Welcome everyone. In order for people to commit to working on diversity, every person needs to feel that they will be included and important. Whether the person is a Japanese-American woman, a white man, a Jew, a gay person, an African-American, a Arab-American, a fundamentalist Christian, or speaks with an accent, has a disability, is poor, or is wealthy--each person needs to feel welcomed in the effort to create a diverse community. And each person needs to know that their culture is important to others.
Guilt doesn't work in fostering diversity. Blaming people as a way of motivating them is not effective. Shaming people for being in a privileged position only causes people to feel bad; it doesn't empower them to take action to change. People are more likely to change when they are appreciated and liked, not condemned or guilt-tripped. Treating everyone the same may be unintentionally oppressive. Although every person is unique, some of us have been mistreated or oppressed because we are a member of a particular group. If we ignore these present-day or historical differences, we may fail to understand the needs of those individuals. Often people are afraid that recognizing differences will divide people from each other. However, learning about cultural differences can actually bring people closer together, because it can reveal important parts of each others? lives. It can show us how much we have in common as human beings. People can take on tough issues more readily when the issues are presented with a spirit of hope. We are bombarded daily with newspapers and TV reports of doom and gloom. People have a difficult time functioning at all when they feel there is no hope for change. When you present diversity issues you can say things like, "This is an excellent opportunity to build on the strengths that this organization has," or "There is no reason why we can't solve this problem together." Building a team around us is the most effective way of creating institutional and community change around diversity issues. You will be more effective if you have a group of people around you that works together closely. People often try to go it alone, but we can lose sight of our goals and then become discouraged when operating solo. It is important to take the time to develop strong relationships with a core of people, and then work together as a group. Recognize and work with the diversity already present in what appear to be homogenous groups. In working to combat racism and other forms of oppression many people become discouraged when they are unable to create a diverse group. Starting by recognizing differences in religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomics, parenting, and class backgrounds will help create a climate that welcomes differences; it will also lay the groundwork for becoming more inclusive. Why is understanding culture important if we are community builders?
The United States is becoming increasingly diverse. By the turn of the century one out of every three Americans will be a person of color. According to James Banks, more than 8 million legal immigrants came to the U.S. between 1981 and 1990, and an undetermined number of undocumented immigrants enter the United States each year (see Resources). In addition, the United States includes people of many religions, languages, economic groups, and other cultural groups. It is becoming clear that in order to build communities that are successful at improving conditions and resolving problems, we need to understand and appreciate many cultures, establish relationships with people from cultures other than our own, and build strong alliances with different cultural groups. Additionally, we need to bring non-mainstream groups into the center of civic activity. Why? In order to build communities that are powerful enough to attain significant change, we need large numbers of people working together. If cultural groups join forces, they will be more effective in reaching common goals, than if each group operates in isolation. Each cultural groups has unique strengths and perspectives that the larger community can benefit from. We need a wide range of ideas, customs, and wisdom to solve problems and enrich community life. Bringing non-mainstream groups into the center of civic activity can provide fresh perspectives and shed new light on tough problems. Understanding cultures will help us overcome and prevent racial and ethnic divisions. Racial and ethnic divisions result in misunderstandings, loss of opportunities, and sometimes violence. Racial and ethnic conflicts drain communities of financial and human resources; they distract cultural groups from resolving the key issues they have in common. People from different cultures have to be included in decision-making processes in order for programs or policies to be effective. The people affected by a decision have to be involved in formulating solutions--it's a basic democratic principle. Without the input and support of all the groups involved, decision-making, implementation, and follow through are much less likely to occur. An appreciation of cultural diversity goes hand-in-hand with a just and equitable society. For example, research has shown that when students' cultures are understood and appreciated by teachers, the students do better in school. Students feel more accepted, they feel part of the school community, they work harder to achieve, and they are more successful in school. If we do not learn about the influences that cultural groups have had on our mainstream history and culture, we are all missing out on an accurate view of our society and our communities. As you think about diversity, it may be helpful to envision the kind of cultural community you want to build. In order to set some goals related to building relationships between cultures, resolving differences, or building a diverse coalition, it helps to have a vision of the kind of cultural community you hope for. Critical Race Theory
