Perspectives on Diversity and Inclusion From an Old Whale

By Charles R. Stephens

In the time-worn tradition of “Old Whaledom” (the term used to describe former chairs of NSFR, NSFRE and AFP), I rise from the deep to spew forth my version of wisdom. I fully understand that I must immediately return to the deep after I’m done, and I promise that I will abide by the tradition.
 
That said, let me proceed.

There are some immutables that I believe we must acknowledge as we continue our too-long-running journey from abject exclusion in our member efforts to prejudice-free inclusion. If we refuse to recognize these matters, we will be doomed to continuing false starts, undue angst, accusations of exclusion, flawed decisions, continually reduced numbers of people of color among the membership, bad feelings, blots on the association’s reputation, missed opportunities to help America and our profession transverse these waters and continuing sub-rosa disaffection on matters of diversity and inclusion.

What are these immutables?

1. Difference does make a difference, and the first step on the road to prejudice-free inclusion is to acknowledge and embrace that fact. This is difficult because we have been led to believe that the road to delimiting prejudice is to deny that difference exits. What an unrealistic idea! When I served this association as its first chair of color and stepped up to the podium to preside the very first time, the initial mind-stop of those in the room was my color. That was not a bad thing. It was reality. We should not try to convince ourselves that we don’t see difference, for to do so is to be dishonest. The very next mind-stop was an evaluation of my competence at presiding and moving the agenda along to a successful conclusion. As I did that well, my obvious difference receded into the background. Any potential issues that individuals may have had regarding my difference—my color—would have been realized if my difference had not been acknowledged and embraced.

2. Philanthropy is translated as charity, compassion, patronage, humanity, generosity and benevolence. In our profession, we subscribe to a more inclusive translation: the “love of humankind.” All of the structure, professionalism, activism, programs and internationalism that describe our association are of limited consequence if we stray too far afield of our mission to advance philanthropy in all that we do. For me, inclusion and philanthropy are inextricably bound. When we short-change inclusion, we short-change philanthropy. When our membership corps is not reflective of, or representative of, people of color and other diverse groups in our social system, then we are not achieving our core mission. America is a great country, principally due to its philanthropic traditions. Our philanthropic traditions require acknowledging and embracing difference to ensure inclusion in this social system that is the most diverse in the world. Our association has, across its length and breadth, a moral obligation to seek out people of color and others who represent diversity for inclusion in this fellowship to ensure that the benefits of our philanthropic traditions continue to be inculcated and advanced in all of our communities.

3. This ethic of inclusion is actualized and maintained only when there is conscious and sustained effort and attention accorded it. Our history has proven, time and again, that “out of sight is out of mind.” I have wondered if the association and our profession would not be better served if we had a full-time diversity and inclusion officer as a part of the association’s staff complement. That certainly has worked for government and industry. There is some irony in the fact that we have not seen fit, as representatives of the sector of society—the philanthropic sector—that carries the major responsibility for assuring ethical and moral practices (practices that promote the “love of humankind”), to elevate our efforts to full-time staff attention. Yes, we have a strong and dedicated diversity committee, but that is a volunteer entity whose time on task must, necessarily, be limited. Shouldn’t we be leading the charge in this arena? I think so.

These are the immutables. Let us be diligent in valuing and addressing them, and “good fruit” will be our reward.

Well, now that I have had my opportunity to spew forth, I will, in the tradition of Old Whaledom, return to the depths to await my next invitation to surface. As I do, I must pay tribute to those champions of outreach who moved this association in the direction of inclusiveness in the early days: Dorothy Darby, first chair of the minority outreach committee; Eric V. Winston and Margye Baumgartner, members of the nominating committee; Barbara James, first person of color to serve as a vice chair of the association; Shirley Brown, first person of color to serve on the association’s 45-member executive committee; Barbara Marion, first female chair of the association; and others whose names escape me. They stood fast and tall in the days when to champion this cause was an invitation to exclusion. Any accomplishments I claim in the outreach and inclusion arena I owe to these pioneers and others.