agents. He has particular research interests in the ethical implications of how information about us in our networks can be used to predict and influence our behavior, and in the moral permissibility of acquiring and processing information about us.

Randall believes strongly in the power of collaborative and interdisciplinary intellectual work. And in the value of public engagement and communication. Randall Harp is a 2020 Fulbright Canada-Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation Fellow and is Joint Chair in Contemporary Public Policy. Randall, welcome to Brave Spaces!

Randall

Thank you very much, Margarida. It's very nice to be here.

Margarida

Let's start by you telling me a little bit about your interest in the topics of diversity and inclusion from where you stand as a philosopher and a citizen, committed to lively debates around fundamental questions.

Randall

Yeah, that's an excellent question. I'll start by saying a little bit about what it is that I think about and work on, and then I'll talk about how diversity might impact those sorts of questions.

Because I am, as you mentioned in your very generous introduction, I am interested in these questions of how it is that we collectively have various properties, how we collectively act, how we collectively think, how we collectively behave. The differences in how we do things together versus do things individually. And then also, the ways in which information or properties of individuals might influence or modify, or affect properties of collectives, right? So, there are lots of ways in which things that are just true about me right now, for example, might inform things that we can learn about other people, people that I know, people that are similar to me in various ways.

And so, when we think about diversity, one of the things that often becomes relevant there is, how we understand the properties of a group really does depend in crucial ways on how that group is made up out of its constituent individual parts.

And it's much easier in some ways to kind of model, how a collective thinks or behaves if that collective is much more homogenous, right? So, if I imagine a group, which consists of nothing but clones of myself, right? Like, a group, which has just a whole bunch of Randalls running around, talking to each other. Well, I mean, that would probably be a terrible group to be in, it'd be a terrible group to exist in the world. But it would probably be easier to model some properties of that group, because in many ways that you can derive properties of that group from properties of me, right? Since it's just a bunch of Randalls running around, the things that I am like, the way that I think are probably going to be indicative of the way that that group of Randalls might think or behave.

But as soon as that group starts to be more complicated… It's a group of you and me, and maybe all of the citizens of Canada, and all the citizens of the United States, where I am right now, that becomes much more complicated, because it's a much more diverse group. And the ways that you build up that group out of the individuals becomes much more complicated as well.

So, on the one hand, understanding how groups work when they're diverse, becomes a bit more challenging in many ways. But of course, there's also a lot of advantages there, because it's actually, it might precisely be that unpredictability or that kind of, the ways in which that group becomes more complicated as it gets formed, that also actually lends a lot to its strength.

The fact that I can't predict how this diverse group might act or behave actually means it has a lot of possibilities. It opens a lot of spaces for that group to come up with new ideas and ways of thinking and behaving that other groups just wouldn't have. And so, that diversity, even though it becomes more difficult to model and to predict, it also becomes much more potent in terms of the strength of the ideas that it might generate or the ways in which individuals might interact with one another. So, the diversity is kind of a challenge, and it's also a kind of strength, and that's part of the interest, I think, at least for me, in some of these things. But I'll just say also, I mean, there's also a downside in that, right?

In that, oftentimes when we start thinking about group-level properties, we do think about them, maybe, as just being, kind of, made up of only certain parts of the group. They're very well-known effects. For example, if you think about facial recognition algorithms. Those don't do well on people with darker skin, because they were originally designed to track people with lighter skin. They don't do as well with women as they do with men, because they were originally designed to track men. And so, all of these technologies that we use, oftentimes, they are designed with a kind of a typical user in mind. And that typical user is often a kind of majority user, whether that's racially or gender or religious, or whatever. Like, it's often a majority user.

And so, the more diversity you have, including not just kind of racial or gender diversity, but across the diversity of thought, diversity of background… The more of that you have, the more likely it is that all of these technologies we have in the world are not actually well-designed to accommodate them, to accommodate their needs.

And so, like I said, diversity has a lot of potential and strengths. It also has a lot of challenges.

Margarida

I really like the way you put it: a lot of potential for creativity and the challenges. And I want to hear you, because, thinking about all of those things and being myself, of course, like we all are, engaged in bringing diversity, inclusion, and equity to our institutions, to our way of dealing with anything in life. So, in your research and in your thinking, how do you think we can deal effectively with the challenges of diversity, when you really practice it in a deep way, and not just as a policy, or just labels, or just words?

Randall

I always feel as though, in any conversation with somebody like yourself, who is a very, kind of, practical-minded person and interacts with the real world in lots of meaningful ways...  as a philosopher, I always feel the need to say, “Oh, I just think about stuff from the theoretical side, and please don't ask me to give any practical advice for anything. And so that's…”

Margarida

So, let me tell you, this is an invitation to think philosophically about the pedagogy of diversity, because I think, you know…  I was reading Francisco Varela, who wrote a very nice book called “The Ethical Know-How,” and it says, for a lot of challenges of our times, and he was saying, sometimes the best ethical solutions are unclear, so we don't have them. So, then they must emerge in discussion, right? Or around the table with that diversity of perspectives. So, philosophically, how can we think of ways that we can actually be it, after we have proclaimed it?

Randall

Yes. No, right, and I think that’s the way to think about it, right? And I guess, as a philosopher, as the sort of philosopher that I am… cause not all philosophers are the same… but as the sort of philosopher that I am, I do tend to think primarily about, what are the preconditions that are necessary in order to be able to kind of have that correct solution going forward?

And some of those preconditions, again, from my perspective, as somebody that thinks a lot about what it means to be an agent of a certain kind, a kind of a unified agent or a disunified agent, both individually, what does it mean for me as a person to be a disunified agent? And also, what does it mean for some collective that I'm a member of, to be a unified agent? In some ways, that kind of unity is an important precondition for agency, which is an important condition for the sort of moral or ethical agency that we want to inculcate.

And so, then the question was, what is required for that kind of unified group identity, unified group agency to exist? And I do think that one of the things that's required is that there be some kind of collective intention or ethos, or goal, or plan, which the members of that group and the members of the collective do feel one that they can endorse, as an individual member of their group, or they can endorse that collective ethos or goal, or plan, or intention. And they also feel as though the ways in which they contribute to the formation and the execution of those group attitudes that are necessary to promote that ethos or goal… that they have a clear understanding of how it is that they contribute to the formation of this attitude.

So, we can think about groups as kind of analogs of individuals in various ways, right? In the same way that I, as an individual, think certain things, I want certain things, I have certain plans or intentions, or goals. Likewise, we can think about groups as thinking certain things or wanting certain things, or intending certain things, having certain goals, certain plans.

And there's debate about just how poetic that language is, right? Like, is it really true to say that our group really does, strictly speaking, have a goal? Or is it more just that that's a kind of metaphorical talk for the ways, in which individuals within the group have various goals? And we don't need to talk about that particular debate right now.

I just think that no matter which side of that debate you come down on, it's still going to be the case that an important way of thinking about cohesive functioning of groups is that they have these group-level attitudes, beliefs, goals, and confessed desires, et cetera, which structure the way that group operates in the world.

And so, in order for a group to be an effective agent, it has to have that kind of shared understanding and unity of purpose among the participants. And so, now to tie it back to this question of diversity, you know, one of the things that is a challenge, when we talk about diversity within groups, is that oftentimes that diversity can pose a challenge to the ways in which all of the participants in a group think about kind of the cohesiveness and unity of those group attitudes and these goals, intentions, desires, et cetera. And about whether or not they view themselves as kind of full-fledged contributors or participants in the creation of those group attitudes. So, I might feel kind of excluded or unseen, or unrecognized by a group that I normally see myself participating in, right?

Maybe it's something like, people in the State of Vermont. And I'm going to say this as an example. I don't mean to slam the State of Vermont. But let's take the State of Vermont, which is another one in the United States, which is an overwhelmingly white state, right? Perhaps 96-97% of the population is white.

And I am not, I am black, or African-American. And so, I might worry when I'm moving around in spaces in Vermont, that my particular background and beliefs, and values, the things which structure the way that I make decisions as an individual, when I'm moving about the world, are not going to be fully understood within the group of Vermonters, right? And so, I might worry then that, when the quote-unquote group of Vermonters is making decisions, whether those are political decisions in the public sphere, whether those are, kind of, more informal decisions about just what we do in daily life, I might worry that I am not able to contribute as fully to the formation of those relevant group attitudes. Like, what it is that Vermonters are going to do. What is it that the Vermonters believe or think, what the Vermont values are? I might worry that I'm not, that my voice is not able to contribute to that discussion as well, precisely because I am a, you know, racially, a minority voice within the State.