An Introduction Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic Foreword by Angela Harris NEW YORK UNIVERSITY PRESS New York and London Basic Tenets of Critical Race Theory What do critical race theorists believe? Probably not every member would subscribe to every tenet set out in this book, but many would agree on the following propositions. First, that racism is ordinary, not aberrational -‑ "normal science," the usual way society does business, the common, everyday experience of most people of color in this country. Second, most would agree that our system of white‑over‑color ascendancy serves important purposes, both psychic and material. The first feature, ordinariness, means that racism is difficult to cure or address. Color‑blind, or "formal," conceptions of equality, expressed in rules that insist only on treatment that is the same across the board, can thus remedy only the most blatant forms of discrimination, such as mortgage redlining or the refusal to hire a black Ph.D. rather than a white high school dropout, that do stand out and attract our attention. The second feature, sometimes called "interest convergence" or material determinism, adds a further dimension. Because racism advances the interests of both white elites (materially) and working‑class people (psychically), large segments of society have little incentive to eradicate it. Consider, for example, Derrick Bell's shocking proposal (discussed in a later chapter) that Brown v. Board of Education‑considered a great triumph of civil rights litigation‑may have resulted more from the self‑interest of elite whites than a desire to help blacks. A third theme of critical race theory, the "social construction" thesis, holds that race and races are products of social thought and relations. Not objective, inherent, or fixed, they correspond to no biological or genetic reality; rather, races are categories that society invents, manipulates, or retires when convenient. People with common origins share certain physical traits, of course, such as skin color, physique, and hair texture. But these constitute only an extremely small portion of their genetic endowment, are dwarfed by that which we have in common, and have little or nothing to do with distinctly human, higher‑order traits, such as personality, intelligence, and moral behavior. That society frequently chooses to ignore these scientific facts, creates races, and endows them with pseudo‑permanent characteristics is of great interest to critical race theory. Another, somewhat more recent, development concerns differential racialization and its many consequences. Critical writers in law, as well as social science, have drawn attention to the ways the dominant society racializes different minority groups at different times, in response to shifting needs such as the labor market. At one period, for example, society may have had little use for blacks, but much need for Mexican or Japanese agricultural workers. At another time, the Japanese, including citizens of long standing, may have been in intense disfavor and removed to war relocation camps, while society cultivated other groups of color for jobs in war industry or as cannon fodder on the front. Popular images and stereotypes of various minority groups shift over time, as well. In one era, a group of color may be depicted as happy‑go‑lucky, simpleminded, and content to serve white folks. A little later, when conditions change, that very same group may appear in cartoons, movies, and other cultural scripts as menacing, brutish, and out of control, requiring close monitoring and repression. Closely related to differential racialization ‑ the idea that each race has its own origins and ever evolving history ‑- is the notion of intersectionality and anti‑essentialism. No person has a single, easily stated, unitary identity. A white feminist may be Jewish, or working‑class, or a single mother. An African American activist may be gay or lesbian. A Latino may be a Democrat, a Republican, or even a black‑perhaps because that person's family hails from the Caribbean. An Asian may be a recently arrived Hmong of rural background and unfamiliar with mercantile life, or a fourth‑generation Chinese with a father who is a university professor and a mother who operates a business. Everyone has potentially conflicting, overlapping identities, loyalties, and allegiances. A final element concerns the notion of a unique voice of color. Coexisting in somewhat uneasy tension with anti‑essentialism, the voice‑of‑color thesis holds that because of their different histories and experiences with oppression, black, Indian, Asian, and Latino/a writers and thinkers may be able to communicate to their white counterparts matters that the whites are unlikely to know. Minority status, in other words, brings with It a presumed competence to speak about race and racism. The "legal storytelling" movement urges black and brown writers to recount their experiences with racism and the legal system and to apply their own unique perspectives to assess law's master narratives. This topic, too, is taken up later in this book. Color-blindness Is Problematic An even more extreme version of color blindness, seen in certain Supreme Court opinions today, holds that it is wrong for the law to take any note of race, even to remedy a historical wrong. Critical race theorists (or "crits," as they are sometimes called) hold that color blindness will allow us to redress only extremely egregious racial harms, ones that everyone would notice and condemn. But if racism is embedded in our thought processes and social structures as deeply as many crits believe, then the "ordinary business" of society‑the routines, practices, and institutions that we rely on to effect the world's work‑will keep minorities in subordinate positions. Only aggressive, color‑conscious efforts to change the way things are will do much to ameliorate misery. As an example of one such strategy, one critical race scholar proposed that society "look to the bottom" in judging new laws. If they would not relieve the distress of the poorest group‑or, worse, if they compound it‑we should reject them. Although color blindness seems firmly entrenched in the judiciary, a few judges have made exceptions in unusual circumstances. What Is “Privilege”? "White privilege" refers to the myriad of social advantages, benefits, and courtesies that come with being a member of the dominant race. Imagine a black man and a white man, equally qualified, being interviewed for the same