drbethsnow

Title: The “Coin Model of Privilege and Critical Allyship”: Orienting Ourselves for Accountable Action on Equity

Speaker: Dr. Stephanie Nixon, University of Toronto

Hosted by: Simon Fraser University, Faculty of Health Sciences

• Dr. Nixon asked us to jot down our thoughts on the following three questions:

What are new insights?

• the coin model = privilege (unearned advantages) and oppression (unearned disadvantages)
• we have words for those people whose health is affected by oppressions: “marginalized”, “vulnerable”, “at risk”, “target population” – but we don’t have any words for those people who are on the other side of the coin. We frame equity as solely around those on the bottom of the coin – and we thus limit our thinking of possible solutions to these “problem” of the bottom of the coin – we disappear those on the “top of the coin” – we disappear the coin altogether
• we frame the privileged as neutral instead of as complicit in the oppression
• when is EDI used to avoid actually dealing with oppression?

What feels important but is still muddy?

What do I feel as I lean into reflecting on privilege? body, emotions. (“We cannot think our way out of oppression.”)

Other notes:

• I’ve seen the original version of this experiment, and appreciated this updated version. When they did the reveal, I felt my stomach fall – I missed something that should be so obvious again! I also appreciated Dr. Nixon’s use of this as a metaphor for privilege: e.g., those who don’t experience oppression not only don’t see it, they don’t believe it when others tell them that they experience it and gaslight them by saying that what they have experienced did not happen.

• strengths that helped me get to my level of education: parents who supported me to pursue higher education, availability of student loans; barriers: cost of tuition and living as a student without an income, not having role models in my family who had done higher education before
• the people on the “bottom” of the coin are the experts on how oppression affects them – those on the privileged side of the coin can’t see the ways in which they are privileged (it’s like the gorilla!)
• white supremacy – the view that white is “normal”, the “default”
• people on one side of the coin are not homogeneous – e.g., if we think about colonialism, the people on the oppressed side are indigenous, and there are many different indigenous groups; similarly, the group on the privileged side of the coin of colonialism are settlers and they are also not homogenous
• education on antiracism, anti-oppression is not enough – it doesn’t change the material conditions that people experience, it doesn’t dismantle the systems of oppression

• what is my work to do on “EDI”?
  • when you are on the top of a coin, you need to work in solidary with the people who are experiencing the oppression
  • it is not about the person with privilege “saving” or “fixing” the populations experiencing the oppression
  • when privilege is unchecked it leads to an irrational sense of neutrality
  • when you are on “top” of the coin, you need to understand your position as having unearned privilege (and even recognizing there is a coin) and that you are not the expert

Dr. Nixon’s article on this model: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-7884-9

Panelists: Amy Costello & Frederica Boswell

Hosted by: Nonprofit Quarterly

• Tiny Spark podcast
• Sophie Otiende, Activist and Advocate, HAART Kenya:
  • non-profits “parade and exploit” the people they are claiming to help
  • e.g., asking someone who has been assisted by an NPO to share their story – the organization holds power over the victim – can that survivor give proper consent about telling their stories?
  • “survivor porn” – why do we need a person to come and tell us that these horrible things are bad?
  • people don’t talk to survivors about the risks and impacts of telling your story. People live in an ideal world where they think that if they tell their story, people will be compassionate. But that’s not true – some people will abuse those who tell their stories, or we just forget about the person and move onto to getting the next survivor’s stories
• we are interested in the whole person -not just their trauma
• not everyone wants to be called “survivor” or “person who formerly experienced homelessness” or “recovering addict” – how does the person whose story is being told want to be represented?
• the person whose story it is should be a full partner in the storytelling
  • ensure they are in the loop at all developments in the storytelling and being extra sure at every step that they are comfortable with any details that are shared
  • never want to surprise someone with details about their story being made public
• don’t want to engage in trauma porn – just sharing the trauma in isolation
  • figure out what the message is – e.g., in a story on the Me Too movement in the charitable sector, the message was that serial predators are hiding in the charitable sector and their institutions are protecting them
  • figure out what the purpose of telling the story is – things like holding organizations to account or highlighting resilience
• when conducting interviews, establish trust and intimacy
  • be fully present in the interview
  • ask follow up questions, based on really listening to them, rather than just following the interview guide in order
  • don’t drive the interview – the interviewee should have autonomy and control. The story is hers, not the interviewer’s
  • interviewer’s job is to help the interviewee feel safe
• we should let people know what their rights are – that they can say “no” to answering our questions
• interviewing “experts” (e.g., professors who study a topic)
  • isn’t someone who has years of experience living with homelessness an expert on the subject?
  • “professional” “experts” are often well rehearsed when you interview them – you have to push them to be real, rather than just being on auto-pilot
• think about the stereotypes you may be perpetuating with your storytelling

