Is Rachel Dolezal’s “Blackface” a Slap in the Face to African Americans?

When I heard the news that Rachel Dolezal, President of the NAACP chapter in Spokane Washington, was a white woman passing for black, I almost fell off my chair.

So many questions rushed in.

What in the … ? Why would any white person do such a thing? What does it mean? Was Dolezale wrong to do it? Should I be offended? If Dolezale assumed a black face to nab the NAACP role, are her actions any more objectionable than those of Dr. Albert Johnston, a black man who passed for white so that he could practice medicine?

And of course the biggest question of all—If a woman looks black and identifies as black, who’s to say she isn’t?

Is Race a Social Construct?

Dolezale sports a curly fro and olive skin, but recently released photos show she wasn’t born with these attributes.

In a CNN article, Dolezale’s mother says Dolezale grew up in a diverse household that included four adopted siblings who are black and that she was “always interested in ethnicity and diversity.”

At some point, Dolezale’s interest morphed into something more bizarre.

Ezra Dolezale, one of the adopted brothers, says he noticed physical changes taking place around 2011. “There was the gradual darkening of the skin and the hair. She started molding herself into who she is today.” Age 37 now, Dolezale would have been in her early thirties then.

Dolezale’s transformation begs the question: If a man can change his gender, why can’t a woman change her race?

Unlike gender, the experts tell us race is not biological. And so, I’ll ask it again—

If a white woman decides she wants to be black, who is anyone to object?

Does Context Matter?

Did Dolezale lie about her race simply to gain advantage, or would she truly prefer to be black? Does it matter?

One thing we know for certain—you don’t have to be African American to advocate for positive changes within the African American community.

In a formal statement about the controversy, the NAACP said: “One's racial identity is not a qualifying criteria or disqualifying standard for NAACP leadership.”

So what was Dolezale playing at? And why does it matter? If Dolezale wants to darken her skin, throw on a curly wig, and pretend she has a black father, why should we care?

(By the way, perhaps Chris Rock should interview Dolezale for Good Hair: The Sequel? It’s not every day you find a white woman who wants black hair. Just saying.)

Many Blacks Not Pleased

Dolezale announced earlier today that she is stepping down from her role.

I’d describe her note, posted on the NAACP's Facebook page, as a defiant piece of gobbledygook containing some surprisingly humble brag-worthy moments, such as when Dolezale writes: 

“I am consistently committed to empowering marginalized voices and believe that many individuals have been heard in the last hours and days that would not otherwise have had a platform to weigh in on this important discussion.”

Hmmm …

Dolezale’s statement, which is seven paragraphs long, is also conspicuously devoid of anything remotely resembling an apology. And even if Dolezale doesn’t owe any of us an apology, by all reports she owes her family members one, especially Erza, who told CNN: 

“She told me not to blow her cover about the fact that she had this secret life or alternate identity. She told me not to tell anybody about Montana or her family over there. She said she was starting a new life ... and this one person over there was actually going to be her black father."

Ezra Dolezale also gave this damning quote:

"It's kind of a slap in the face to African-Americans because she doesn't know what it's like to be black. She's only been African-American when it benefited her. She hasn't been through all the struggles.”

What do you think?

Clearly this black woman is conflicted.

L.A. Clippers Owner Donald Sterling Says He “Loves the Black People,” But I Wouldn't Want Him For MY Boss

Holy cow.

I just finished listening to the audiotape (okay, “alleged” audiotape) of L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling and his girlfriend, V. Stiviano, discussing race relations.

Sterling took offense that Stiviano, who is half black and half Mexican, posted pictures of herself and Magic Johnson on Instagram.

According to Sterling, posting the photo was evidence of Stiviano’s disrespect for Sterling, because the photo broadcasted to the world that Sterling is hanging out with a half-black chick (as though that scenario is anything new) and apparently Sterling’s friends/buddies/business acquaintance/beats me wouldn’t like that idea.

Sterling tells Stiviano that it “bothers me a lot” that “you’re associating with black people.” 

In a plaintive tone he then asks Stiviano, “Do you have to?”

Later Sterling tells Stiviano she’s supposed to be “a delicate white or a delicate Latina girl.”

Hmmm …

When Stiviano corrects Sterling by telling him she’s “mixed,” he responds in a matter-of-fact tone, “OK. Well.” (I swear I almost heard Sterling mumble, “If you want to confuse the issue with the facts, then sure. Whatever you say.")