position in a business. The interviewer is white. The white candidate may feet more at ease with the interviewer because of the social connections he enjoys as a member of the same group. The interviewer may ask the white candidate to play golf later. Under the impression that few blacks golf, and not wishing to offend, he may not invite the black candidate to play. This example becomes especially telling when one considers that most corporate positions of power, despite token inroads, are still held by whites. According to a famous list compiled by Peggy McIntosh, white people enjoy and can rely on over fifty privileges that attach by reason of having white skin, including the assurance that store clerks will not follow them around, that people will not cross the street to avoid them at night, that their achievements will not be regarded as exceptional or "credits to their race," and that their occasional mistakes will not be attributed to biological inferiority. Whites, McIntosh writes, benefit from a system of favors, exchanges, and courtesies from which outsiders of color are frequently excluded, including hiring one's neighbors' kids for summer jobs, a teacher's agreement to give a favored student an extra‑credit assignment that will enable him or her to raise a grade of B+ to A‑, or the kind of quiet networking that lands a borderline candidate a coveted position. This has prompted one commentator to remark that our system of race is like a two‑headed hydra. One head consists of outright racism‑the oppression of people on grounds of who they are. The other consists of white privilege, a system by which whites help one another. If one lops off a single head, say, outright racism, but leaves the other intact, our system of white over black/brown will remain virtually unchanged. The predicament of social reform, as one writer, pointed out, is that "everything must change at once." Otherwise, change is swallowed up by the remaining elements, so that we remain roughly as we were before. Culture replicates itself forever and ineluctably. A much more subtle and complex version of white privilege sometimes appears in discussions of the fairness of affirmative action programs. Many whites feel that these programs victimize them, that more qualified white candidates will be required to sacrifice their positions to less qualified minorities. So, is affirmative action a case of "reverse discrimination" against whites? Part of the argument for it rests on an implicit assumption of innocence on the part of the white displaced by affirmative action. The narrative behind this assumption characterizes whites as innocent, a powerful metaphor, and blacks as‑what? Presumably, the opposite of innocent. Many critical race theorists and social scientists alike hold that racism is pervasive, systemic, and deeply ingrained. If we take this perspective, then no white member of society seems quite so innocent. The interplay of meanings that one attaches to race, the stereotypes one holds of other people, and the need to guard one's own position all powerfully determine one's perspective. Indeed, one aspect of whiteness, according to some, is its ability to seem perspectiveless, or transparent. Whites do not see themselves as having a race, but being, simply, people. They do not believe that they think and reason from a white viewpoint, but from a universally valid one‑"the truth"‑what everyone knows. By the same token, many whites will strenuously deny that they have benefited from white privilege, even in situations (golf, summer jobs, extra‑credit assignments, merchants who smile) like the ones mentioned throughout this book. Color-blindness As Racism Conservatives, however, see it differently. Beginning with position papers, op‑ed columns, and books, writers of this persuasion have been arguing that affirmative action balkanizes the country, stigmatizes minorities, weakens the idea of merit, and constitutes reverse discrimination. Some, such as he authors of The Bell Curve, even argued that minorities may be biologically inferior to whites, so that disparate representation in selective schools and occupations should come as no surprise. Conservatives followed up their media campaign with a series of lawsuits aimed at declaring affirmative action unconstitutional. Civil rights organizations and progressive educators sought to counter each of these ideas. Progressive scientists challenged every one of the premises of The Bell Curve and similar neo‑eugenicist tracts, showing how they rested on discredited 1920s‑era pseudoscience. Critical race theory's contribution to the defense of affirmative action has consisted mainly of a determined attack on the idea of merit and standardized testing. Conservatives make points by charging that affirmative action gives jobs or places in academic programs to individuals who do not deserve them. The public receives incompetent service, while better‑qualified workers or students are shunted aside. This argument resonated with certain liberals who equate fairness with color blindness and equal opportunity, rather than equal results. CRT's critique of merit takes a number of forms, all designed to show that merit is far from the neutral principle that its supporters imagine it to be (see chapter 6). Several writers critique standardized testing, demonstrating that tests like the SAT are coachable and reward those from high socioeconomic levels. They predict little else than first‑year grades‑and those only modestly‑and do not measure other important qualities such as empathy, achievement orientation, or communication skills. Other crits point out that merit is highly contextual. If one moves the hoop in a basketball court up or down six inches, one radically changes the distribution of who has merit. Similarly, if on(defines the objective of a law school as turning out gill) lawyers who excel at a certain type of verbal reasoning, then one group would appear to have a virtual corner on merit. But if one defined lawyering skills more broadly to include negotiation, interpersonal understanding, and the ability to craft an original argument for law reform, then a different group might well stand out. One critical scholar addressed the popular suggestion that affirmative action based