Industry Response to National Tragedy

[autumngems]

we believe every life matters. this forum is about Diamonds and Jewelry.

Amen

 

[autumngems]

@m1918

I don't normally wade into these things, but a business is in a no win situation if it takes a strong stance. Emotions are high. Some will applaud an activist stance. Some will not and be angry by it.

Spend your money where you like and send your message that way. If it's at a black owned jeweler, great.

But I think calling out small business that is trying to walk a delicate line isn't the answer. Nobody will ever be happy with one response. This is complicated and always has been. What realistically do you want these businesses to do? They operate on small scales and many with tight margins. If they donate to a bail fund and post it, some will say it's pandering or just too little and insulting, angering some even more. Or what if they donate to the "wrong" cause or charity?

Further, none of us know what anyone does in private. Maybe they are donating and doing things you don't know about. I never advertise when I donate something. If you need to advertise that you have donated and want recognition for it, you donated for the wrong reason.

Who are we to say what they believe in or not, as elizat says, we don't know what their beliefs are or if they donate to a cause and that is as it should be. If I did have a business I would not feel the need to advertise my beliefs unless it is directly about my business (example: if I sold diamonds: children working in diamond mines), I would treat everyone fairly and not need to single out any one race or community for praise or comment.

 

[autumngems]

Have you surveyed the grocery store where you shop, Restaurants where you eat, the gas stations, every mom and pop store, the server who brings you your dinner, the cook who prepared it, the farmer who provided the produce and/or meat, the truck driver who brought it from one place to the other, the owner of the processing plant? I hope you don’t buy stuff from China because their human rights record is abyssmal. How far do you want to take this? You have quite a list of demands.....make a public statement, have m1918 approved HR policies, donate to m1918 approved causes.....and that’s just to engage in simple commerce. I’d hate to think of the requirement list for a more personal relationship....the application must be brutal.

Agree

 

[Jsand]

To the cynic in me, the Ben and Jerry’s piece comes across as a panicked, knee jerk response. It’s reactive and self-righteous, as well as slightly hypocritical given that a quick LinkedIn search shows *shock* almost all of their corporate workers are white.
Maybe these preaching companies could also consider what they can do in-house, and actually action their box-checking “HR values” claims of diversity in the work force, instead of lecturing law makers and the general public.

 

[Jsand]

Another incredibly insightful post, if anyone’s interested.

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[bludiva]

the best comment i've seen about this so far was something to the effect of:

thanks for your email regarding your solidarity with people of color. please share with us an image of your leadership team and tell us about your programs for ensuring representative hiring.

i mean, that's the problem. it's just words and maybe they are well-intentioned but where is the day in day out action?

 

[OoohShiny]

the best comment i've seen about this so far was something to the effect of:

thanks for your email regarding your solidarity with people of color. please share with us an image of your leadership team and tell us about your programs for ensuring representative hiring.

i mean, that's the problem. it's just words and maybe they are well-intentioned but where is the day in day out action?

Is the suggestion here that hiring of staff should be done to ensure a mix of skin colours that represents a given part of society, rather than hiring the best person for the job?

If so, should that society be the local area? The County? The Country? The world?


[/devils advocate]


I understand the desire for 'positive discrimination', in that it sends a sign, but surely employment should be a meritocracy and not in any way be at risk of being called 'virtue signalling'?

If the situation is that people of colour (if we can use that phrase) or the disabled or any other group are not receiving education and skills that enable them to be competitive within the job market, the reasons for this need to be understood and actually acted on.

 

[Tekate]

I'll try again...I said she doesn't define herself by her race. It's not even in a description/introduction I've heard her give of herself. Of course she knows she's black and I'm sure she thinks about it. However, (although I have not and would never ask who she would vote for) I suspect Joe Biden would say she 'ain't black' at all.

"...we all put on a face in public..." That is quoting your post.

OH baloney, we all put on a face in public.

The Masks That We Wear

"Imposter Syndrome" and why we sometimes feel like a fake

www.psychologytoday.com

Masking (personality) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now your friend and you may be one of the few people who don't mask..

I don't care who she votes for btw, although she may be putting on a great mask for you cause she thinks to be your friend she must.

 

[Tekate]

I follow the money that is why I would buy Ben and Jerry's. It's fairly easy to find out where executives of a company give their money too etc. and the company itself.