And so, I think one of the things which becomes important then in order to mitigate that challenge is to try to ensure that everybody who's a member of a group does feel kind of full participation in the formation of those collective attitudes that matter. But the way in which group attitudes are generated, the ways in which groups make decisions, that should be understood and endorsed by all the participants, right? So, even if it's a matter where I understand that somebody is ultimately making the decisions, as it were, but I can make recommendations to that person's decisions. And I feel, so my voice is equally heard as everyone else's voice. Like, that's also fine, as far as a way of kind of making… the way that a group may make a decision. So, it’s not that every decision needs to be made in an egalitarian fashion, but it is important that everybody feels as though they have, within that group decision-making structure, that their perspective and their voice is equally represented and equally valued.

Margarida

Thank you, this was great. And I guess, there's kind of two poles of intention in what you said… so, the group needs to be an agent, a group needs to have a shared understanding of something. And at the same time, of course, if the group is to value the diversity of perspectives, we do need to learn to work together with people that have a different perspective than ours, right? And to still make something together, knowing that maybe there’s not a common understanding about everything at stake.

Randall

That's also very, very important, right? You know, when we talk about... And this is, actually, one of the ways in which the dynamics of collective beliefs becomes super challenging, right?

Because, when you start needing to…  so, I'll take another big step backwards, and again, approach this from a kind of 10,000-meter height first. Human beings, we have a very, very remarkable capacity to not just hold beliefs about the world – to know that there's a tree there, you know, if you smash this nut with this rock, it we'll open up – we have beliefs like that, but we also have representations of what's going on in other people's heads. So, I can ask, what do you think that Margarida is thinking about this thing right now? And I can have an answer to that, right? But what do you think that Margarida thinks about, you know, about someone else's view about such and such? You know, I can keep all of those various complicated social beliefs in my head at once. That's something which a lot of social animals have at least some capacity to do. But human beings seem to do that in a very-very sophisticated, very-very elaborate way. And so, all of these different layers and iterations of these beliefs about beliefs, and beliefs about desires… That makes things very-very complicated when you get a bunch of people in a room, and everyone's trying to model for themselves, what everyone else is thinking and believing.

And of course, for all of the beliefs that we have, there's a chance that we get those things wrong. Or there are chances that beliefs I have about the ordinary world are wrong, right? There are all sorts of ways in which ordinary beliefs about the world could be mistaken. But it's especially complicated with our beliefs about other people's beliefs and desires, because all we have access to, really, are the ways that people represent themselves on the outside.  And, don't be wrong, there's a lot of information we have access to: facial expressions, where we're looking at any given moment, you know, how we're breathing, respiratory… you know, all of these things do matter for information about what people are thinking.

But we can be wrong about these things. And I do think that understanding what's going on in someone's head is one of those things, which is context dependent, culturally dependent, socially dependent. And so, that's part of the reason why I think it's just easier to understand people who come from a shared background as we do, because the cues that we use to understand what's going on in their heads, those things are themselves kind of shared beliefs within that community.

So, I know how to interpret… so I grew up in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which is in kind of the Midwest United States. And it’s a famously reserved kind of culture, right? People are not very expressive. We're not a kind of… I don't mean to allude too much to stereotypes. We're not like a… we're not a fiery people, right? You know, us, Minnesotans.

Margarida

That's not what I'm getting from your, Randall, at all. So, there you go for stereotypes.

Randall

That's exactly right. So, I always try to modify these things in groups, but, yeah, so it's easier to understand what someone else is thinking if they can share a background as I do, right? And that's, you know, when we talk about the phenomenon of what's called code switching, which is just a way of presenting yourself, your speech patterns, the way you talk, the way you communicate in general, and changing that from one environment to another. Oftentimes, code switching is mostly being done by people coming from a non-dominant culture into a dominant culture, right? So, you'll see black Americans or Canadians, who are accustomed to communicating one way in their groups, then needing to adopt different patterns of speech, different patterns of behavior, when they go into that majority dominant culture, because they're concerned that otherwise you won't be understood, you know?

That someone, for example, who is black, might be, if you say, oh, there's this trope, you know, especially with women – the angry black woman, right? It’s like, why are you being so angry right now? No-no-no, I’m not being angry. Nobody from my cultural background would interpret my behavior right now as me expressing anger. But it is interpreted that way in a dominant culture in some ways. So that just makes it all the more challenging to understand, like, what actually people are thinking and believing, and intending, when you don't have the kind of shared platform to interpret and make sense of their behavior, as can happen when you definitely share a cultural background.

So, I just mean, I mean, that's why cultural literacy, cultural competency is so important, because it is important that we understand what's going on in people's heads, in order to actually be cohesive, effective groups. And that just gets complicated by all these things that stand in the way, because we don't have that direct access to what's going on inside of someone's head at any given moment.

Margarida

Yes, and it's something typical of human experiences, that first person subjective experience is really first person, right? And you cannot just have direct access. So, I would really be interested in hearing you, from, you know, the standpoint of the philosopher you are. How do you see these contemporary efforts to put equity, diversity, and inclusion at the center of our institutions? And, particularly, what do you think we're not addressing adequately in this public sphere, or are there any blind spots? So, how are we doing in that regard, in your opinion?

Randall

Hmm, again, a broad question. I will approach that question gingerly and carefully by saying, first, I think that institutions in general have two kinds of goals, right?

One goal is to, actually… this is a general human resources card. The first goal is to actually make use of all of the talents and assets, and abilities of all people that make up that group. To leverage all the strengths that can come along with, kind of, making the best use of a diverse population, diverse constituent population, that is a goal of institutions. Not every institution has that goal. I think some are not yet convinced that there are such benefits that can be leveraged from properly developing a diverse constituency, a diverse workforce, but that's the first goal.

The second goal is more of a social goal rather than a kind of HR goal. The second goal is to be seen by society as treating its diverse members well, etcetera, because it's a good thing right now. Society in general thinks that it is important that companies, that organizations and institutions value diversity.

You're not going to do very well as an institution if you put out a notice to your stakeholders that says, we don't care about diversity at all, right? If an institution does that, they will be correctly condemned by society. So, society has kind of adopted this collective goal that we all share of valuing diversity, but that means that institutions might only have as their goal to be seen as valuing diversity rather than as actually valuing diversity.

And so, that poses a challenge, right? The first challenge is just to ensure that institutions do have that first goal of actually valuing diversity, right? And recognizing, as an institution, that there are these benefits that might come along with it. Whether it's, you know, for kind of a self-interested reason – like, your institution will benefit from leveraging all these strengths, and here's why, and we'll make sure that you believe that. Or even just as a question of the respect that we owe to each individual in society, right? It might be not a question of human rights, per se, but a question of, how ought we ethically treat other people? And one is, to treat them in a way which is consistent with their worth as an individual, as a human being.

And that does mean, I think, the arguments are as we want, but that does mean, kind of, valuing all of these properties that are, you know, integral to who they are, which might not be properties widely represented within kind of a dominant majority culture.

So, whether it's because of just a basic commitment to ethical treatment of other human beings or because it actually benefits the organizations from a selfish standpoint, I do think it's important that organizations actually value diversity rather than merely, kind of, express the lip service of valuing diversity. And that requires, though, that again, because not every group is a completely egalitarian and democratic group… organizations and institutions have leaders. Oftentimes those leaders of those boards are the ones that are making more decisions than others.

I do think that it's important that organizations and institutions, that the leadership does actually value the benefits of diversity, rather than merely valuing that second goal, right? That second goal of also communicating to society that you value diversity.

I'm going to make a really quick, unnecessary diversion to Plato’s Republic, where the challenge that Plato posed in the Republic is: is it better to actually be a moral person, but to have all of the reputation of being an immoral person, right? You know, like, everyone thinks that you are a terrible human being, but you are actually a moral person.

Like, is that better? Or is it better to be an immoral person, but have all of the reputational benefits of being a moral person, right? Everyone thinks that you're moral, but you're also getting all of the benefits as if you were being immoral. You're able to lie, cheat, steal, get all the benefits of that, but everyone thinks that you're great, right?

And Plato's challenge in the Republic was to try to explain, why it is that the right answer is, you should actually care about being moral, even if you have all of the negative consequences of being perceived as immoral, rather than just caring about the benefits of being perceived as moral.

And I think that there's a kind of analogy for institutions as well, right? Like, is it better for institutions to actually value diversity, even though they might not be seen as doing so? Or is it better for institutions to be seen as driving diversity without actually doing so? Obviously, Plato was happy to say, and I'm happy to say, the best situation is to get both, right? Like, to actually value it and also to be perceived as valuing it. I like that. That was the right answer. And I think that's right too, that’s correct. But I do think that institutions should look in the mirror as it were and say, yeah, you know, if it comes down to just being perceived by society as valuing diversity, or if it comes down to actually valuing diversity, which one do I care about more? And, you know, Plato saw that as a challenge that he needed to write all the Republic to try to answer.

