Nearly four weeks ago I posted on LinkedIn my thoughts on the new buzzword of the global development sector: Pluralism. And in this post, I noted that I would write a larger blog write-up around my thoughts on these trends and what it means for the sector.
But one week went by, and another, and I noticed the growing conversation around pluralism and the spectrum of responses to a recent article and call for ‘Philanthropic Pluralism’ by the Ford Foundation, a few friends, and a noticeable right-wing funder.
And then I had a conversation with a dear friend and colleague in the global development and racial justice movement space and what she shared prompted a course correction of this blog post to address a fact adjacent but directly linked to pluralism and trending social buzzwords.
Here’s my original LinkedIn post from three weeks ago for reference:
Oh, the trending buzzwords of the Social Justice and global development sector.
Instead of embedding in racial equity and justice practice, we have DEI/DEIB/IEDB/DEIJ/DEIAD and so many other acronyms all of which are skirting the whole point: Black people and people of color and their livelihoods and economic security and physical and mental well-being (and much more) – matter in organizations and in life.
Then you have feminist leadership and gender equality which feel like buzzwords (I know this will offend some fellow feminists) because so many “feminist” and “gender equality” approaches are rooted in maintaining white feminism, power, and supremacy.
The new trend: moving from “divisive” (read: honest conversations rooted in history, impact, and lived experience) to values-based pluralism (where abstract words like warmth, empathy, kindness, and respect) are used to justify not doing the work required for justice and equity work and evading any accountability for the impact of racist and inequitable practices. In the past two weeks, I’ve seen the use of the word pluralism increase across the sector. This is not a mistake as I believe it’s by design (not a conspiracy theorist- rather an observer of trends)
We may not say openly all that we see taking place because of the risks people of color face in speaking truth to rancid structures of power – but we see and smell the stink nonetheless and we know its roots.
I want to focus on the last part of this post because it directly links to the conversation I had, and my own personal experiences, and because there are already some amazing articles that have been written by folks on the harm the Ford Foundation article causes to the sector at large (Ray Holgado’s post, Vu Le’s blog, CEP’s response to note a few).
We may not say openly all that we see taking place because of the risks people of color face in speaking truth to rancid structures of power – but we see and smell the stink nonetheless and we know its roots.
…the risks people of colour face in speaking truth to rancid structures of power…
This theme came up in this conversation with my dear friend – the risks people of colour face and I want to dig into this because this is something I have been wrestling with for a long time – years – and I still don’t have an understanding as to who the people are who are blacklisting some of the most incredible Black, Indigenous and women of colour from career progression opportunities in the global development sector.
Here’s what I know and what I have personally experienced:
- Black women and women of colour who are outspoken about the numerous issues within global development are increasingly becoming consultants for many reasons but these are the primary ones:
- They are leaving and forced to leave toxic, racist, and violent (psychological and emotional) workspaces.
- They have tried and tried and tried to find other jobs in other organisations, but they are not hired. They are told (as I have been told), ‘You are too experienced,’ or ‘You don’t have enough X (chose a very specific job function which was not listed in the qualifications section) experience,’ or ‘You’re not a good fit for our culture,’ or ‘Your approach is a bit too radical for us but we appreciate the work you do,’ and more…more…more utterly defeating responses.
In 2022, after nearly a year and a half of moving through a disheartening job search process and facilitating some independent consulting projects on the side (see my post from Dec 2020 that I wrote about this experience) I moved to be a full-time consultant. Since 2019 I have been increasingly outspoken about the dangers and violence of white feminism in the women’s rights movement and the white supremacy within the funding space – specifically regarding my interactions with funders. I remember saying to a friend before moving to full-time consultancy (and after multiple job interviews that went to final rounds, positive feedback from hiring managers, and numerous but targeted job applications) that I felt that I was on a blacklist in the sector because even after targeted applications and positive feedback from friends and hiring managers I was not able to land any of the jobs I applied for.