I don't think I'd care as much if Citizens United hadn't been shoved down our throats.

 

[Matata]

I understand the desire for 'positive discrimination', in that it sends a sign, but surely employment should be a meritocracy and not in any way be at risk of being called 'virtue signalling'?

If the situation is that people of colour (if we can use that phrase) or the disabled or any other group are not receiving education and skills that enable them to be competitive within the job market, the reasons for this need to be understood and actually acted on.

The 2nd paragraph of the above would level the playing the field a bit as far as opportunity. But -- there's always a but -- it won't completely compensate for biased hiring practices.

I was a vp of human resources at a university. When I conducted diversity training with faculty and staff (most of whom were caucasian, none of whom thought they were biased and all of whom thought they were unimpeachably enlightened by virtue of their PhDs and many of whom were selected to be on hiring committees for vacancies in their respective areas), I used a tried and true method to reveal their biases. I gave them resumes of 2 individuals with identical educational and work experience. The applicant name on one of those resumes was ethnic. During the course of a decade of using this technique, 100% of the people in training 100% of the time chose the applicant with the white sounding name as more qualified than the one with the ethnic sounding name. That was just an exercise on paper when it's put into practice it looks like this:

We had a vacancy in the English Dept. The search committee selected their top 3 candidates. When their #1 ranked candidate came to campus for the interview, that person was a person of color who happened to have a caucasian sounding name. When poc candidate entered the conference room for an interview, the side-eye looks and downcast eyes of the search committee (all caucasian) gave fair warning of how that process would play out. After all 3 candidates had their interviews, it came down to preferred on paper candidate 1 poc vs close 2nd caucasian candidate. POC candidate had a warm engaging personality and glowing recommendations from peers, supervisors, and former students. Caucasian candidate had boiler plate recommendations from peers and supervisors and mediocre recommendations from former students. The search committee thought caucasian candidate was the better choice. I asked them to submit a detailed justification of their choice with a list of the differences between the 2 that would cause them to eliminate from consideration the poc candidate for whom they waxed ecstatic until they met him and they couldn't come up with any logical reason not to hire him, so we hired him. Had I not challenged their thinking processes and made them confront their bias, the best candidate for the job would not have been hired.

 

[Tekate]

In a way yes we should hire people of color even if they are not the most qualified because we have to raise of people of color, to raise up people of color, they must make a better living (not all people of color obviously), then their children will live in a better environment, their schools would be raised up.. BUT I don't think there are many unqualified people of color. If that is positive discrimination then so be it, because of white privilege white Americans face no discrimination.

Meritocracy is overrated anyway. Here's an opinion piece about another minority in business - women from Forbes.

Quotas and the Lie of Meritocracy

The argument against gender quotas is usually that it undermines meritocracy. But what if the meritocracy doesn't work?

www.forbes.com

Is the suggestion here that hiring of staff should be done to ensure a mix of skin colours that represents a given part of society, rather than hiring the best person for the job?

If so, should that society be the local area? The County? The Country? The world?


[/devils advocate]


I understand the desire for 'positive discrimination', in that it sends a sign, but surely employment should be a meritocracy and not in any way be at risk of being called 'virtue signalling'?

If the situation is that people of colour (if we can use that phrase) or the disabled or any other group are not receiving education and skills that enable them to be competitive within the job market, the reasons for this need to be understood and actually acted on.

 

[Jsand]

The 2nd paragraph of the above would level the playing the field a bit as far as opportunity. But -- there's always a but -- it won't completely compensate for biased hiring practices.

I was a vp of human resources at a university. When I conducted diversity training with faculty and staff (most of whom were caucasian, none of whom thought they were biased and all of whom thought they were unimpeachably enlightened by virtue of their PhDs and many of whom were selected to be on hiring committees for vacancies in their respective areas), I used a tried and true method to reveal their biases. I gave them resumes of 2 individuals with identical educational and work experience. The applicant name on one of those resumes was ethnic. During the course of a decade of using this technique, 100% of the people in training 100% of the time chose the applicant with the white sounding name as more qualified than the one with the ethnic sounding name. That was just an exercise on paper when it's put into practice it looks like this:

We had a vacancy in the English Dept. The search committee selected their top 3 candidates. When their #1 ranked candidate came to campus for the interview, that person was a person of color who happened to have a caucasian sounding name. When poc candidate entered the conference room for an interview, the side-eye looks and downcast eyes of the search committee (all caucasian) gave fair warning of how that process would play out. After all 3 candidates had their interviews, it came down to preferred on paper candidate 1 poc vs close 2nd caucasian candidate. POC candidate had a warm engaging personality and glowing recommendations from peers, supervisors, and former students. Caucasian candidate had boiler plate recommendations from peers and supervisors and mediocre recommendations from former students. The search committee thought caucasian candidate was the better choice. I asked them to submit a detailed justification of their choice with a list of the differences between the 2 that would cause them to eliminate from consideration the poc candidate for whom they waxed ecstatic until they met him and they couldn't come up with any logical reason not to hire him, so we hired him. Had I not challenged their thinking processes and made them confront their bias, the best candidate for the job would not have been hired.

To add a similar example, I recently interviewed at a prestigious sports governing body. It was a full day of interviews, I spoke with 15 people across the hiring department and HR. Not one single POC did I meet with, or even see in the office. This was another organization who proclaimed to pride themselves on diversity. Whilst meritocracy is obviously important, I find it impossible to believe that in a major city in America, in 2020, they had zero suitable applicants who weren’t white.

Of course, their commissioner still felt it was appropriate to release a meaningless but obligatory statement regarding George Floyd. So I guess they’re off the hook!

 

[m1918]

To the cynic in me, the Ben and Jerry’s piece comes across as a panicked, knee jerk response. It’s reactive and self-righteous, as well as slightly hypocritical given that a quick LinkedIn search shows *shock* almost all of their corporate workers are white.
Maybe these preaching companies could also consider what they can do in-house, and actually action their box-checking “HR values” claims of diversity in the work force, instead of lecturing law makers and the general public.

Ben and Jerry’s has been consistently addressing issues of social justice. They are educating people on serious issues that plague this country.

https://instagram.com/benandjerrys?igshid=1nl3o9xvvich3

If you click on “values” in their highlights you’ll see this is not the first statement they’ve made.

Additionally, their board of directors is diverse but I know many companies (including them) have work to do in this area.

 

[bludiva]

The 2nd paragraph of the above would level the playing the field a bit as far as opportunity. But -- there's always a but -- it won't completely compensate for biased hiring practices.

I was a vp of human resources at a university. When I conducted diversity training with faculty and staff (most of whom were caucasian, none of whom thought they were biased and all of whom thought they were unimpeachably enlightened by virtue of their PhDs and many of whom were selected to be on hiring committees for vacancies in their respective areas), I used a tried and true method to reveal their biases. I gave them resumes of 2 individuals with identical educational and work experience. The applicant name on one of those resumes was ethnic. During the course of a decade of using this technique, 100% of the people in training 100% of the time chose the applicant with the white sounding name as more qualified than the one with the ethnic sounding name. That was just an exercise on paper when it's put into practice it looks like this:

We had a vacancy in the English Dept. The search committee selected their top 3 candidates. When their #1 ranked candidate came to campus for the interview, that person was a person of color who happened to have a caucasian sounding name. When poc candidate entered the conference room for an interview, the side-eye looks and downcast eyes of the search committee (all caucasian) gave fair warning of how that process would play out. After all 3 candidates had their interviews, it came down to preferred on paper candidate 1 poc vs close 2nd caucasian candidate. POC candidate had a warm engaging personality and glowing recommendations from peers, supervisors, and former students. Caucasian candidate had boiler plate recommendations from peers and supervisors and mediocre recommendations from former students. The search committee thought caucasian candidate was the better choice. I asked them to submit a detailed justification of their choice with a list of the differences between the 2 that would cause them to eliminate from consideration the poc candidate for whom they waxed ecstatic until they met him and they couldn't come up with any logical reason not to hire him, so we hired him. Had I not challenged their thinking processes and made them confront their bias, the best candidate for the job would not have been hired.

yep. plays out every day and with even less push back in corporate america. i think about how blind auditions increased gender equality and diversity in orchestral hiring. if only there was a similar solution for HR.... it's not just leveling the playing field, companies often give managers wide latitude to hire whoever they want, a buddy, whoever they have "a good feeling about" - often ends up being whoever is most like them or they like the best, not who is best for the job. which in the long term produces worse results for the organization and its customers/stakeholders - we all pay in the end.