Stiviano asks whether Sterling wants her to hate black people, and he accuses her of “turning things around” and responds that no, he doesn’t want her to hate them, he wants her to love them—“privately.”

I gotta say, up to this point Stiviano was giving Sterling a run for his money, asking good, clarifying questions and arguing her position assertively but calmly (and yes, I'm assuming she knew she was being taped, but still …). 

But then Sterling asks Stiviano why she needs to bring black people to “his” games, and Stiviano asks incredulously:

“Why bring the black people to the games? … I …” (silence).

For the first time, girlfriend appears to be at a loss for words. (Not that I blame her.) 

But she gets it together again and tells Sterling "I'm sorry that you're still racist in your heart."  

Poor Sterling sounds crushed. In a defeated tone, he tells Stiviano: 

“OK, we’ve got a big problem here. I really don’t feel like going anywhere. I don’t feel like going to Europe, I don’t feel like just going through the whole thing. We’ve got a BIG problem.”

I’ll say.

Let me see if I understand this?

Sterling wants his half-black girlfriend to pass for a “delicate” white or Latina girl, ‘cause that’s hip, and here she is parading around with black folks, totally blowing her cover and his reputation. What a nerve. No more European vacations for you, girl! This here rips it. (After all, we KNOW that dignified whites and fragile Latinas would never be caught dead in a photo with the likes of that riffraff Magic Johnson.)

I don’t want to give the whole thing away, because each line (allegedly) out of Sterling's mouth is more incredulous than the last, and you owe it to yourself to hear the conversation with your own ears. It’s a somewhat shocking peek into at least one white man’s view of race in the USA—a man who apparently believes it makes perfect sense to tell his biracial girlfriend she needs to stop publicly associating with black folks even while he whines about how he “loves the black people.”

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. (Although to be honest, I did laugh out loud at some parts of the tape.)

But two things about this aren’t funny at all.

One is the idea that Sterling could be somebody’s boss, landlord, teacher, physician, lawyer, neighbor, or judge. 

Two is the way Sterling attempts to hijack the conversation and manipulate Stiviano into believing she’s not accurately comprehending what he's saying.

For example, when Stiviano asks whether it would be okay if the people in her Instagram photos were white, Sterling replies, “You’re just a big fighter. I can see – who would want to live with a woman like you?”

Wow. On behalf of women the world over—just ... wow.

At least have the gumption to own your junk, Sterling, instead of flipping the conversation and blaming your girlfriend’s so called pugnacious nature (and not your hideous opinions) for the conflict you suddenly find yourself embroiled in.

But then again, Sterling honestly seems to believe that his views aren’t controversial, merely pragmatic.

But you tell me—if you were a person of color, would you want Sterling as your boss (or in any other position of power over you)?

(For the record, I believe I’ve already had Sterling as a boss. And while I survived the ordeal, my answer to the above question is still hell no.)

The story is hot off the press, and as I write, no representative from Sterling’s camp has come forward to either deny or confirm that Sterling is speaking on the tape or to claim that yes, that is Sterling's voice, but his comments were distorted through editing. The NBA is reported to be investigating the matter.

The black community isn’t waiting for an investigation, however, and the Internet is filling up with various and sundry responses from high-profile members like Magic Johnson, Snoop Dog, and of course, Al Sharpton.

Holy cow. (Did I say that already?)

Bullies on the Football Field—The Miami Dolphins Get a Crash Course on the Dangers of Workplace Aggression

I’ve been busy with clients and conferences and other work stuff the past few days, but yesterday, during my flight home from the 9th Annual Staffing Symposium hosted by the Staffing Management Association of Seattle (SMA Seattle) I decided to catch up on the Miami Dolphin’s bullying problem.  

Sigh.
 
I wish I could be surprised every now and again about how this works, but apparently that’s not going to happen just yet.

A nice man in the seat next to me (who turned out to be John Barr from NHL to Seattle) also was reading about the saga, and he introduced me to sports writer Dave Zirin, who’s published a few articles about the mess. While reading Zirin’s take, I was struck by this depressing fact: I don’t know shit about sports, and yet I’m thoroughly familiar with linebacker Jonathan Martin’s story.