After all this, I continue to ask, who continues to be impacted in the sector by taking the risk of speaking out against systemic inequities and the harm caused by the Global Development sector and the actors within it? And what is as clear as day is that the people most impacted by the sector not taking risks – funders specifically – not doing the very thing they advocate for – speaking truth to power, being intentional in our approach, being transparent, demanding accountability, etc – are Black women and women of colour.
When the Ford Foundation partners together with known right-wing entities that fund the dissolution of democracy and the alarming violence towards Trans and gender-non-conforming people to call for Philanthropic pluralism, they are aligning to their historical low-risk nature. They are shifting responsibility to those that are already in high-risk positions because of their demographic identities and lived experiences. Vu Le has written a great response to the ‘need for philanthropic pluralism article which covers this shift in responsibility, and I encourage you all to read it.
In my time fundraising for movements and collectives I have been in numerous conversations with funders who ask all the questions about:
- our intentionality
- our community-driven approach
- our commitment to racial equity, diversity, racial justice, intersectionality
- etc. etc. etc.
In the new open call from Yield Giving, many similar questions are also asked of applicants. Yield Giving currently has said they will give out $1 million to 250 organisations with the following restrictions:
- Organisations must be US based
- Organisations must have a budget of over 1M dollars
- Organisations must be of and by the communities the organisations serve.
However, a quick search on Yield Giving’s site reveals there is zero transparency around who is behind the team – yes, the peer reviewers are listed, but how exactly were they selected and what are the communities they represent (while their individual titles are noted more could be done for accessibility of transparency)? How is Yield Giving holding itself accountable to racial equity and intersectionality both internally and externally, who outside of the organisation is holding them accountable to these standards, and what does accountability actually look like if they don’t live up to the standards they hold their own grantees to?
In our collective at The Racial Equity Index, we have noted the disproportionate nature of funders’ questions many times. As my friend, Chantal, a colleague at The Racial Equity Index noted in our conversation about who bears the most risk in the global development sector:
‘We know, PEOPLE KNOW, in this sector that if you speak up and say what is actually going on, you [could] be blacklisted and there will be gatekeepers who stand in your way because they see you as too loud, too disruptive. Meanwhile, funders literally ask us as a community of activists to take risks, hold governments and systems accountable, to fight for change. We’ve seen so many examples of what happens when you ‘rock the boat’.
When I asked Chantal what the message would be to funders who continue to align and remain stuck in their low-risk comfortability, she responded:
We are asking funders to be better. That’s it. We are doing the work of calling for nonprofits [and the overall global development sector] to be better and in doing so we are out here forcibly having to expose our most vulnerable parts of ourselves. What we need now is for nonprofits to hold their funders accountable. Interview funders the same way funders interview them. If your funder asks you about diversity in your organisation, ask them that same question back. Power dynamic changes require all of us to flip the script and hold entities accountable that have historically avoided accountability.
We know why vocal, visionary, bold, and unapologetic Black women and women of colour who speak on the realities of decolonisation and racial equity are not hired by organisations yet brought on time and time again for our expertise as consultants. We know and yet this sector seems to care very little about the fact that these brilliant women are leaving the sector because this sector would rather BE in its un-comfortability than actually do the thing it’s asking those on the frontlines to do – take risks.
Until these dynamics shift and funders truly do the work required and take the risks that they not only ask us activists and organisers to take but are the basis for systemic change, I am afraid that I will continue to see my colleagues and I continually blacklisted and denied opportunities to flourish and grow in our careers (we must speak about the economic justice impacts of the sector’s unwillingness to take risks and the blacklisting of those on the frontlines of systemic change).
To be continued…..
Uma Mishra-Newbery is a global social justice and women’s rights leader, transformative speaker, former Executive Director of Women’s March Global, the initiator and facilitator for the Racial Equity Index, and an organisational strategy and racial equity senior consultant with The Better Org.
Credit:Source link