 

[bludiva]

Is the suggestion here that hiring of staff should be done to ensure a mix of skin colours that represents a given part of society, rather than hiring the best person for the job?

If so, should that society be the local area? The County? The Country? The world?


[/devils advocate]


I understand the desire for 'positive discrimination', in that it sends a sign, but surely employment should be a meritocracy and not in any way be at risk of being called 'virtue signalling'?

If the situation is that people of colour (if we can use that phrase) or the disabled or any other group are not receiving education and skills that enable them to be competitive within the job market, the reasons for this need to be understood and actually acted on.

i don't think the person's point was that...it was, if the organization hasn't been making an effort to engage with people of color before now, or participate in their local community, etc. they don't really have the authority to make a statement about standing with black people or the other kinds of things we've been hearing. i think organizations trying to ensure the best person is hired, regardless of race/gender/etc. would be a big step in the right direction. whether they want to focus on the local area, county, country, world - any of those would be an improvement.

let's say it's a company in an area that doesn't have a lot of ethnic diversity, are they working with the community to help people from different economic backgrounds have a chance at a good job? that's meaningful work, and that company would have more credibility imho on social issues. companies that focus on margin, margin, margin, and then want to make politically correct statements when expedient, i don't think i'm the only person who is rubbed the wrong way with that.

 

[JPie]

Vice News has some interesting coverage on this subject:

This is about Amazon claiming that they stand in solidarity even as they sell the technological means of oppression to ICE and exploit minorities in their warehouses:

Brave: Corporations Stand In Solidarity With the Communities They Exploit

Amazon, which provides the technical backbone of ICE and plotted to smear a fired Black organizer, says it 'stands in solidarity with the Black community' in the 'fight against racism and injustice.' And that's just the beginning.

www.vice.com

This is about bike and scooter share companies halting service after curfew:

Lyft and Citi Bike Stand With the Protesters—Just Not Past 6pm

As cities enact curfews, public bikes and scooters could easily stay in service. Instead, companies are taking a side that hurts protesters and essential workers.

www.vice.com

 

[OoohShiny]

The 2nd paragraph of the above would level the playing the field a bit as far as opportunity. But -- there's always a but -- it won't completely compensate for biased hiring practices.

I was a vp of human resources at a university. When I conducted diversity training with faculty and staff (most of whom were caucasian, none of whom thought they were biased and all of whom thought they were unimpeachably enlightened by virtue of their PhDs and many of whom were selected to be on hiring committees for vacancies in their respective areas), I used a tried and true method to reveal their biases. I gave them resumes of 2 individuals with identical educational and work experience. The applicant name on one of those resumes was ethnic. During the course of a decade of using this technique, 100% of the people in training 100% of the time chose the applicant with the white sounding name as more qualified than the one with the ethnic sounding name. That was just an exercise on paper when it's put into practice it looks like this:

We had a vacancy in the English Dept. The search committee selected their top 3 candidates. When their #1 ranked candidate came to campus for the interview, that person was a person of color who happened to have a caucasian sounding name. When poc candidate entered the conference room for an interview, the side-eye looks and downcast eyes of the search committee (all caucasian) gave fair warning of how that process would play out. After all 3 candidates had their interviews, it came down to preferred on paper candidate 1 poc vs close 2nd caucasian candidate. POC candidate had a warm engaging personality and glowing recommendations from peers, supervisors, and former students. Caucasian candidate had boiler plate recommendations from peers and supervisors and mediocre recommendations from former students. The search committee thought caucasian candidate was the better choice. I asked them to submit a detailed justification of their choice with a list of the differences between the 2 that would cause them to eliminate from consideration the poc candidate for whom they waxed ecstatic until they met him and they couldn't come up with any logical reason not to hire him, so we hired him. Had I not challenged their thinking processes and made them confront their bias, the best candidate for the job would not have been hired.

It is really pleasing to hear that you've challenged prejudice at work

The names thing is definitely a thing, sadly, and I believe why some places over here are now implementing anonymous application assessment, with the reviewers/interviewers only learning names and or further details later in the process.