Whether the workplace in question is your typical corporate office, a television studio, or a football field, the dynamics of workplace bullying hold true. You have your bully, your target, a host of apathetic and/or powerless (though perhaps sympathetic) witnesses, and a boatload of clueless supporters, including (unfortunately) someone (or several someones) at the top of the food chain looking down while declaring everything good.

The supporters will brand the target “weak” and the bully a slightly rough-around-the edges “good ole boy/girl” who’s getting a bad rap because some “sissy” can’t just man up/woman up.

In "The Miami Dolphins Showcase Bully Solidarity," Zirin writes: “Wide receiver Brian Hartline is ‘outraged’ at Martin for coming forward. Tackle Tyson Clabo said that Martin 'needs to stand up and be a man,' and added ‘I don’t know why he’s doing this.’”
 
Egads. (I just recently rediscovered that word from my friend Wanda. It’s a good word; I may use it more often.)

Why can’t we get this straight?

With everything that’s been written about workplace bullying, more people should have a better understanding of this phenomenon by now. But it seems we’re so in love with the idea of aggression and so enthralled with the idea of power that we’ll just accept the stupid premise that only punks get abused—and they deserve it, too, because it’s within the natural order of things that the strong survive and the weak perish.

In The NFL's Bully Problem, Dave Zirin says, “There is a stench of complicity throughout the Dolphins organization, with teammates as well as anonymous team officials reflexively defending Incognito at every turn.”

Zirin goes on to posit that the culture of the NFL promotes the ideal of a 'big, nasty bastard who affects a persona of being mean as hell and impervious to pain.'”

Again, I don’t know crap about sports, but I know about work and leadership. And I know something about the culture of certain non-NFL establishments that promote the ideal of the lazy, unmotivated worker who needs a big, nasty bastard of a boss to kick his ass so he’ll produce.

Some say Richie Incognito and Martin were “close friends,” and if so, these bullying reports are all the more disturbing, not to mention sad. According to Yahoo! Sports, Incognito left this message for Martin in April:

"Hey, wassup, you half n----- piece of s---. I saw you on Twitter, you been training 10 weeks. [I want to] s--- in your f---ing mouth. [I'm going to] slap your f---ing mouth. [I'm going to] slap your real mother across the face [laughter]. F--- you, you're still a rookie. I'll kill you."

This is harmless “hazing?” Well, woo hoo! I’m LMAO, this s---- is so funny!

Not.

Workplace bullying is not funny. It is not natural. It is not harmless. It shouldn’t be acceptable, and swift, appropriate disciplinary action in response to workplace bullying shouldn’t be controversial.

Despite former Seahawks and Lions defensive end Lawrence Jackson’s claim that “Incognito is way worse than anybody I ever played against” I’m not saying that Incognito is a demon from the pit of hell. However, right is right.

But by all reports Incognito has earned his suspension. It’s ridiculous and inhuman to blame Martin, who is the unfortunate recipient of Incognito’s bad, bad behavior, but certainly not the cause of it.

It’s true, I’m biased. I don’t like practical jokes, you couldn’t pay me to join a sorority, and I think any form of “hazing” as a means of team building is just plain dumb.

But bias or no bias, I know that workplace bullying is real, and calling it something else only diminishes our understanding of its dangers.

That said, I’m grateful the story has come to light. A 2007 study by the Workplace Bullying Institute reported that in 77% of cases, targets “stop” the bully by losing their jobs.

And that’s just wrong.

So maybe Martin’s troubles will help someone else, including other athletes who may be, at this very moment, experiencing something similar.

When They're Just Not That Into You

The Reverend Al Sharpton has a new book coming out, The Rejected Stone: Al Sharpton and the Path to American Leadership, which he told WSJ’s Lee Hawkins is about how “rejected people can embrace themselves” by learning from the life experiences of other “rejects” like President Obama, Jay-Z, and of course, Sharpton himself.

Sharpton says that “... people [need to] understand all of us have been rejected for some reason… because we’re gay, because we’re poor, because we’re the oddball at home… [But] if you learn lessons in how to accept yourself, you can make it.”

While this idea is not exactly revolutionary, it kind of is.

How many of us have truly accepted who we are? How many of us are comfortable enough with our foibles, eccentricities, peculiarities, neuroses, vulnerabilities, and sensitivities such that if someone rejects us because of it, we’re okay with that? My guess is not many.

I once had a friend share with me her surprise at another’s friend’s proclamation that when it came to her social calendar, she would only keep time with people she liked.