on race be phased out in favor of one based on socioeconomic disadvantage or class. Most educators believe that such a shift would devastate the chances of communities of color, because the number of poor whites greatly exceeds that of poor minorities. Accordingly, the scholar proposed that any institution tempted to implement an affirmative action plan of this type also take advantage, or white privilege, into account (see chapter 5). For example, imagine a university admissions committee comparing two candidates. Candidate A is a Chicano from East Los Angeles with a 3.9 average from an inner‑city school and SAT scores of 1050. His college essay recounts that he stepped in when his father went to jail and helped raise his younger siblings. His life objective is to apply Cesar Chavezs religion‑based, collectivist ideas to organize urban areas. Candidate B is a son of a white suburban family who sent him to a private school and to Europe his junior year. This student has a 3.3 average from an elite school and an SAT score of 1200. He has no particular educational objective, but wants to develop an all‑around grounding in liberal arts, before going to work in his dad's company. His personal essay describes how his effort to make the junior varsity cross‑country team strengthened his character. Most admissions officers, like most readers, would undoubtedly favor the Chicano candidate despite his lower test scores, but why? Perhaps it is because we believe that Candidate B has not made the most of his opportunities, while Candidate A seems eager to do so. The author who developed this proposal drew on notions of white privilege established in the critical white studies literature to urge that admissions officers discount, or penalize, the scores of candidates like B, thus clearing the way for ones like A. 2. Race, Class, Welfare, and Poverty A second field on which ideological battles rage is the distribution of material benefits in society. This controversy shades off into the much‑debated question of whether race or class is the dominant factor in the subjugation of people of color. Is racism a means by which whites secure material advantages, as Derrick Bell proposes? Or is a "culture of poverty," including broken families, crime, intermittent employment, and a high educational dropout rate, what causes minorities to lag behind? Critical race theory has yet to develop a comprehensive ,theory of class. A few scholars address issues such as housing segregation in terms of both race and class, showing that 'black poverty is different from almost any other kind. Real I estate steering, redlining, and denial of loans and mortgages, especially after the end of World War 11, prevented blacks from owning homes, particularly in desirable neighbor hoods. It also excluded them from sharing in the phenomenal appreciation in real estate property values that the last few decades have brought. Confinement to certain neighbor hoods, in turn, limits where black parents may send their children to school and so perpetuates the cycle of exclusion from opportunities for upward mobility that have enabled many poor whites to rise. Some race crits focus on discrimination in higher‑echelon jobs, and in such fields as the delivery of health services. The critique of standardized testing, as mentioned earlier, also contains a class element: critics of tests such as the SAT have shown that many of the items are class‑bound, requiring familiarity with such items as polo mallets or regattas, and that the best predictor of a person's SAT score is his or her father's occupation. Other critical race theorists analyze the distribution of environmental dangers and bio‑hazards. The environmental justice movement analyzes a type of internal colonialism, ill which installations such as toxic waste sites, radioactive tailings, and sewage treatment plants are disproportionately placed in minority communities or on Indian reservations. Corporate defenders of these practices argue as they do in the international arena, that they are merely going to the best market. Sometimes they point out that minority communities welcome the jobs that a sewage treatment plant, for example, would bring. Civil rights activists reply that the marketplace is far from neutral, and that a corporation that takes advantage of a community's financial vulnerability is engaging in predatory behavior, if not outright racism. A dynamic example of critical race theory in action, the environmental justice movement aims at forging a coalition between the hitherto white‑dominated conservation movement and minority communities. If it succeeds, it will have created a truly powerful force for change. What about the general problem of the increasing disparity between the household incomes and assets of the top 10 percent of our society, and all the rest? Formerly, the United States relied on redistributive measures such as a progressive income tax, public education, and a welfare net to prevent those at the bottom from slipping into permanent poverty. Today, those programs command much less support than they did formerly. Some believe that the reason the public no longer supports welfare is that they see the recipients of welfare as having black and brown faces‑even though more whites receive welfare than do people of color. In short, society tolerates poverty and blighted upward mobility for outsider groups. Many critical race scholars recognize that poverty and race intersect in complex ways, so that the predicament of very poor minority families differs in degree from that of their white counterparts. White poverty usually lasts for only a generation or two (even for immigrant families); not so for the black or brown version. By the same token, middle‑class or professional status for blacks, browns, or Indians is less secure than for others. Their children can fall from grace with breathtaking speed; sometimes all it takes is one arrest or a single very low grade in school. But a general theory of race and economics remains elusive. What people want from you, is authentic relationships... To become a trend you have to become an adder to the market place. What is the largest piece of technogy is that many folks are trying to use consumer products to do business.