I hope I would challenge myself if I catch myself thinking in prejudicial terms, but it is good to be challenged by a third party. If the current demonstrations and community responses serve as that third party, that can only be a good thing.

 

[JPie]

To the cynic in me, the Ben and Jerry’s piece comes across as a panicked, knee jerk response. It’s reactive and self-righteous, as well as slightly hypocritical given that a quick LinkedIn search shows *shock* almost all of their corporate workers are white.
Maybe these preaching companies could also consider what they can do in-house, and actually action their box-checking “HR values” claims of diversity in the work force, instead of lecturing law makers and the general public.

I don’t eat ice cream so I’m not a fan girl of Ben & Jerry’s by any means. What caught my eye about that email is the fact that it actually acknowledges that this country is founded on white supremacy and that the whole system is functioning as the racist and oppressive lever it was designed to be.

"What happened to George Floyd was not the result of a bad apple; it was the predictable consequence of a racist and prejudiced system and culture that has treated Black bodies as the enemy from the beginning."

This really resonated with me because I don’t think most Americans accept this fact, and it made me do a double take to see it coming from an ice cream company.

Edited to add: apparently they’ve been saying it since at least August 2019.

From Slavery to Mass Incarceration

2019 marked the 400th anniversary of the first enslaved Africans being brought to America. Can we finally talk about slavery’s legacy?

www.benjerry.com

 

[monarch64]

 

[JPie]

Putting this here since it’s applicable to the jewelry industry. Food for thought.

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[1ofakind]

OH baloney, we all put on a face in public.

The Masks That We Wear

"Imposter Syndrome" and why we sometimes feel like a fake

www.psychologytoday.com

Masking (personality) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now your friend and you may be one of the few people who don't mask..

I don't care who she votes for btw, although she may be putting on a great mask for you cause she thinks to be your friend she must.

You don't know me. You don't get speak for anyone but yourself. Who are you to suggest my friends have to be FAKE to do so? No one, myself included, is worth that....maybe you are fake but again....you may only speak for yourself. I read the article you posted...I think I outgrew masking by college. I don't relate to even one of their examples of masking. I never feel fake, I try intentionally to act in a way that I never would! Granted, it may take some people longer (if ever) to gain emotional maturity enough to learn to be honest with themselves and others, to engage in authentic relationships but please don't assume everyone shares your psychological issues.

 

[rainwood]

I look at companies and people posting BLM or other messages with hope that it's a start for them to be better. Those of us who are white need to educate ourselves about systemic racism in this country, and we don't all start from the same place.

What we need to be looking for is what they do next. If posting those messages is both a start and a finish for a company or person, then yes, call them out as hypocrites or racists or whatever. But give them the opportunity to take the next steps before we judge how they chose to start. We all have to start somewhere.

 

[rainwood]

Thank you for posting this, Monnie. I was hoping somebody would.

 

[m1918]

I look at companies and people posting BLM or other messages with hope that it's a start for them to be better. Those of us who are white need to educate ourselves about systemic racism in this country, and we don't all start from the same place.

What we need to be looking for is what they do next. If posting those messages is both a start and a finish for a company or person, then yes, call them out as hypocrites or racists or whatever. But give them the opportunity to take the next steps before we judge how they chose to start. We all have to start somewhere.

Well said!

 

[Jsand]

I don’t eat ice cream so I’m not a fan girl of Ben & Jerry’s by any means. What caught my eye about that email is the fact that it actually acknowledges that this country is founded on white supremacy and that the whole system is functioning as the racist and oppressive lever it was designed to be.

"What happened to George Floyd was not the result of a bad apple; it was the predictable consequence of a racist and prejudiced system and culture that has treated Black bodies as the enemy from the beginning."

This really resonated with me because I don’t think most Americans accept this fact, and it made me do a double take to see it coming from an ice cream company.

Edited to add: apparently they’ve been saying it since at least August 2019.

From Slavery to Mass Incarceration

2019 marked the 400th anniversary of the first enslaved Africans being brought to America. Can we finally talk about slavery’s legacy?

www.benjerry.com

It’s great that they’re pushing the agenda, my point was more that despite doing so (and apparently for years now), their corporate staff appear to be 99% white. That’s what makes me question their motives for these statements, because as an organization they don’t seem to be truly living these values.