Well, I wasn’t surprised. Outside of work and family obligations, is there any reason to spend precious free time with people you don’t like?

And by the same token, is there any reason to spend time with people who don’t like you?

Hanging around with people who don’t like you is such a downer. It’s a real drain on your energy, and it keeps you on the defense, constantly apologizing for who you are, what you believe, and what you want.

What’s the point?

I’m reminded of an episode from the television comedy series Mad About You, starring Paul Reiser and Helen Hunt. The show, which ran from 1992-1999, focused on the relationship challenges of newlyweds Paul and Jaime. I haven’t watched it since 1999, but I still find myself looking back on certain episodes with fondness.

One is where Jaime shows Paul how to change the toilet paper roll (you know how you husbands are) and another is when Jaime makes herself crazy trying to get the new neighbors across the hall to like her. She’s inviting them to this, that, and the other thing and making a real effort to place herself in their good graces, and none of it’s working.

Finally, they just tell her in a very matter-of-fact manner—we don’t like you. And she can’t believe it. Who doesn’t like her? Everybody likes her! Later, Paul lovingly disagrees.

Whatever you have to offer the world—whether it’s your unique way of viewing things, your sense of humor, your sense of style, your principles—no matter. Whatever it is, someone will reject it. Someone will reject you.

But it’s okay, because someone else will accept it and you.

So repeat after me.

"From now on, I'm only hanging with people who like me."

At the job, do your job. But don't spend any energy and definitely don't spend any time beating yourself up about the haters or those with whom you simply have nothing in common.

When it comes to your friends, don't get roped into activities with people who make you feel terrible about you. Graciously bow out instead.

If you're a creator of any kind, understand that whatever you create has a specific audience and leave it at that. For example, if you don't like my blog (and the opinions I express on it) then you aren't my audience.

'Nuff said.

Kardashian Sends Couric Nasty Instagram in Response to Baby Gift

I like my celebrity gossip as much as the next person, but social media has made some things way public that really should be way private.

For example, I don’t really need to be confronted with the shallowness of certain celebrity relationships—it’s depressing.

So when I read that Kim Kardashian blasted Katie Couric on Instagram because she didn't appreciate the baby gift Couric sent, I wished I hadn’t.

Apparently, Kardashian was insulted by this statement made by Couric about the Kardashians.

"I don’t understand – why are they so famous? I think it’s mostly teenage girls that are interested.”

Well, if I were famous and my friend said that about me, I imagine I’d feel pretty bad, seeing as how the statement shows a complete lack of belief in my (imaginary) family’s ability to actually do anything.

But Couric and Kardashian don’t really sound like friends. If they were friends, would Couric have sent Kardashian a gift with this mangled message? (Damn girl, get a better assistant, already.)

"Dear Kim and Kanye, Congratulations on the birth of your baby girl! As the moth And may I humbly suggest you continue the K tradition for no Fondly, Katie Couric."

Huh?

And, does this Instragram note from Kardashian to Couric sound like she considers them friends?

“#IHateFakeMediaFriends #MayIHumblySuggestYouNotSendGiftsThenTalkShit.”

I don’t think so. And so, really, what the heck is Kardashian’s problem? Just about every doggone-body questions her talents. Why should Couric be any different?

Couric later (sort of) apologized to Kardashian, but it wasn’t an apology between two friends. It was more like, “I’ll have my people apologize to your people.” 

Here’s what the Huffington Post had to say.

“In a statement to E! News, Couric said she had meant no ill will. ‘I was responding to a reporter's question, and explaining how I'm intrigued by the public's fascination with her family. I didn't mean to hurt her feelings.’”

Celebrities and social media. Somebody needs to pass a law or something.

College Debt Got You Down? Well, Maybe You Shouldn’t Have Gone

I just read Students Are Responsible for Student Loan Crisis, which takes an unusual view of the student debt crisis.

The author, Michael Carr, argues that investing in a college education is a business decision that should be made much like other business decisions—with an eye toward return on investment (ROI).

Carr referenced PayScale's college education ROI formula, which is a little sketchy, I think, in that it merely looks at a school’s tuition and then compares it to the average median lifetime earnings of graduates from the school. That sounds like a formula with a decent margin for error, but okay.