Was it successful? I don't know.  But I think that that's a challenge for us as well. Like, do we actually care about the virtue of valuing diversity and what that means for our ethical treatment of other human beings? Or, do we just care about being perceived as doing so? And I think, like I said, I think that we, I think that Plato had the right instinct. I think that we should care about actually valuing diversity.

Margarida

So, Randall, knowing that you are a lover of theory, I'm going to, again, throw you off to implementation and, following what you just said, other things we can implement, you know, meaningful practices of inclusion, what are the best things we are doing to really create a more just society that cares about inclusion of all people, namely those who don't belong to the majority. So, how do you see that?

Randall

Yeah. I mean, I worry again, that I'm going to be seen as evading the question to some extent. But I do think that, when we think about, you know, the specific challenges that institutions face… the first thing that I'm saying is that I don't think that any of this is easy. And certainly, if I had a quick three-minute answer to that question, you would be able to, you know, buy it from my website for $29.99 or whatever, and I would become very-very rich, I would be living the dream. So, I don't have a quick three-minute answer, but here's what I would say.

First thing. So, I'm going to speak to why I think that the problem is so challenging. And that's in part, because I do think that when we talk about the ways that we can transform institutions, it's important to realize that… you know, economists have this notion, this concept or notion of what they call Pareto efficiency.  You know, like when there are choices that can benefit everyone, right? Where there's kind of something, some change that can be made to an institution, to society, in which everybody benefits. So, okay. So those are easy solutions. And I do think that our assumption, especially in societies, should be that all of those easy solutions have already been done, those are more or less off the table.

So, the suggestions that I have for, how do we actually transform institutions? It's going to start by saying that we should recognize that they're not easy solutions, which means that they're not ones, in which there'll be only winners and no losers. They will not be changes, in which there are only benefits and there are no costs. These changes will often involve some costs to someone.

And that's not surprising, right? If I live in a society that’s been designed to cater to my particular perspective, my particular needs, goals, and interests, and now we want to redesign society, so that it no longer caters exclusively to my needs, but also caters to other people's needs, that is going to be a cost to me, right? Like, even though society, I think, we might all agree, better off, if it's not just designed to make Randall happy… Okay, that's great for me, not great for everyone else. We can change the size that no longer makes just me happy, but that's going to be a cost to me.

And I think that it is important that we recognize that there are benefits right now that flow to certain members of society. And those benefits might be, as it were, unjust, because society ought not be organized so as to produce those benefits, but when we change society around, so that those benefits no longer flow so directly to those members of society, that is going to be viewed as a cost.

It's going to be viewed as a political cost, and as an economic cost, and viewed as a social cost, and people will resist having to pay those costs, especially if they don't understand, or they don't perceive the ways, in which society as a whole is made better by that change, right?

So, it's easy enough to say, okay, I recognize that society changes, it no longer just benefits me, Randall, as an individual. Okay. Like, that's a cost to me, but I see the benefit. I see how it's actually better for everyone else to share in these spoils. But I do think that there are a lot of members of society that do not see that there are benefits to society at whole that come from making these changes that, kind of, allow for more voices to be brought to the table.

And I'm not going to veer too much into contemporary political discussions, but I do think, again, I can say, coming from the United States, you can easily see a kind of… that there have been political backlashes against what has been perceived to be the lessening importance of a group of people that had been viewed as the most important people in society for a very long time.

And that kind of backlash leads to, you know, the election of political officials and the redesign of societies and institutions. So that the goal is more explicitly the prioritization of these members of society that felt as though they are no longer privileged in the same way. And I think that comes about, to some degree, just because we had not, as a society, collectively fused that new collective identity, those new collective intentions, beliefs, and goals that said, actually, we're going to value these sorts of voices being brought to the table, because it's important for society, because it's ethical, because it actually benefits us as an institution, as a nation.

We didn’t… not enough people were on board for that kind of change in how we view the institution. And so, I think that also needs to be done, I think, in other organizations, institutions of whatever size. People need to see, you know, we need to be upfront about the costs. You know, if people are going to pay a cost, we need to be up front about that. And we need to get people on board with what the attendant benefits are as well, and why those benefits are worth being brought about. And whether those benefits are kind of ethical in the abstract, whether these are benefits to the proper functioning of the organization… whatever it is, we need to be honest about that.

Margarida

Thank you, Randall. And to conclude, I would love to invite you to an exercise in imagination and do not hesitate to go to Plato.  But let's imagine a future, in which a culture of respect for diversity, and inclusion, and equity, it's a reality. It's there, and it's meaningful, and it's a reality already. What do you think that would look like?

Randall

Hmm, this is a dangerous concluding exercise, because I don't know that I’d want to leave this imaginary space and go back to reality.  But, what does that look like? You know, I know, I keep saying with all my answers, well, I'm a philosopher, so blah, blah, blah, as a way of avoiding the question.

Hey, look, I do think these kinds of spaces, that way of drawing these pictures of what the site looks like... I think that is best left to the other kind of visionaries – the artists, the authors, you know, the people that are kind of really capable of imagining these spaces.

I don't like to pretend as though I have, you know, the best perspective on all the different questions that were asked. And so, you know, when you ask, well, what does that society look like? Let's ask people that are really out there trying to imagine and create those worlds. But I do think that it is a world in which, and again, I'm not trying to pretend like there's no conflict at all in these spaces, you know, conflict is actually oftentimes a productive, healthy, valuable thing.

But that is a space, in which people understand the rules of the road of contributing to the direction of the groups that they are a part of. And they, you know, have an equal share in forging those background collective intentions, goals, beliefs, right? So, their voice is included and they feel as though those background rules of the road are fair, in the sense that they are not privileging things that ought not be privileged or, you know, things that are more incidental or inessential, right? Just kind of random, or chance… If they're not privileging those things…

But also, like I said, that people have the capacity to have the space to advocate for their vision of how things should be. And I think that may be the most important thing – is just people, the societies that… my dream societies, the ones in which people feel as though they have the space to advocate for what it is that they want. And that advocacy is not going to be… it's not always going to be, kind of, agreed to, but it has to be valued and it has to be taken seriously. So yeah, that's… within these groups that we all take ourselves to be a part of, we feel as though we are important and valued, and our voices matter.

Margarida

Well, I think that's a great conclusion, Randall. Thank you so much! If I hear you well, it's about relatedness. It's very related to our capacity to make a contribution and to be the contribution that we are. So, thank you so much for everything that you put on this table, and just a pleasure to be in conversation with you.

Randall

Thank you! It was a wonderful conversation, it was enjoyable. Thank you.

 

 

With Margarida Garcia and Lydie C. Belporo

 

 

Resume

Margarida Garcia talks with Lydie C. Belporo, 2021 Scholar, lawyer and criminologist of Cameroonian origin who is actively serving her peers, women doctoral students. Ms. Belporo recounts the fascination she felt when she first came to Canada and discovered Indigenous languages. With 200 vernacular languages, Cameroon would benefit from valuing its own linguistic wealth. She also praises the opportunities for people in Canada to learn French or English through language immersion programs. She invites our leaders to allocate all possible resources to promote social unity and inclusion, and institutions such as the media to put forward actors from diversity.

 

With Margarida Garcia and Charlie Wall-Andrews

 

Resume

The guest in this episode is Charlie Wall-Andrews, 2020 Scholar, a lecturer at the University of Toronto and Northwestern University, serving on the Board of Directors of WorkInCulture and Telus Community Investment Board, and the inaugural Vice-Chair of Music Canada's Advisory Council. Charlie Wall-Andrews shares her thoughts and research about the inequities in the music industry. She talks about the importance of public policies supporting grassroots organizations that are currently doing most of the work in EDI and are vulnerable in our post-pandemic society. She also makes a case for EDI being a necessity for all institutions, not just within the arts and culture, but across the board, both for better financial returns, to promote creativity, to ensure the wellbeing of its workforce, and to help them reach their full potential.

 

 

Transcript

Margarida

It is hard to underestimate the power and the potential of culture and cultural products in shaping our social world and the fabric of our own world use. And that is why it's so critically important to ask the question, how are our creative and cultural industries doing in regards to equity, diversity, and inclusion? My guest today has a strong commitment to this important inquiry and will help us see, why it's so important to take this question seriously.

I'm happy to welcome Charlie Wall-Andrews. She is dedicated to advancing inclusion and innovation in Canada's creative and cultural industries.

She's a PhD candidate at Ted Rogers School of Management, a research associate at the Diversity Institute, and a lecturer at the University of Toronto and Northwestern University. She has been recognized as a “Top 30 Under 30” by Corporate Knights and appointed a legacy fellow by the Edmond de Rothschild Foundation. Currently she's on the Board of Directors of WorkInCulture and Telus Community Investment Board, and is the inaugural Vice-Chair of Music Canada's Advisory Council. She's also an associate composer at the Canadian Music Centre. Charlie, welcome to Brave Spaces! I'm really happy to have you with us today.