If the social media trend of brands speaking up, whatever their motives, actually does drive change then obviously that’s incredible and it needs to happen. But if a business isn’t posting a black square or an “open letter” on their social channels then maybe it’s because it means more to them than image, and maybe they feel they have work to do in this area before they have a right to speak out...Does that make sense?! Not sure I’m articulating myself very well here to be honest.

 

[Tekate]

Like I said BALONEY. I posted studies that show people DO.. you can turn it any which way you want, but people do it.

Boy you sure segue to FAKE from present a different face. Did you read the links I posted, not one FAKE in it.

Fake = NOT REAL
Present = wants to be accepted

Emotional maturity WTF? I'm talking about people who want to be accepted, obviously they have matured enough to present perhaps not who they really are but change to fit the circumstances for acceptance, fear, low self esteem, fake.

You and I are on different planes here.

You don't know me. You don't get speak for anyone but yourself. Who are you to suggest my friends have to be FAKE to do so? No one, myself included, is worth that....maybe you are fake but again....you may only speak for yourself. I read the article you posted...I think I outgrew masking by college. I don't relate to even one of their examples of masking. I never feel fake, I try intentionally to act in a way that I never would! Granted, it may take some people longer (if ever) to gain emotional maturity enough to learn to be honest with themselves and others, to engage in authentic relationships but please don't assume everyone shares your psychological issues.

 

[1ofakind]

Like I said BALONEY. I posted studies that show people DO.. you can turn it any which way you want, but people do it.

Boy you sure segue to FAKE from present a different face. Did you read the links I posted, not one FAKE in it.

Fake = NOT REAL
Present = wants to be accepted

Emotional maturity WTF? I'm talking about people who want to be accepted, obviously they have matured enough to present perhaps not who they really are but change to fit the circumstances for acceptance, fear, low self esteem, fake.

You and I are on different planes here.

We are indeed on different planes. I feel absolutely no need whatsoever to change or present myself differently in order to be accepted or to fit the circumstances...not because of low self esteem, not because of fear, not insecurity, or trying to be something I'm not.
People like/accept me or they don't. I like most people and accept them as well. People who 'mask' are fake people. What you see is not really who they are...that is the entire point of the article you linked. The word FAKE is in the subtitle!!! 'Inauthentic', 'Impostor' and 'Fake' are all key words used in the body of the article as well, for a reason. The article is not pro- masking or even suggesting that everyone does this. It encourages people to shed their masks and be authentic because keeping a mask up is not presented as an emotionally healthy state.

If anyone feels like they need to even sometimes live behind a mask I would suggest seeking out some professional guidance on how to live more authentically and deal with what is behind that mask. And I don't say that to be mean or flippant. I do know a few people who live behind masks...one in particular does this to an extreme. And another couple who do this even in their marriage. They are all dysfunctional in their relationships, as expected, given they often are not being honest with others or even themselves. They often perceive that others are 'masking' with them as well. Even the people who don't see the mask are not really their 'friends' because they only know the mask and the mask is not real. The one guy....well I don't know if he'll every be real. I've known him for over 30 years and I don't know if I've ever seen the mask come down....he fits everything in that article to a T. He's the saddest and least real person I know.
The couple is at a breaking point now where they realize that being inauthentic is not sustainable for marriage or any relationship. I've been spending a lot of time with her (as have other friends) as she works through this with professional guidance. It's a rocky road for sure. She looked at me one day with confusion and said "Sometimes I don't know how to read you." When I replied that she didn't have to 'read me' because I mean what I say she was even more confused. She is slowly finding comfort in recognizing that she can be herself and we all still love her. I believe she and her husband have a chance of becoming authentic people and saving their marriage. Even the baby steps of transformation so far have been wonderful to see.

Be yourself, no mask. There's good, bad and ugly in all of us...but accept yourself and others for who they are. If you don't like something about yourself, feel you have to hide or change how you present yourself to fit the circumstance or to be accepted...please don't mask. That isn't helping because it isn't real. Change yourself or change the circumstances....you'll be much happier being an authentic person.

 

[JPie]

It’s great that they’re pushing the agenda, my point was more that despite doing so (and apparently for years now), their corporate staff appear to be 99% white. That’s what makes me question their motives for these statements, because as an organization they don’t seem to be truly living these values.