After a review of the data, Carr concludes that:

“[In the future] higher rates will make college loans unprofitable for most students…Student loans are not sound investments in all too many cases. If interest rates rise, there will be a crisis as graduates find themselves struggling to pay off a bad investment.”

Of course, Carr isn’t the only one who’s concerned about student loan debt getting out of control. If you’re a parent who isn’t independently wealthy with college-age or at-some-point-to-be-college-age students, I imagine you’re worried. I know I am.

Entrepreneur Mike Rowe, founder of Profoundly Disconnected, has a whole bunch to say on this topic. During a recent interview on Mike Huckabee,  Rowe asserted it was nuts that we’re “lending money we don’t have to kids who can’t pay it back to train them for jobs that no longer exist.” Rowe says that we should put more effort into supporting the skilled trades, and his foundation aims to do just that, by providing scholarships to students who are part way through an accredited trade school or apprenticeship and who need financial assistance. As someone who just recently paid a plumber $250 for an hour of work, I can’t disagree with Rowe’s position.

However, I do have a bone to pick with Carr, who makes it sound as though college is an outrageous luxury and students are deciding willy nilly to go.

Again, I can get on board with Rowe. If the trades interest you, by all means, get thee to the nearest program. We need more skilled trades people, and they surely make a good living.

But if you’re interested in any type of white collar position, a college degree is not a luxury but a necessity, especially for people of color.

And these kids didn’t create the environment. Hiring managers and HR folks did. Nobody should have to spend $120,000 to learn how to be an administrative assistant, but that’s the way this game is being played now.

For example, recently I’ve seen two ads for an HR Manager—Manager, not Director, not VP—with a Master’s degree as a requirement. That foolishness is not the fault of college students.

So, I take issue with Carr’s somewhat cavalier assessment of kids who decide to get a college degree, even while I agree that it behooves students (and their parents) to think seriously about how to defray the cost of education, perhaps with the aggressive pursuit of grants and scholarships and a deliberate strategy, such as going to community college for two years and then transferring to a university. Of course, any parent who can afford to should begin saving for his child’s college education as soon as possible, maybe taking advantage of a Section 529 Savings Plan.

In the meantime, I sit patiently, waiting for the revolution. I have to believe that there’s a tipping point here, that college tuitions can’t keep rising as they have, remaining unchallenged by the masses.

At least, I hope not.

Swiss Shopkeeper Tells Oprah She Can’t Afford Handbag, Refuses to Let Her See It

Question—who doesn’t recognize Oprah Winfrey?

Apparently a shopkeeper in Switzerland doesn’t. And that shopkeeper made national news after refusing to let Winfrey see a handbag she’d inquired about, claiming the $40,0000 bag was “too expensive” for the multi-millionaire (or is it billionaire?) media mogul.

According to TMZ, the oh-so-considerate shopkeeper just didn’t want Winfrey to have her dreams crushed by the bag’s high price tag.

In Winfrey’s words:

"One more time, I tried. I said, 'But I really do just want to see that one,' and the shopkeeper said, 'Oh, I don't want to hurt your feelings,' and I said, 'Okay, thank you so much. You're probably right, I can't afford it.' And I walked out of the store."

Of course the Swiss are now apologizing for the incident, saying the shopkeeper acted “terribly wrong.”

I’ll say.

Here’s another question. Did Winfrey enter the shop dressed in her get up from The Color Purple? If so, maybe the shopkeeper should be given a pass.

But, really, I’m guessing—no. 

Winfrey didn’t come in the shop dressed as Sofia. Instead, she came dressed in her black skin.

Sigh. 

Folks, I fear we’ve just seen another episode of Same Old, Same Old, starring O and a nameless Swiss shopkeeper.

Fine. Maybe there is a more accurate explanation—

• The shopkeeper was too lazy to get up and retrieve the bag, so she pulled out the old “You can’t afford this” line as an excuse to stay put and chill.
• The shopkeeper had been saving all year for the bag (with her employee discount it would cost a mere $32,000) and wasn’t about to let it get away—Oprah or no Oprah.
• The shopkeeper was mistaken—she thought Oprah was inquiring about the $120,000 bag sitting next to the $40,000 bag, and like, only God could afford that.
• Oprah really did enter the shop dressed as Sofia, or maybe in that other outfit from Beloved.
• The shopkeeper had an idea that no black person could possibly afford an expensive handbag.

(How’d that last one sneak in there?)

Do you have another explanation? Add it to the list!