Moral Positioning
Who a leader is, often is more important than what they are able to accomplish. What allows a person to operate with integrity, honor and respect? In this session we examine the Golden Rule in practical terms and how it can be helpful in creating an effective moral position for individuals and organizations. sign up here >>>>X<<<<<<< Life & Death of a Hegemony: We will develop strategies to deconstruct the race, gender and class structures that support and feed the hegemony. In the praxis of hegemony, imperial dominance is established by means of cultural imperialism, whereby the leader state (hegemon) dictates the internal politics and the societal character of the subordinate states that constitute the hegemonic sphere of influence, either by an internal, sponsored government or by an external, installed government. n this session we will define the hegemony, examine it impacts on social structures. sign up here >>>>X<<<<<<< Race, the American Swastika. It has dawned on me that anytime we want to have a critical conversation about human relations, equity and justice when the topic of race enters the conversation that authentic communication stops. Much like, Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies, sooner or later we bring this topic up as the most absurd possibility for human behavior. In this session we place history and social justice in a context that allows participants to listen to each other. sign up here >>>>X<<<<<<< Deliver us from Evil in the workplace: What is Evil in the workplace? When stressors, gossip and microinequities impact our discretionary effort, separate our body from our spirit, this is evil. Once the spirit is separated from the body, people become things or objects. The Spirit or the life of the person begin to become power-less and productivity suffers. In this session we will examine methods that will allow us to reintegrate our whole self, as in the workplace and rid our environment of evil. sign up here >>>>X<<<<<<< The Myth of the right fit: Uncovering the lie What is the right fit? Is it a degree, a certification or a CEU? The right fit is a Lie used to not deal with conflict, perceived differences or culture. Knowledge, Skills and Abilities are the framework that should allow us to select candidates that help us maintain or expand our capacity to deliver our services. This session will help us refocus, on knowledge, skills and abilities, so that we get the right people for the right fit in our work teams. sign up here >>>>X<<<<<<< 2013 TOUR OF TOPICS:
CAN YOU HANDLE THE TRUTH TOUR Life & Death of a Hegemony: Moral Positioning RACE, The American Swastika The Myth of the right fit: Uncovering the lie Your not the Boss of ME: I have forgotten more than you know: Generations in the workplace Simulating Manhood The bridge of excuses: truth, lies and thing we make The Out of Context Problems The Pricked Heart Attitude adjustment Who stole the Soul? Cultural Competence 2.0 Prejudice is Good Deliver us from Evil in the workplace: TO Live and Die in a MEME: 101 year game of catch up: Networks=Networth Archie Bunker, The Great American Hero What is in a name? Colored people or People of color? Battling Bikini Zombie Babes: The Battle for Dignity of Women and Girls How to Start a Guerrilla War: Our ambiguity is our effectiveness Hurt people, Hurt People Gorilla Dance The Price is Right IQ for what? The Root of Human motivation Cultural diversity doesn’t just entail differences in dress and language. It also encompasses different ways of thinking, managing, and communicating.