If the social media trend of brands speaking up, whatever their motives, actually does drive change then obviously that’s incredible and it needs to happen. But if a business isn’t posting a black square or an “open letter” on their social channels then maybe it’s because it means more to them than image, and maybe they feel they have work to do in this area before they have a right to speak out...Does that make sense?! Not sure I’m articulating myself very well here to be honest.

They talked about the racial composition of their workforce here:

The Beginning of our Racial Equality Learning Journey

Last month, about 25 Ben & Jerry’s people took an unusual trip together to Greensboro, NC to learn about structural racism in America. We may not be perfect, but we’re ready to talk about this issue and join the movement toward a solution.

www.benjerry.com

Some ways they tried to actually do something:

Ben & Jerry’s: Educating Themselves and Others About Racial Equity

B Corp’s Social Mission Grows and Evolves Through the Years

bthechange.com

Like I said, not a fan girl, but I don’t think they’re saying what they’re saying as purely lip service.

 

[autumngems]

I thought this was about industry (diamonds/jewelry) response not other industries?

 

[voce]

When we say we don't see color, an ethnic minority may internalize that as "you don't see me". There is nothing wrong with seeing skin color. What's wrong is when we weaponize skin color against an individual.

Matata, I am really grateful you forced the committee to confront their biases. We need a whole lot more people like you when it comes to decision-making for hiring.

I think everything that you said in this thread has been true, but I'd like to emphasize the "may" in "may internalize"; if color is an important part of a person's self-identity, then not seeing or acknowledging color would result in a feeling of "you don't see me". However, there are plenty of minorities for whom color is not what they use to identify themselves (myself included). I am flabbergasted as to what should be the proper response; what should I see, if I "see" skin color?

When you see a color, but weren't raised with any positive associations with that color, wouldn't it be better to consciously make the decision to "not see color" and not judge rather than fabricating some inauthentic positive association with the color? Or, I don't know what's

Be yourself, no mask. There's good, bad and ugly in all of us...but accept yourself and others for who they are. If you don't like something about yourself, feel you have to hide or change how you present yourself to fit the circumstance or to be accepted...please don't mask. That isn't helping because it isn't real. Change yourself or change the circumstances....you'll be much happier being an authentic person.

Just curious, are you an extrovert? I sit on the border of introversion/extroversion in that I'm perfectly fine being alone, and being with people taxes my energy, but other people can recharge me, too. Introverts, from what I can gather, need to fake their extroversion in a professional setting, at least "fake it until you make it", because shyness is not appropriate in a business setting when you need to communicate with many people. In your book, does that shy introvert need to change the circumstances by leaving their job, or change themselves to not be an introvert? Does that shy introvert "stay true to themselves" and suffer the consequences of not speaking up when they deserve to receive credit for their work, or for a promotion? I find your "solution" not very well-considered and problematic, as it reads to me like a "one-size-fits-all".

Anyone working long enough in HR needs to put on a mask sometimes. It sucks to fire people. You want to hire more than one person but are not allowed to. It helps no one in the company when HR does not act impartial or poker-faced when they probably feel turmoil, disappointment, regret inside.

Mask is one way to describe it, but for me it's not about putting on a mask. I am genuinely different ways with different people; there's no way I can be the same with everyone. I don't find it interesting to be an open book to everybody. I like to be a little mysterious, reserve a part of me for my partner only. Otherwise my relationship with him would lack a feeling of intimacy without secrets that only he and I share. I love it when I get to be his princess in private, but if I were to act with the same sense of entitlement and take liberties around others, I'd feel uncomfortable, and nobody benefits.

It's awesome that you feel you can act authentically with everyone. If nobody wore a mask, though, this world would surely be a worse place. I have some choice opinions on Trump, but when I'm conversing with a family friend and all he wants to talk about is how Dems aren't fair to Trump, the mask I put on is social etiquette when I change the subject and talk about something else. Were I to state my real opinion on what an unprincipled hypocrite Trump is, it doesn't help anyone, because my opinion changes nothing, and the way the family friend is, his feelings might get hurt. Masks aren't inherently a bad thing. We can use them to protect others, not just to deceive.