Charlie

Thank you so much. It's a delight to be here and have this conversation together.

Margarida

Charlie, you are dedicated to advancing inclusion and innovation in Canada's creative and cultural industries. Tell us, how do you see this question from where you stand as a scholar, committed to public debate on fundamental questions around culture?

Charlie

Of course. Well, culture is a necessity of any vibrant and robust society, and it's expressed in many ways. In terms of how we tell our stories, what we're seeing and witnessing online and in content, or different forms of culture, music, film, live performances, art.

These are ways in which we can celebrate and reflect on our past. It's also a great form of entertainment for ourselves, and it’s essential to have access to these cultural products, so that we can build a better world together. Our creative expression helps us to find who we are and it helps us see the world through the eyes of others.

And culture provides the lens to do that. One of the things I love is this notion of a music festival. When you go to a music festival, you'll see all sorts of people with different identities, enjoying the music, dancing and collaborating together in that creative space. And if we had that type of experience in all aspects of our society, we would then be able to allow for different ideas by different people. And to enable dramatic results, which are effective in building a more inclusive and innovative nation. And so, what is important to me, is how do we foster arts and culture within our societies and how do we learn from it to build a better world and other aspects of our world.

Margarida

So, Charlie, you just spoke about the importance of encounter, of experience of sharing at a cultural event together. And how it allows for, you know, creating a space for a diversity of worldviews to share the same space. Now, do you think the cultural industry has that knowledge about itself, the importance of the impact that it creates? And how diverse and inclusive is or is not our cultural industry today?

Charlie

It's an interesting question, because based on the experiences of the music industry, for instance, it's highly inequitable. We can see this from the lack of women in the role of music producers, which was cited in the Annenberg Inclusion Initiative. They looked up the top 100 billboard hits from 2012 to 2018, and in that 600 songs sample only 2.1% of women were credited on the music as a producer. So that's one woman for every 47 men. And so, that calls the question, why aren't women involved in that part of the creative process?

And odds are, if you go look at some of your favorite artists on Spotify, and they have a song credit section, scroll down and look at the music producer, and you could start to see that an important phase of the music creation process is very much dominated by men.

And this is post-… pre- and post- vast social movements like #metoo.  We also see that there is a lack of representation in the music industry, particularly for black, indigenous, and racialized people, which has yet to become a major priority that needs to be called to question. We see, for instance, that black-made music is highly, highly, highly profitable. However, the representation of that community is not on par with that. And so, we need to call to question, how can we improve and build a better and more representative ecosystem for underserved and underrepresented communities?

And in my own research, looking at the arts and cultural sector in Canada, of the largest arts and cultural institutions, there is a lack of representation, especially for black, indigenous and racialized people in the leadership roles of Chair, CEO, and Artistic Director. And so, we need to call into question, how are these organizations ensuring EDI when representation is missing in some of the most powerful positions that drive change for these institutions?

So, to answer the question, there are cases where arts and culture is represented through diverse inclusion initiatives. And these are often grassroots organizations. But a lot of the power and a lot of the public funding goes to major, large institutions that have not reflected their true commitments to diversity at this scale.

Margarida

Charlie, thank you so much for bringing that research and the numbers, they're staggering.

And I would like to hear you on this gap. So, EDI is more and more at the center of our thinking, our practices, our policies. But something is missing when we look at those numbers. So, what are our blind spots? How do you see this gap between, you know, the words and the policies that we are creating around equity, diversity, and inclusion, and then, you know, the reality of equity, diversity, and inclusion, when we look at those numbers?

Charlie

Of course, and this is a bit of a, I don't want to say, a heavy loaded question. There's a lot that we can impact here. So, let me share a little bit of the tip of the iceberg from my perspective. We know that Canada is a very diverse nation. And it's important for organizations to foster EDI in order for them to reach their full potential.

And there are many studies that had proven that if Canada made workplaces more accessible and it's not even just restricted to arts and culture, but it would add 16.8 billion to our GDP by 2018. We also know from studies that companies with racial and ethnic diversity are 35% more likely to have greater financial returns.

In addition, we know that from a gender diversity perspective, companies that foster this are 15% more likely to also have financial returns. And if women, we're fully empowered to participate in the economy, we would contribute 150 billion to our GDP by 2026. And another step that I think is important, is that Canada is facing a labor shortage, and immigrants are going to account for 80% of the population.

So, the bottom line is that equity, diversity and inclusion is going to be a necessity for institutions. And it's not just within the arts and culture, it's across the board. And so, it's important that we factor how to build more inclusive practices within these institutions, so that people can come to the table and come to the organization, and put their best selves forward.

When we're talking about a lot of what I am mentioning, I do give sensitivity to that it is focused on the economics, and that is important to some degree, but we also have to look beyond the monetary gain. It's important that organizations foster working cultures, where everyone is empowered, and that the workforce truly embraces EDI. It cannot be performative. And this is to ensure the wellbeing of its community, of its staff. Otherwise, they might find themselves in a predictable surprise, which will be more damaging.

And some examples when… well, I guess I'll say is that when organizations can effectively foster EDI and we've seen case studies of, like, Xerox, for instance. Xerox was a company… if you actually look at some of the ads that they had portrayed many years ago. It was quite sexist, and they were portraying women as, “Oh, now I can take a lunch break, because this photocopier is going to help me save time.” And it was really unacceptable to be portraying women in such a role. And they ended up having a new CEO, who was a person that identified as black, and actually was a champion in creating a more inclusive, diverse culture. And pretty much all of Xerox efforts had been rooted in really fostering an equitable workplace, which has led for them to have a great success in terms of financial performance, but also building a culture where people are proud to work, and can put their best foot forward. And it’s a really great case study that other companies can look to, to see how EDI can have transformative implications on the work that they do.

If we truly foster EDI and overcome these blind spots, we can broaden the talent pool and overcome the skill gaps. We could respond increasingly to diverse markets, which also can gain support from diverse investors. A lot of what I argue is that fostering innovation and creativity stems from fostering EDI. We could also mitigate legal and reputational implications by fostering a more inclusive culture, but most of all, you increase employee satisfaction and you reduce the turnover rate for the organization, when people are truly embraced and fostered. And that we build a culture where EDI is at the core.

It's a lot easier said than done. And in many cases, we see a lot of performative action. And it's important that we have leaders in place to do the work, to lead by example, and to really empower community. And that's why I'm a huge advocate for representation, as is the literature and scholarship. So, I hope that provides some insights here, in terms of how we can address the blind spots and the benefits here of fostering it at the core of institutions.  There's so much more we can go into, but the bottom line is that it is a necessity and there's a lot of benefit in doing so, especially coming out of a pandemic.

Margarida

You do shed a lot of light on this question, and what I hear from what you said is that these practices, these new ways of being, new actions around equity, diversity, and inclusion, well, there are a lot of arguments that you aligned together, so that we really embrace them.

You said it's more profitable, right? You also said it's also a human rights concern. It's about the dignity of human beings. It's because it's more fair, it's because it fully empowers everyone. We talked about adaptation. Like, we don't have the choice really, given our country that is so diverse. We talked about creativity, we talked about enhancing reputation, satisfaction, and happiness.

So many good reasons to do the right thing and go beyond performative EDI to really embrace a culture of meaningful EDI! And so, my question for you is, what are you seeing in the cultural industry or elsewhere, actually, that you see our current best practices that really produced impactful and positive, and concrete results around meaningfully including the marginalized voices?

Charlie

Great question, and there are a lot of best practices, and it really depends on the scope and focus of the organization. Is it at the macro, mezzo and micro levels? But some ideas that come to mind here… representation. And so, we know that while a lack of representation is extremely harmful in itself, it often enables misrepresentation of underserved communities, which causes more significant issue, with damaging consequences.

And the media is a great example of how this has happened many times. This concept is evident through stereotyping, and it can even lead to the absence of curating art that attracts diverse populations. So, it's important to have representation throughout the company or organization at all levels, from… what we see in a lot of studies and from what I've observed is that the companies will say, “Yes, we're very diverse.” But then, when you look at their black, indigenous, and racialized people, they may not be at the leadership table of the organization. They may be on the more junior or the lower end of the organization. And it's important that we have gender and diverse representation throughout.

Another aspect that's becoming more practiced in the arts and cultural sector is this notion of decolonization. And so, the museum is a great example of this, where the approach to how they're curating exhibits started to change in around 2012, when anthropological museums began to decolonize. And this is a process that institutions undergo to basically expand perspectives. They portrayed beyond the dominant culture group, which is typically white Eurocentric. And so, this idea of decolonizing spaces through art has been very effective.

And of course, public engagement is about creating opportunities for audiences to interact physically… we could say, emotionally, spiritually, and even intellectually with the form, too. Go beyond just, you know, being an observer of the art, but also empowering audiences and the public to better appreciate and connect with the meaning and impact of the art experience.