Sheila Matano, who is the VP of the board of the BC Chapter of the Canadian Evaluation Society (CESBC), who is also the chair of our Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) committee, told me about this two-part webinar series. Like many boards, we are wanting to do better when it comes to doing our work in an inclusive way, and we didn’t want to just put out a board statement that says “Black Lives Matters” but then just go on operating the way that we always have. So I was excited to check out this series for some concrete ideas about how we can do this well. And I was not disappointed!

Panelists: Robin Stacia (RS) https://sageconsultingnetwork.com/meet-our-ceo/ and  Vernetta Walker (VW).

Hosted by: Nonprofit Quarterly

Part 1: Date: June 22, 2020

Watch part 1 here. Watch part 2 here.

Here are my notes from the webinars.

My takeaways:

• board statements need to state a commitment to what you are going to do
• it’s not about waiting out the uprising until you can go “back to business”
• how can boards use their influence in a way that aligns with their mission?
• the work needs to be done by the whole board – it’s not to be on the one Black person on your board to own this work. It can be retraumatizing for them. And Black people are tired from fighting for centuries – white people need to step up.
• look at your board composition – we need a diverse board and a coalition of all of us

Understanding our history:

• we are a post-colonial society – there was a narrative that “natives” were “savage” –> white supremacy –> allowed white people to enslave Black people
• slavery did not end – it just evolved
• there is still a presumption of danger re: Black and brown people
• truth and reconcilitation/justice/reparation are sequential – the truth must come first
• as boards, we need to tell the truth about what we’ve ignored, overlooked, and benefitted from

Debunking Myths

Myth: “It’s just a few bad actors”

• RS: this myth “minimizes the centuries long struggled that Black, brown, indigenous people have experienced”
• it is a system of racism:
  • restricts every aspect of life for Black, brown, and indigenous people (healthcare, criminal justice, politics, education, wealth – everything)
  • institutional policies/practices/laws/regulations designed to benefit and create advantages for white people and oppress and disadvantage Black, brown, and indigenous people
  • exists no matter your age, location, socioeconomic status
• VW: we have a lot to unlearn
  • we’ve been socialized to not talk about race
  • boards should talk about why they are so uncomfortable to talk about race
  • boards should learn about unconscious bias
  • do you have authentic relationships with Black and brown people? Because we’ve been separated
  • COVID-19 and this uprising = perfect storm, because people had time to reflect and feel the pain
  • we can’t show up effectively for the board work if you haven’t done the individual work

Myth: People try to replace “Black Lives Matter” with “All Lives Matter”

• VW: saying “Black Lives Matter” is not saying “only Black Lives Matter” – it’s saying “Black Lives Matter too”
• there is violence against Black bodies, often by state actors
• lots of people have heard that “race is a social construct”, but they don’t get it. They think there are differences between the races that justify the violence, but there are not.
• “waking up Black” has a level of stress that is measurable – decreased life expectancy, gaps in educational acheivement, maternal mortality, criminal justice system involvement – bias and systemic racism leads to all of this
• RS: people misunderstand “racial equity” – it means the state where my racial identity doesn’t have an impact on me -e.g., I can go to the bank or go birdwatching and my racial identity does not dictate the outcome

