In my last missive, I wrote about how —shortly after posting my first YouTube video— Smith College student journalist “J.” contacted me to request an interview for The Sophian, Smith’s “independent, student-run newspaper.”
The second half of J.’s questions —more speculative in nature— were an opportunity for me to discuss my hopes and ideal vision for my alma mater and (now former) employer.
Below is part 2 of my full, unedited interview with The Sophian.
J: How do you think Smith should go forward about discussing race, if at all?
ME: Since Smith has made clear it feels it is important for all of us (staff included) to be involved in these discussions, as a staff member who is seeking to improve working conditions at Smith, this question is relevant, so I will answer it.
The real problem is that we are not even talking - not really- about anything. We are not even at a place where we are having honest conversations at all. So we need to work on creating conditions for honest conversation first. Once we have done that, We will be able to talk about a lot of topics (including race) in a productive way that actually has some meaning.
I think if we are to talk about things at all, then there are many, many things Smith could be talking about. Race is only one of them, and I am not convinced it is the most important one.
We could be talking about how to empower students (as opposed to inadvertently disempowering them, which is what I believe we are currently doing).
We could talk more about how to teach and encourage students to advocate for themselves in a world that can be vicious and brutal, with a lot of people in power abusing that power, with much unbridled greed, corruption, and a disturbing (observable) lack of empathy for others. I don’t think disenfranchising students from developing their own individual voices is the way to go in this regard. I know Smith believes it is empowering students with all of these initiatives, but when you look more closely at the end (albeit anecdotal), not to mention the rigid belief system that results, “empowerment” is not the first word that comes to mind.
Class is a big issue, maybe even the biggest one, at least to me, when I think about inequity in the world. We are united in that we all live in a world in which greed flourishes and is characterized by extremely concentrated centers of power and wealth.
In many parts of the world people do not even have running water. Smith College is located in a country in which it is becoming increasingly impossible to make any kind of living, where there is very little if no economic security, where many families live one paycheck away from total disaster (many of whom are currently employed by Smith College, and are currently on furlough), and where people live in doorways and streets.
Drug addiction is a raging problem that has very real material consequences for individuals, families and communities (including I imagine, people in the Smith Community) and yet I hear very little about these issues.
There are many adults and children in the world who live in situations of constant, extreme physical and psychological abuse. Slavery still exists, and is in fact rampant and widespread throughout the entire world. We could be identifying and addressing the roots of the causes of poverty, including in black communities. The list goes on and on.
These are serious and seemingly intractable issues. But as I see it, if Smith is going to engage in such discussions, then it needs to do so in a manner that is not only authentic, but that empowers students to go into the world armed with the tools to address these realities in an effective manner.
But (and this is a BIG “but”) authentic conversations (that is, the kind that stimulate growth and progress toward a common goal) absolutely require some amount of trust. Otherwise, we are just reciting a script. If Smith wants staff to be involved in these conversations, (and if it wants to do the right thing at all), then it has a lot of work to do toward regaining the trust of staff. Our very first order of business in this regard (as I see it) is an honest reconciliation of the injustice that occurred on our watch, in our midst, in Smith’s recent history. This is an event that resulted in a cascade of countless other injustices and harm to multiple individuals on this campus, and has contributed significantly to the hostile work environment in general.
I have privately and now very publicly, brought this matter to Smith’s attention. Tracey Culver very publicly brought this matter to Smith’s attention. Others have brought it to Smith’s attention.
Smith continues to ignore this very real problem in favor of vague, ill defined initiatives that seek to achieve an end the college has -by its own behavior- made impossible to achieve.
I can’t say for sure we as a community can ever reach a place where authentic conversations about anything real or serious can actually happen, but I do know that the conditions required for such conversations are not currently present. And that’s what we should be working toward.
J: What do you have to say to people who are criticizing your video?
ME: I appreciate all comments and critiques. While the support I have received goes a long way toward keeping my courage up, viewpoints that diverge from my own are critical to authentic conversation. Otherwise, I am just listening to myself talk in an echo chamber. I enjoy subtlety and complexity. And novelty. And difference. I wish we could create conditions at Smith in which nuance and complexity can thrive. The incredibly rigid and scripted nature of our current “discussion” implies that we have a long way to go toward creating a truly inclusive environment, one in which people who have thoughts and feelings that do not adhere to the “script” can feel confident that their ideas are a welcome and a valued part of the conversation. I also wish for an environment in which thoughts and ideas are evaluated on their merit, as opposed to resorting to a troubling default mode of personal attacks. To me “inclusivity” is an additive process, whereas Smith’s definition seems to be a subtractive one.
J: What do you have to say to non-white students who may feel uncomfortable contacting you now?
ME:
As a professional working in higher education, I honor and respect the thoughts, feelings and ideas of all students, even if they are different from mine.
I think most people feel some amount of discomfort when confronted with thoughts, ideas or speech that is different from their own, or that differ from what they assume to be the only acceptable or “default” narrative. The assumption that discomfort automatically equates to a lack of safety is not a narrative I support, and promoting such a narrative does not do students any favors. I believe reinforcing adherence to a “default script” is harmful to the personal development and growth of humans who are in a period of life where they should be expanding their conceptual horizons, not shrinking them.
You are the captain of your life. You are a unique being and you have power and you have individual worth and an “identity” that goes far beyond your immutable characteristics.
If you tell me your skin color has informed your thinking and/or has had an impact on your life, I believe you, and I want to know more (if you care to share). But I am not going to make that assumption for you. In fact, I will not make any assumptions about you based on your skin tone. To do so is an act of prejudice, and as a rule I try very hard not to engage in prejudice of any kind. I believe each person should have the ability to articulate their own truth. I try very hard to allow space for truth to thrive, whether in my office or my personal life. I am not here to interpret your reality for you. I am here to listen to and support and honor you on whatever path you are on.
J: You allude to two times you were singled out for your skin color after the July 31 incident. For the first you said that you were denied a professional opportunity because you are white. Would you be comfortable forwarding me these emails?
I am going to release the email in my next video.
J: In your new video, you criticize what Smith did “behind the scenes” after the July 31 incident. What did the college do, in particular? This will have to wait for the next article, sorry! Did they enact/change certain policies towards staff?
ME: Yes but I cannot type them here- I am sorry.
J: Sorry, one last question, but I'm curious: why a series of videos as your chosen medium? Why not a blog post, or a letter to the Gazette, for example?
ME: Video it is a more vulnerable medium than print, which also means it is more powerful. People can watch me, in real time, as I am telling the story (notice there are no cuts or editing- at least not yet). I wanted to be as open and honest (and authentic) as I possibly could. I am asking for all of us in the Smith community (especially the admin) to be more honest, so I figure I should put my money where my mouth is.
J: If I happen to have asked questions that don't cover something you want to say, please feel free to send me a statement or any additional information. Again, I appreciate that this is an extremely sensitive topic, but I would appreciate an answer before Saturday.
ME: I agree that this is “an extremely sensitive” topic, the question is: why? If we truly want to be doing the work, of “racial justice” or “equity and inclusion” or even merely just being decent human beings by allowing each other space to be our best selves, then how is is that we have somehow arrived at a place where talking about these things is so extremely sensitive? How did this come to be? And what role does Smith currently play in perpetuating this “sensitivity”?
Come on, now, Smith! WE CAN DO BETTER.
The "script" or "default mode" are merely crutches for those who don't have the desire or ability to think for themselves. It's sad to see how most of our universities have fallen to that level. As long as it stays the way it is, I'd advise any kid of mine to go to a good trade school and learn to do something useful.