And so, I think, there's a lot more we can say, but I feel like representation, practicing this notion of decolonization, and ensuring public engagement could lead to some great outcomes as part of best practices.

Margarida

Now, Charlie, to end our conversation, I would like to invite you to an exercise in imagination. If we can imagine a future in which real culture of respect for diversity and inclusion is a reality in the cultural industry, what would that look like?

Charlie

Yeah! It's important that we realize the power of arts and culture. Particularly, they are a powerful vehicle that shapes the world, and to give us the lens to see it from a different perspective. And that can be a useful exercise to understand and to better foster EDI principles, as we build a better world. In doing that, we're able to allow for more productivity to create and disseminate cultural products and creativity.

And thus, from an imaginative perspective, I realized that it's always the arts and cultural aspects that's cut in public school programs or public initiatives to the arts. It's quite vulnerable. And I think that we need to realize the value that the arts and cultural sector plays in building a more inclusive and robust society. And we need to ensure that public policies are put in place to protect and support them, so that they can truly reach their full potential.

Margarida

I would say also, right, that the role of arts and culture in the wellbeing of populations. And I think we all could measure that importance during this pandemic crisis, right?

And at the same time, paradoxically, it was an industry that really suffered from the restrictions that were needed to deal with the crisis. So, any thoughts on that?

Charlie

I think that in Canada, we're very privileged to have the support mechanisms that have been put in place during the pandemic for the creative industries and the cultural sector. There were recovery or sustainability grants, recovery grants, subsidies, and so that people can...  when we come back from the pandemic, into a more, I don't want to say normal, but a society, where we could interact with art more easily, or public engagement with the arts, is that those institutions will still exist, because of the support mechanisms we've had in place.

But now it's just such a different reality than what it was a couple years ago. And some organizations did not survive and others have. And I think that the way we support arts and culture moving forward will heavily depend on the public sector mechanisms for a little bit longer than what we had anticipated. And it's going to be organizations like the grassroots organizations that actually do a lot of curating that resonates with the ever-changing population and demographics of our country that are going to be more vulnerable, compared to the larger cultural institutions that are truly protected by the public policies in our country.

And so, I think that we need to find a way to ensure that those smaller organizations can be supported, so that they're resilient through the pandemic, and what's to come in the future.

Margarida

Charlie, thank you so much for this conversation, where you really helped us see the importance, the crucial importance of the arts and the cultural industry to be a force for the authentic and meaningful integration of equity, diversity, and inclusion in our society.  It was a pleasure being in conversation with you. Thank you!

Charlie

Thank you. It's my pleasure.

 

 

With Margarida Garcia, Magaly Brodeur and Rouguietta Touré

 

 

Resume

In this conversation, Margarida Garcia and her guests Rouguietta Touré and Dr. Magaly Brodeur, 2009 Scholar, discuss discrimination and expand the concept of diversity to include sexual, neurological and physical diversity and to imagine safer and more welcoming environments for both users of pharmaceutical and health care services and providers of those services.

 

With Margarida Garcia and Patti LaBoucane Benson

 

Resume

In this episode Dr. Margarida Garcia speaks with 2004 Scholar, Dr. Patti LaBoucane Benson, a Métis Senator from the Treaty 6 territory, a lecturer for the Peter Lougheed Leadership College, the director and lead facilitator for the Nelson Mandela Dialogues, and author of an award-winning novel, The Outside Circle. They talk about ways of creating sacred spaces that are both safe and uncomfortable at the same time, by involving elders, creating specific rules, and using skillful moderation. Such spaces, where kindness and curiosity about the other are key, are generators of social innovation and transformation. Dr. LaBoucane Benson also delves into the concept of mino-pimatisiwin as a life-long pursuit, and the Sun Dance ceremony that may give us a glimpse into what a more inclusive future might look like.

 

 

Transcript

Margarida

Generating conversations that facilitate transformation, creating spaces for dialogue that have an impact on our ways of being, and our ways of acting are two of the highest social justice priorities of our times. And that is why I'm so excited about the conversation I am about to have with my guest today, Dr. Patti LaBoucane Benson. She is a master in creating such dialogues and such spaces. She knows the importance of shared ceremony in bringing about cultural shifts in relationship and the possibility of authentic reconciliation.

Dr. Patti LaBoucane Benson is a Métis Senator who grew up on Treaty 6 territory and the first indigenous person to hold a position of leadership in the Senate of Canada.

Before that Dr. LaBoucane Benson was the Director of Research, Training and Communication of the Native Counseling Services of Alberta, a lecturer for the Peter Lougheed Leadership College and for the University of Alberta Executive Education, as well as the conference director and lead facilitator for the Nelson Mandela Dialogues held in Canada in 2017.

Based on her PhD research, her first novel, The Outside Circle, is a work of creative nonfiction about healing and reconciliation for an inner-city Aboriginal family. The Outside Circle was on the Globe and Mail’s top ten Canadian books and on the Outstanding International Books 2016 list by the United States Board on Books for Young People, and the winner of the Burt Award for First Nations and Métis literature.

Patti, I'm so happy to welcome you to Brave Spaces! Thank you for being with us today.

Patti

I'm very happy to be here today. And thank you for that warm welcome.  Today I'm actually on the Algonquin Anishinaabe Territory, where I work, but I have been born, raised, and still live in the beautiful Treaty 6 Territory, in Alberta.

So, thanks for having me.

Margarida

Patti, although I do not know where this conversation will take us, and I actually want to invite you to freely explore any path you think is useful and important, I know exactly where I want us to start. On Tuesday, the 13th of July, 2021, you hosted and facilitated with Allen Benson in Edmonton, Alberta, in your home, in your house, in your land, in your territory, an encounter between members of the Trudeau Foundation, elders, indigenous community leaders and scholars. I had the privilege to be there.

Patti, I was inspired and impacted by the space you and Allen created for us to be, for us to listen, for us to reflect, to heal, to understand, to laugh, to cry. I was inspired and impacted by the setting, the lived experience of ceremony and protocol, the way it generated authentic sharings, meaningful silences. I saw everyone in the circle sharing their humanity. When I was asked to write about that experience, I looked back and I realized that although we were together for only three days, I was transformed by it, and I have been thinking about it since then.

So, how is that experience that you created an illustration of the kind of spaces that we need to create, so that we can honor inclusion, diversity, and justice, and reconciliation?

Patti

Well, thank you for that.  Well, to start, hosting the Foundation was an honor, and Allen and I thought really deeply about how we would create that sacred space, where meaningful dialogue could happen, transformative experiences could take place, and, maybe, a little bit of social innovation around how we communicate and how we relate, how we build relationships within institutions, like academia.

And so, I think that, for me, it is about all of the things you talked about, you know, moving towards reconciliation, but more importantly, maybe, on a grander scale, it's about social innovation.

It's about how we come together and listen, how our thoughts are kind of forced to be expansive, that in the sitting and listening, we are constantly thinking laterally. We're constantly hearing what people are sharing and then comparing it. It's kind of like a grounded theory experience, a constant comparative experience, where we're thinking about, okay, this is what I know to be true, and now I'm hearing this information, I'm taking that information, and I'm integrating it into my thought process. And, hopefully, what the outcome of all of this, you know, constant comparative reflection is, that my thoughts, the way that I see the world, the way that I see the people in this circle are transformed.

The application of that can be vast, especially in the transformation of institutions, where, I think, we have the most work to do. Especially institutions… and I'll use the academia as an example, but it certainly isn't the only one, especially in institutions where competition is first and foremost, the guiding principle or the guiding thought around how I move in this space. I mean, it's constantly in competition with my colleagues around me. I, you know, broadly, in the country and internationally.

How do we set that competitiveness aside? Not that competition is bad, but set it aside, so that we can have these transformative experiences. How can we set it aside so that we can truly hear one another, and constantly seek that common ground? I think reconciliation is about common ground. It's important in Canada today. Certainly, for indigenous and non-indigenous people. It's important in our world – how we see each other. I mean, we only have to look at what's going on internationally right now with the Ukraine to understand how we don't hear each other. You know, we're not talking and listening effectively in the world. How do we lead in those spaces? These are, and I don't have all the answers, but I'm certainly interested in learning more about that.

Margarida

You certainly have a lot of great questions. And what do you think are the important things to take into consideration when offering and creating a sacred space?

Patti

The entire idea of creating sacred space is to create safety and discomfort at the same time, they're both equally important. Safety is, creating that space where people can really be vulnerable – vulnerable in their sharing, but also vulnerable in their hearing. So that they can actively listen and really hear what other people have to say, so that we can try to put ourselves in the other person's experience.