Diversity is a concept that counters discrimination and embraces the inclusion of people with various experiences and backgrounds and is one of the strongest forms of competitive advantage available to organizations. We are committed to providing business consultation services in the areas of personal empowerment, cultural sensitivity, and diversity training for government and educational agencies. · We have a unique product mix of workshops, seminars, online and offline trainings, and online resources on a range of topics including cultural sensitivity, harassment, equity and respect. Lead by the charismatic and engaging Andre Koen, the Company’s offerings prompt organizational change by empowering mangers and staff with the gift of cultural knowledge. AM Horizons Training Group have established themselves as the leader in nurturing workforce diversity and cultural inclusion for Government employees; Police Departments, Human Resource Departments, County Sheriffs, Social Workers, Attorneys, Public Defenders and Educational institutions. In addition to serving the public sector, the Company has launched a series of professional and personal development e-books for the public sector and consumer market. AM Horizons Training Group’s ability to deliver this service and professionalism is based on more than ten years development work within the educational sector. That experience holds the Company in good stead for ensuring a high quality user experience and aim to will tap into the government sector in Greater Minnesota and the Twin - Cities Metro Area as its primary customer group. The major focus will be on ethics and bias training, developing professional cross cultural techniques and empowering customer service skills, build for government agencies including a range of occupations (from social workers to law enforcement). · The strong management team headed by founder Andre Koen ensures the Company’s likelihood of success. Upon graduating from University of St. Thomas, Andre launched his career at the American Youth Foundation, where he first experienced the joy of altering cultural perceptions. Andre has also contributed enormously to Skills for Tomorrow Schools and the National Amercian University. Andre’s successful pursuit and completion of audacious goals is testament to the dedication to his work and is a direct result of the extraordinary importance placed on goals and success. Preaching to the Choir
Preaching to the choir is a necessary activity. Some choir members don't know the song, others need help staying on key. So the choir must practice. The same hold true for those of us in the helping professions. We must expand our knowledge about different cultures, changing demographics and the shifts and trends occurring in the popular culture. Our Goal It is our aim to empower Attorneys, Social Workers, Law Enforcement Officers and Human Resource Managers and Educators with new knowledge and examine each of our implicit bias so that we can be aware of our personal/professional bias to eliminate the barriers that create discriminatory practices in our field of work, in the lives of our constituents and in society at large. What people say about us... Andre is a very effective teacher. He uses a very common sense approach to discuss what could be difficult topics. He is excellent at building on participants' own experiences to reveal not only how some widely held beliefs can hold a community back, but how that same community can overcome them. ~Sacil Armstrong, Newport News Andre sparked our interest and pricked our minds and hearts to become a person of change. ~Jill Weinmaster, Robbinsdale I have no doubt that Andre's style, humor and delivery enhances the probability that his intended message will be heard, digested and learned. ~Tom Kelly, Wright County Attorney Andre delivered a very inspiring presentation! Our students established almost an immediate connection with him and could easily relate with the stories he shared. Thank you very much for 'recycling our minds' and providing a different perspective on diversity issues to our students! ~Julia Miller, Roseville Andre has a wonderful way of communicating so that our defense mechanisms and fear do not get in the way of learning about diversity and inclusion. He is a natural presenter and very easy to listen to. Staff appreciated his presentation on Race, Poverty and Wealth and responded very favorably on the evaluations. Some have scheduled him to speak at their department all staff meetings to continue to create awareness on issues of diversity and inclusion with co-workers. ~Maureen Connaughty, Stillwater Andre always leaves us wanting to know more and motivated to do better. Energizing! Excellent presentation Outstanding! Very dynamic! Very good - appreciated his approach to diversity. Andre was awesome! Strong impact! We have used Mr. Koen is several capacities and he always delivers a relevant, meaningful and educational experience Amazing, wonderful, up lifting, and eye opening Best Diversity Workshop/Training I ever attended How We Work
We cause, teach, and inspire people to think. We ask them to find solutions to their group’s problems. I know that sounds nice. The truth is that we can come to your organization and do a great presentation, but at the end of the day I am going home and you will be left to deal with each other. No BLAME, FAULT or GUILT We want you above all else to think and think critically about diversity issues. None of currently living set up the systems of racism, sexism or prejudice, so spending time blame and pointing fingers is a waste of time. Our training spend more time looking at our commonalities than placing fault or blame. Just Responsibility! We have to take responsibility for the world that was given to us, although we did not create these systems. We must create justice and equity in our lifetime so our children can live better lives. We promise 3 things 1.You and your group will not think about yourselves, your professional; relationships or familial relationships the same because we will cause you to re-examine everything you have been taught about people who differ from you and what you think you know about them. 2. You will enjoy being with each other during our diversity sessions. Not have fun, but enjoy the process of learning from each other through experiential activities, videos, and discussion. We have no talking heads. 3. You will have plans of action, things to do next, and ways to sustain both personally and professionally what you have learned. |
Powered by Translate AuthorAndre's purpose is to reconnect people to their Dignity and Honor in Being Human. Archives
June 2015
Categories
All
|