A board statement alone is not enough

• When they polled the webinar audience, about 3/4 said that their board had issues a statement in the wake of the BLM protests, but only 1/4 said that their board had an indepth conversation about the issues
• VM: some statements just say something to the effect of “we stand with you”, but nothing about what they will actually do
  • good statements will say what they are doing and what they commit to doing
  • there was a backlash if you didn’t put out a statement, and there was also a backlash if your statement didn’t have any teeth – it shows that people are paying attention
  • put putting out a statement for the sake of public perception is not good

Questions to ask when if and when you do speak out:

These are taken verbatim from their slide:

1. How does your statement acknowledge the historical injustices of structural and systemic racism?
2. How do you use the document to bring about awareness concerning systemic and structural racism to your audiences?
3. How does the statement align with your organization’s mission?
4. Is your organization willing to be an ally in supporting the work? If so, how?
5. What is the call to action and committment to the work? Examples can include:
   1. How do you plan to alleviate barriers and create access to opportunities to bring about equitable and just outcomes?
   2. How do you plan to leverage the various forms of capital that are at your disposal to address the issues?

Source: Robert L. Dortch, Jr. Vice President, Programs & Innovation, Robins Foundation

As I look at these questions, I think that not only are they useful for our work on the CESBCY board, but they can also be helpful for me to think about how I do my teaching.

Resources

• The Racial Equity Institute’s Groundwater Approach to explaining structural racism.
• Equity in the Centre’s Awake to Woke to Work: Building a Race Equity Culture

Since it’s been a while since I last wrote a blog psoting in this series, and since I stopped in the middle of the “technical competencies” domain, let’s review where we are at. The first competency in the “Technical Domain” was about figuring out what the purpose and scope of an evaluation – what is the evaluation trying to do and what ground is it going to cover (and what is it not going to cover). The next competency was about figuring out if a program is in a state in which it is ready to be evaluated and the third competency was about making program theories explicit. This brings us to the fourth competency in the technical domain:

2.4 Frames evaluation topics and questions

People often get confused when we say “evaluation questions”, thinking that we are referring a question you might ask in an interview or survey (like “were you satisfied with the services you received?”). But the “evaluation question” we are referring to here (sometimes referred to a “Key Evaluation Questions” (KEQ)) are a higher-level than that; they are an overarching question (or a few questions) that guide the development of the evaluation.

An important thing to remember about evaluation questions is that they should be evaluative. Not just “what happened as a result of this program?” but “how “good” were the things that happened from the program?” (where “good” needs to be fleshed out – e.g., what do we consider “good”? how “good” is good enough to be considered “good?”).

The Better Evaluation website gives us some useful tips on developing KEQs:

• they should be open-ended (not something that you can answer with “yes” or “no”)
• they should be “specific enough to help focus the evaluation, but broad enough to be broken down into more detailed questions to guide data collection”
• they should relate to the intended purpose of the evaluation
• 7 +/- 2 is a good number to have
• you should work your stakeholders to development them

I think it’s really important to think about who gets to decide on what the evaluation questions are. Since the rest of the evaluation will be built based on the questions, whoever gets to decide on the questions holds a lot of power. This could be a whole blog posting topic on its own, but in the interest of actually getting this posted, I think I will leave that for another day.

Resources

A nice resource on working with your stakeholders to develop evaluation questions is Preskill & Jones’ A Practical Guide for Engaging Stakeholders in Developing Evaluation Questions. The CDC’s Good Evaluation Questions Checklist can also be helpful in thinking through/improving your evaluation questions.

Image source: Posted on Flickr with a Creative Commons license.

Thanks, Lais! It does help with motivation to know that my postings are useful to others!