In that reflection, or in that empathy, we are transformed as human beings. And so, creating safety on one hand, but discomfort, because this shouldn't be comfortable. It's not creating safety so that everybody feels completely comfortable and remains in their bubble, as we say, of understanding. It's about pushing us into this space where we are highly uncomfortable, that we are being almost… not forced, but we are being pulled into thoughts, ideas, concepts, ways of seeing the world that are not comfortable to us. That's where the transformation comes. So, discomfort and safety, from an indigenous perspective, and that’s why we had elders in our process for the Trudeau Foundation. Elders are just a very important component in setting the rules. How are we going to interact with each other, specifically in a circle?

The only way to keep a circle safe and uncomfortable is by observing very strict rules. And so, those rules are: around one person speaks at a time, uninterrupted. We all wait our turn; we go around the circle. And often there's an object that we're holding, where we can pass that object to the next person as a symbol that it's now your turn to talk, for as long as you need to. And we will listen to everything you have to say. And we're not even going to respond necessarily to each person as they share. We just share and we listen, and it's the action of going all the way around that circle, listening, absorbing, thinking about, reflecting on what we're hearing, that we might arrive at thoughts that could be innovative, concepts that could be transformative.

The other thing I'll say is that, when we hosted the Trudeau Foundation, we went around that circle many times each day. Every time we went around, people felt, maybe, a little bit more safe to be vulnerable. We listened a little deeper. We understood the people in the circle, maybe just a little more profoundly. And from that perspective, we could hear more and we might transform more. So, it's a constant process of going around and around that circle. And I bet, if we would’ve had another day, we would’ve gone even deeper.

Margarida

I'm very curious about something you're saying around a space being safe and being uncomfortable, because in our institutions, in academia, even in our classrooms and learning spaces, now I can feel a kind of intolerance around making people feel uncomfortable. And you are saying that there's no learning and no growing if we stay in our safe zone of comfort. So, in a way, sacred spaces, they’re brave spaces. And brave spaces, they allow for transformation only as much as we can go outside of our comfort zone. Speak a little more about that.

Patti

The really important part of what I'm saying and you're saying is that the circle has to be incredibly skillfully moderated. There has to be a facilitator that not only understands the rules, but understands why we have those rules and is able to, with kindness, caring, respect, humility… can hold that circle space. So that people do feel vulnerable, but they also feel like somebody is in control of this thing, that it's not going to get out of control, that at some point, nobody is going to shout down somebody else or break the rules of the circle, or feel like they have to answer somebody’s sharing right away.

That's not how this thing works. There has to be somebody in control of that circle, and the people in the circle have to trust the facilitator. Have to really trust this facilitator, that they are going to be able to manage all of that energy, all of those emotions that come up, because vulnerability is often a very emotional space. And that person has a very important, critical role and should be trained to do that.

And that facilitator, and in the case of the Dialogues that we had with the Foundation, that was my role, and Allen was supporting me as well in that process. And so, having done it before, I knew what was expected of me. I also understand that to do a good role of facilitating, there also has to be laughter, like you said. There's probably going to be tears, and that's okay.  There has to be points in the day, where we can come together, and we did this over meals, where we could just sit and have free dialogue that isn't as intense as the circle. All of those activities or events, or things that unfolded have to be thought about really carefully. How are we going to make sure that relationships are developing in that space as well?

Margarida

Yes. I totally agree with what you're saying and all the opportunities to be together to share in that space, they kind of slowly transform being in a way, right?

What can we expect from a sacred space when it's created? What do you see are the benefits for the participants, but also for generating social innovation and transformation, like you were saying?

Patti

I have a hard time with putting expectations on the circle because, in the instance of the

Trudeau Foundation, but also, when I facilitated the Nelson Mandela Dialogues, I went into it just thinking about the rules and the process, but had no expectation about what was coming on the outside of it, right? Like, what the outcomes could possibly be. I did know that the outcomes for a circle are outcomes for the people.

It's the transformation of the people in the circle, and then they will create outcomes with new understandings, you know? And this was something that we were really clear about with the Nelson Mandela Dialogues too.  They were kind of aghast when I said, actually the final report is just a video and you are our final report. You are our outcome. What you are going to do when you leave here is the outcome of these dialogues.

I approached the gathering with the Foundation the same way. We were not going to have a report that came from all these academics, because, you know, everybody in that circle was super smart, very accomplished, could have written an amazing report. Man, we could have wordsmithed the heck out of that report! But I wasn't interested in that, in another report. I was interested in what are you going to do with this? What's your next step? Those are the outcomes that I think are important to our society. They may not be great for a proposal, you know, funding proposal for a final report, but they certainly make a difference in our society.

And that's where, I think, the change needs to be. The other thing about doing work like this, it really is about being in service to your community. And throughout the entire dialogue, for the Foundation specifically, I could see the students starting to really think about… They are already community minded people, they already want to change the world, but to think about, okay, what are the outcomes? What am I going to do? What is my very-very next step? I love that, I loved to hear when, especially students, are talking about what their next step was. They're placing themselves in leadership roles: I want to make this change; therefore, I'm going to do this. And that's exciting. That's how we change the world, one student at a time.

Margarida

So, Patti, following on what you said, I would like to hear you on our current state in the formulation of policies of equity, diversity, and inclusion in the workplace, in institutions, and in schools.

I think we both agree that this is a very important step, to have these rules written, but we can also agree that there's something that needs to be done beyond policy, beyond grades, written tools that is related to human beings. What's your take on the unwritten rules of a culture of equity, diversity, and inclusion that goes beyond the written policy?

Patti

So, I would say that policies on diversity and inclusion are only useful in drawing a line in the sand and explaining what will not be tolerated, and what meaningful consequences, if there are any, will come from that behavior that we find abhorrent. That's their only purpose. They're not guides to help people be more human in their workspace, they don't help in that perspective. I would say that true inclusion, true diversity, thinking in those ways, is all about kindness and curiosity. Curiosity about how other people think, how they see the world, their worldview, and kindness to people that we identify as being different than us.

No policy is going to make sure that everybody is kind to each other. That takes skilled facilitation. And we often leave that to managers and leaders inside of our institutions, to police it. But we do not necessarily train them on how to foster it, how to help people that they are responsible for supervision or overseeing. We train them on how to take really good case notes to provide evidence if action has to be taken, but we're not training people on how to be more human in the workplace and how to create spaces, where we can be fully human.  Because it's difficult, but we have to do that. So, that's my very cynical view on those policies. We still need them, though. You need to know where the line in the sand is, because if people are not willing to participate in the workspace in the way that we want them to, action has to be taken, but that should be 20% of the work that we do.

And now I'm really leaning on Allen Benson's idea of the 80/20 rule: 20% of what we do should be dealing with issues. And 80% of our actions should be about building relationships, because when we have good relationships, we can do that other piece, the dealing with the issues.

Margarida

And I would say, even, Patti, that a lot of issues are created because there is no relationship, right?

Patti

Absolutely. I agree 100%.  And it's not easy to have a relationship focused on managerial style.  It really takes a lot of patience, a lot of kindness, a lot of time at the front end, but all of that relationship-building time that we spend makes it so that we don't have to spend so much time on issues. I'm much more interested in building relationships, far more interested.

Margarida

I do agree with that. And it's not, like you said, we are not trained for kindness and we are not trained to show up at the table with our full humanity. And, you know, academia is not doing that.

How do you see that reform in higher education? How can we make educational spaces be also about kindness and curiosity, and humanity, like you said?

Patti

That's a big question, but I want to focus a little bit on the Trudeau Foundation. I think that, already the leadership at the Foundation is attempting to do this, attempting to train our next generation of leaders. Every single one of those students are going to be in leadership positions going forward.

The attempt right now is to train them to be open to other ways of knowing, communicating, relating inside the workspace, encouraging students to learn in different knowledge systems.

For me, the indigenous knowledge systems are really important, and everything I've learned about relationships, I've learned sitting in the circle with elders. And I wouldn't have any of that understanding if I didn't do that work. And my PhD, when I did it, was very much with elders and ceremony. It was a critical component of my research work. And, as a result, I think I understand the world a little bit differently. I'm able to use that understanding of who I am as a human being and how I relate to other human beings in really different and unexpected ways.

We will have leaders in our society, going forward, that are way more capable than, perhaps, when I was doing my undergrad, you know? We'll have professors that are stretching the boundaries of what these graduate degrees are, and what can be accomplished, and what kind of leaders we are turning out in the future.

Margarida

And probably more happy students and more happy professors, right?

If we take care of those important things, those existential questions that we kind of chased out of academia, and if we put them at the center again, maybe something interesting will happen for all of us.

Can we use everything that you talked about? Do you see a space for all of that and the good life in, you know, institutions like the Trudeau Foundation or academia, or any kind of institution, actually?

Patti

So, my understanding of the good life draws on what I've learned in Cree ceremony about the concept of pimatisiwin. And pimatisiwin, mino-pimatisiwin means seeking the good life, but in a very, in the highest form of that good life, in the broadest sense of it. It's my emotional, mental, physical, spiritual health. How do I think about seeking the good life in my political life, in my social life, in the best possible way?

