A Seat at the Table Doesn't Have to Be Anti-Black
- Scholourship Journal
- Nov 29, 2020
- 2 min read
Earlier today, I read the #Bloomberg article titled “Focus on Black Directors Has Latinos Asking: What About Us?” after it was posted by an alum from my graduate alma mater #ColumbiaUniversity.
In one sentence, Roel Campos, an interviewee in the article suggests that the “dozens of companies pledging to add a Black director” should not prioritize Black candidates when diversifying their boards as Latinx people make up a larger proportion of the American populace, and Black candidates may take up seats that would have allowed for increased Latinx representation.
In communicating this, the interviewee fails to acknowledge the over-representation of white directors, which far outweighs that of Black directors. Instead, his statement suggests that the long overdue promotion of Black directors limits opportunities for Latinx promotion. To suggest such is to advance Anti-Black sentiments and actions, and to exonerate whiteness as the fundamental problem.
In a direct quote from Roel Campos, author Jeff Green shares:
“With Black Lives Matter, we are totally allied with that effort,” he said in an interview. “We are not against anyone. What we want is to be considered along with other minorities when vacancies occur on boards. We strongly disagree with what they’re proposing, that Black directors be considered first.”
While Campos articulates his allyship to the #BlackLivesMatter movement, the strong disagreement “that Black directors be considered first” suggests otherwise. Instead, it further ignores the fact that the advancement of Black people is not a threat to the progress of Latinx communities.
In addition to pitting Black and Latinx professionals against one another in a race for coveted positions on Fortune 500 boards where they hadn’t been afforded seats, the article fails to acknowledge the systemic racism and lack of accountability that allowed these boards to exist so long without reckoning with the need for inclusive representation across their most senior leadership.
Moreover, the article missed its opportunity to address how people from Black and Latinx communities should not be competing against one another to be tokens on top industry boards. While there are “dozens” of boards that are committing to adding Black representation, there are hundreds of Fortune 500 boards that have yet to make this commitment and would benefit from being held accountable to increasing Latinx representation.
Furthermore, Black people too can be Latinx—the two identities are not mutually exclusive. To believe so is to not acknowledge the Latinx identity of Afro-Latinx people. Finally, representation isn’t enough. How will these members influence policy that improves the experience of Black and Brown people at their companies and across industries? What will they do to continue diversifying their boards and other more senior levels of leadership? Where do they stand on the most pertinent issues impacting Black and Brown communities?
The need for #Black, #Latinx, and #Native representation is real. At the same time, the erasure of Blackness, even by other people of color, is inherently violent. If we are to truly invest in #DEI efforts, we have to do so with intention, with humility, and without #Anti-Blackness.
Comments