And so, certainly, learning to be more human has been a critical part of my mino-pimatisiwin, my seeking the good life.  It's been more about, how do I become a better human being? And that's been my… in every ceremony I participate in, because I'm a faster and a Sun dancer, is about becoming a better human being. That's all I'm there for – is, how can I be a better human being and create a better space for the people around me?

That idea of seeking mino-pimatisiwin is transformative. Living life in that way… And I do a poor job of it – I commit to it every morning, and I screw it up ten times during the day. Cause it's an ideal, it's something I'm trying to do.  For me, it has been the most important understanding in my life. It has guided my research; it’s guided my career choices. And even in my work now, in politics, you know, it's all about relationships. And so, the concept of mino-pimatisiwin, which I probably know this much about, just a little tiny bit about, is something I'm a lifelong learner of. The more human I am, I think, the better human being I am, and the more value I can give to this world.

Margarida

Wow. Okay, Patti, last question. Thank you so much for that. So, that was kind of a treat just there.  But let me invite you to an exercise. So, let's imagine a future in which a culture of respect for diversity and inclusion, and reconciliation, and relatedness is a reality, where reconciliation is realized, where indigenous lives, worldviews, philosophies, values, and ways of being are a major source of inspiration for all. What would that look like, in your opinion?

Patti

What it would look like, to me, is the Sun dance lodge, you know? What it would look like to me, is community coming together with a shared purpose, living by a set of rules that are not complicated, but profound rules, like kindness, caring, sharing, freedom, humility, respect, love. All human beings placing that, those values at the forefront and letting those values inform every relationship that we have.

That's what the Sun dance holder tries to do in a Sun dance. He holds that space for us. The social contract, which is kind of an awful way of saying it, but is that we are all going to live those values in that Sun dance, and we're going to pray for the people. It's the most powerful ceremony that I know of, and I'm not an expert. And I am just a humble dancer watching what's happening.

So, when you asked me, what that would look like, I think I've experienced it.

It's something that I could be very emotional thinking about.

The other thing that I know to be true is that it's entirely possible. You know, it's not an ideal, it’s something we can do, if we have the will to create it.

Margarida

Thank you for that, Patti, really, and thank you for this conversation that touched our hearts, our minds, and our willingness to contribute to that good life that we can build together. Thank you so much.

Patti

It was my honor. Thank you for having me.

 

With Valerie Pringle and Margarida Garcia

 

Resume

Valerie Pringle introduces the host of the Brave Spaces podcast, Dr. Margarida Garcia. Margarida Garcia is a 2004 scholar of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation and Chair of the Advisory Committee on Diversity. Her research has led her to examine the topic of diversity through the lens of law, criminology, and sociology. They talk about the importance of bringing a variety of perspectives from the margins and about ways of making people feel that they belong.

 

 

Transcript

Valerie

Hello, I'm Valerie Pringle, and I am a 2017 Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation mentor. And I'm very delighted to be presenting now what is the introductory episode for the Brave Spaces conversations on diversity. And I'm delighted to be joined by Margarida Garcia. Margarida Garcia is a 2004 scholar of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation and is Chair of the Advisory Committee on Diversity.  Margarida will be hosting the podcast series, Brave Spaces, on the theme of diversity. Hi, Margarida.

Margarida

Hi, Valerie. Thank you so much. It's great to be with you today.

Valerie

Well, it's good to be with you and this, you know, this is complicated. This is very interesting. Can you just tell us a little bit about yourself and how your work has been influenced, particularly by the questions of diversity, equity, and inclusion?

Margarida

Sure. I can tell you that I kind of organized my career around disciplinary diversity and really committed searching for different perspectives. So, although the main focus of my research was, for a long time, this thing we call human rights, I looked at this topic from the world of law and from the world of criminology and from the world of sociology.

So, I earned three diplomas in three diverse universities in two very distant, in different continents. And anytime I would change discipline, I went through what I can call, you know, the crucible of diversity and inclusion as lived. So, I was never really, really a criminologist and never really, really a sociologist and never really, really a lawyer.

And I would say that this extraordinary gift of expanding my worldview and looking at things from different perspectives came with that price of discomfort of not knowing, of not mastering the foundations of any discipline, actually. That was, I would say, the entry of the topic. And then I pursued my PhD research on the distinction: inclusion - exclusion, as I did extensive work to better understand, how in the world of sentencing, we actually use the semantics of human rights to exclude offenders from society.

So, it was kind of a very open-eye example, for me, of a paradox that is kind of rich. And that is how we can use, you know, some of modernity's most progressive and even emancipatory tools to produce results, because we engage in polarized thinking or because we engage in what I call wars of humanisms. To finish, I would say that diversity and inclusion, it's really at the core of my most important project of the moment. And that's supporting leadership education for all, what we can call inclusive leadership. So, my team and I created the Leadership Academy at the University of Ottawa and we are developing inclusive leadership training based on an ontological model of leadership.

Valerie

What does that mean?

Margarida

What does that mean? “Ontology,” big word. Simply said, it means that we focus on ways of being, because we assert that the most pressing and important challenges of our time – fighting racism, exclusion, or discrimination, climate change – all of that, those challenges will not be won by our traditional way of dealing with challenges, and that is, accumulating knowledge. So, we are not lacking knowledge around climate change, and we are not lacking knowledge around, you know, systemic racism and exclusion. So, there's something missing. And we say that what's missing is really an education on human being, ways of being human.

Valerie

Well, and it's interesting, but you know, ways of being human are also the problem, right? In terms of, you know, people's attitudes and racist and colonial attitudes, you know, for centuries.

Margarida

Oh, completely, completely. So, I think we are really living a real-time paradigm shift. Our ways of being are not working, we're facing massive social and cultural breakdowns, so we need to reinvent all that. And we are not doing that job in academia. We’re focused extremely narrowly on knowledge, accumulating knowledge, and we need to revise that paradigm to support invention of ways of being that are more responsible, more responsive, and more, you know, connected to our shared humanity.

Valerie

Well, and open to different forms of knowledge as well, you know, accepting…

Margarida

Exactly. To a diversity of perspectives, but a meaningful one, right? And that's actually, you know, what really interests me in this Brave Spaces podcast – is that you'll be having those conversations and listening to diversity as lived with my guests.

Valerie

Is there any debate going on any more in academia that you think, and I… obviously, you don't know what's happening everywhere, but just about the importance of creating and engaging in diverse spaces?

Margarida

That's a very important question, Valerie, because I personally think it's just the beginning. So, I think we're just learning to say the right words and to have the right policies. And I think we're doing a good, important job doing that, but we really need to go to the real work and, you know, that's the unwritten policy around inclusion and diversity. So, making someone feel that he or she, or they belong, it's not about ideas or policies. It's really about being with that person in a certain way, about acting with that person in a certain way. So, I would say, it’s the beginning, and there's a lot more to be done.

Valerie

And difficult conversations.

Margarida

Exactly. Very difficult conversations, because it cannot be superficial. It cannot be performative. And it cannot be about rushing for common ground when there's not common ground. So, I do think that we need all the space for difference and mutual respect, and to disagreement.

You know, I can disagree with people's opinions and I do disagree with a lot of opinions, but I cannot disagree with people's experiences of life, of the discrimination they lived. And we need to go beyond the sea of opinions and create something else. We can need to create, you know, life-giving and life-altering spaces, and life-altering conversations, where we can actually listen, even if it does not resonate with our own experience.

Valerie

And, you know, that requires work. That requires a lot of people cracking their heads open and looking inside themselves, you know, academics and non-academics.

Margarida

All of us. And I would say, you know, it's even going beyond our heads. And sometimes what we have inside our heads is the problem. So, knowledge can be in the way of that.

If we come together to create, from the future, ways of being and acting that actually support human flourishing for all of us, despite disagreement on the world of knowledge and opinions.

Valerie

Mm-hmm, interesting. Do you have any sort of understanding of how and why this is happening now? What’s come together to cause people to think about this and act?

Margarida

Well, I think, you know, of course the death of George Floyd comes to mind when you ask that question, for sure. I think we were shocked to see that we can do things like that. And so, all of this was happening already. So, I think we need to be clear about that. The world was never not diverse, never, ever.

I think what's happening now is that we are really bringing different perspectives that were in the margins. And, you know, revolution happens always in the margins. So, if we want to do things differently, we need to be curious and open, and to search for materials that are not the ones that brought us here, right? That brought us to this massive social, cultural breakdown that we are facing. So, we need to look at ourselves in the mirror and I think that's what happened, Valerie. I think we had several mirrors at the same time where we could see, you know, ways of being and acting that were not what we want for us and for the future.

So, it's a moment of openness, of curiosity, of humility, and coming to terms with things that cannot happen again, or that will happen again, but we need to not put it below the carpet.

Valerie

And, you know, as George Floyd, as you say, was an episode following thousands, millions of episodes, and the finding of the graves in the residential schools...

Margarida

Of course, in Canada, yes.

Valerie

Similar, you know: we knew, we knew. We'd had the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. But it's interesting, what penetrates our brains and consciences, you know, ultimately?

Margarida

I think we attain a threshold of horror with some of those episodes that really cracked something open. And now it's time to do the work.

Valerie

Mm-hmm. Are there specific areas where you've seen evolution, change?

Margarida

Valerie, that's an interesting question. I think change is the normal state of affairs, right? Things are always, continuously changing.

Now the question is, is there an evolution? And I think we are seeing evolutions in many different directions. I think some of them are positive, so we are really committed to this idea of diversity and inclusion becoming criteria, meaningful criteria for decision-making, for hiring a team, for doing research.

So, I think that's a positive evolution, and we had to adapt to that framework and to that worldview very quickly in our institutions. And I think that's a positive evolution. I am also seeing breakdowns in polarization of debates because of these conversations, right? So, you know, the polarization between academic freedom or the anti-racist efforts. And the wars that generated in academia are difficult to understand, coming from a body of professionals, whose main task is to think critically and with nuance and complexity around difficult issues.

I think we do need to be more conscious and more careful about naming things, about the way in which we reframe conversations. So, language is very important.

Valerie

Well, language can also, as you sort of referred to, in academia, shut down debate. “Oh, we can't go there. You can't talk about that. You can't say that anymore. That is not allowed.”

Margarida

Yeah, and that's, for sure, something that is happening. And that, I think, is very disruptive, because we cannot deal with any of this by silencing voices and silencing our own ignorance. So, I need to deal with my ignorance and I need to deal with my biases if I want to do things differently. And I need to have a space to say it as I see it, as I feel it, knowing it's not… that probably I don’t have the good language and that I'll make mistakes.

If we don't let people be where they are, if you don't meet people where they are in their journey of prejudices and biases, and ignorance, and insights, we cannot do anything about it. And it cannot create common language and a common world that will make sense for all of us. So, I think that's an undesirable evolution that we silence things that are not set in the perfect form or in an acceptable form, because it's so uncomfortable to look at the mirror that you try to rush into a common ground that is not felt, that it's just a performative common ground, because those two strategies actually prevented us from dealing with the messiness that we need to confront.

If you are really about the diversity of perspectives, diversity of perspectives is not easy. It's not a walk in the park. It’s someone in front of me, you know, pushing for something that I don't agree with, or that goes against my values. So how can I be with that and hold the space for someone who has a different opinion without losing relationships?

So, I do think that's really something that is very, very important now.

Valerie

Probably, the most difficult and the most important work that's going on now.

Margarida

Yeah, I think that's… exactly. I would say that. I think that to create spaces where we can have these difficult conversations, where we can hold space for difference of opinions, a difference of perspectives, while strengthening relationship in face of disagreement. I think this is what's really ahead of us. It's not easy and it will be profoundly transformational for all of us.

Valerie

Which is creating a brave space. And I know, people will be listening to this series and you talking to your guests, desperate for advice, because people are grappling with this.

Everybody is grappling with this and how to get it right, and how to move

forward.

Margarida

Well, I think the only way to getting it right and moving it forward is that you learn to know each other. And that we connect with things that I think are true for all of us. Those are things… I think we can all agree that we are starved of more meaningful lives and ready for more meaningful lives, and we are starved of being seen and appreciated for our uniqueness. And ready to be seen and appreciated for our uniqueness, so, I think that's true for all of us. I have never met someone who doesn't want to make a difference with their work, with their voice, with their commitment in life, in institutions, in teams.

So, we need to create those institutions that are really a good ground for us to be more human. I want to bring my creativity to my workplace and I want to be my uniqueness to my workplace.

I think there's more space for us to show up as we are. And maybe one day you’ll say, you know what? Diversity is not even the good word. Maybe uniqueness is the good word.

So, maybe it’s just about us showing up as we are with all the disciplines, and all the identities, and all the opinions, and all the blind spots, and all the potential that we are. So, we need to see possibilities. And to see possibilities, there's no way better to look for them than in different perspectives.

Valerie

Then it is unique too, because you can't, as people have found, put one person from one community, or one race, or one gender, or whatever on a committee or a panel and say, okay, you're it, you represent this. As if.

Margarida

Exactly. And that's what I’m saying: it cannot be about bodies, because you can’t have diversity without really getting to know the people in front of you. And they're just diverse using some kind of superficial criteria, but maybe, you know, they all think the same way. So, we don't, aren’t much more advanced with regards to decision-making.

Valerie

It's not a box to tick. You cannot tick a box.

Margarida

No, you cannot tick a box and people know that, right? So, you just need to ask people, “Well, do you feel welcomed in this institution?” It's not about arriving there. And that's important by the way, you know, arriving there. It's very important, but that's just the beginning. It's not about policy. It's not about treats and words. It's about a certain way of being with people.

Valerie

Do you have a sense of enormous urgency about this? Or do you have a sense, we're on a path, this will take time? I remember a line of a former Supreme Court Justice Rosie Abella about our evolutionary grasp of justice, you know, with implying that it's a journey.

Margarida

I have no doubts this is a journey, and I have no doubts this will take time. I would say, from my work with human rights, I really got to see that it's a mountain with no top. As time goes by, we become aware of threats to dignity that we were not aware of 20 years ago, and we are today. And it's going to be the same thing in 20 years from now. It has been, you know, the evolution of human rights. That's why they are very flexible. And they need to be, so that we can grow with them and that they can grow with us.

So, I think it's the same thing here. We'll never get there. We'll just get better and better and better, and more inclusive, and more inclusive, and more diverse, more diverse and more diverse, and richer.  And I think that's an important aspect of the conversation on diversities in institution is, why should we not go there? We’d gain so much. It's so much more interesting, and rich, and we end up doing things in new ways.

So, why not go there? We are the ones missing the boat if we don't do it.

Valerie

What are you sort of hoping to get from the conversations that you're going to have as part of the Brave Spaces podcast on diversity, with the people that you will speak with?

Margarida

I would say that my stand for these conversations is to be a listener of diversity.

So, my only goal is, I hope I'll be able to capture the experience, the as-lived experience of my guest around the topic of his choosing: on diversity, on inclusion, and the way he sees it, so that I hope that we can really put ourselves in someone else's shoes for the duration of that conversation.

Valerie

And then understand from that again, to amplify the sense that a plurality of perspectives, even if they're, as we say, difficult conversations, and they often are, that they absolutely enhance us and enhance our work.

Margarida

Exactly. And I say for myself, when I really encounter a different perspective, my mind explodes in a good way. It's like turning a corner, you know, and the background completely changing, and you expand yourself.

Valerie

Which is, you know, I guess what you do all the time in your work at the University of Ottawa as well.

Margarida

Yes. As an educator, that's for sure something to practice and to live with my students.

Valerie

So just to finish off here, I don't know if you have any advice for people who are listening. Anything you've read or listened to, or seen that has sort of helped you think about this, think about diversity and ways to approach it?

Margarida

Well, it's a coincidence, but I do, I have a podcast that I really like. That is an inspiration in the world of diversity, you know, with disciplines of perspectives of all the criteria, it's there.

It's the podcast called On Being, the host is Krista Tippett, the American journalist, Peabody award. And I'm actually reading her book, that's just a coincidence, that is called Becoming Wise: An Inquiry into the Mystery and Art of Living by also Krista Tippett. So, I think those are two great sources of inspiration in the world of, you know, being with the idea of diversity - What does it mean? What does it mean to be a human being? - that I would recommend, if people are curious about it.

Valerie

So, the book is called Being Wise.

Margarida

Becoming, sorry, Becoming Wise. And the podcast, On Being, yeah.

Valerie

On Being, sorry. On Being and Becoming Wise, but becoming wise, isn't saying, be diverse, you know, inclusive, but that's implied?

Margarida

Yes, because, as I said, you know, diversity is a fact, the world is just diverse. So, I think, becoming wise, it's really becoming ready and open to be with live people in the world as live people in the world are. And they are diverse.

Valerie

They certainly are. Well, I look forward to your conversations, and thank you so much for talking with us today, and this will continue on, because it's so interesting and such important work. And it's great that it's part of the leadership curriculum for the Trudeau scholars, absolutely.

Margarida

Yeah, I'm really excited to have these conversations, to be a listener for diversity, and I hope you all will enjoy it.

Valerie

Okay. Thank you so much, Margarida Garcia, who will be hosting that series and, just to recap, I’m Valerie Pringle, and this was the intro and the Brave Spaces series podcast on diversity will be upcoming. Thank you.

Margarida

Thank you, Valerie.