Beyond Racial Division: A Unifying Alternative to Colorblindness and Antiracism

Welcome, everyone. It's my pleasure to introduce to you our speaker.

My name is Sean. I'm a pastor of Trinity Cambridge Church,

and it's our joy to host Dr. George Yancey here this evening,

and along with other supporting churches who have helped promote this event,

Settled My Road, Whole Fellowship Church, and Beacon Community Church,

and Ruggles Street Baptist Church, we want to thank you guys as well.

And Dr. George Yancey, he's a sociologist.

He teaches at Baylor University in Waco, Texas.

He has been writing on a number of subjects, including our subject for today,

racial bias, racism, as well as academic bias.

And he first wrote his book on this topic in 1995.

And so it's something that he's been thinking about for a long time.

And I first encountered Dr. George Yancey through his book, Beyond Racial Gridlock,

which at that time, when a lot of things, a lot of conversations were raging,

it was the most helpful, by far, book that I've read.

And he has since built on that and published recently, this past month,

the new book, Beyond Racial Division.

And Dr. George Yancey is unique because he brings,

he combines the academic rigor of a social scientist with his profound faith

and his understanding of Christian theology.

And so we're really excited to present this to you tonight.

So please welcome with me Dr. George Yancey.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for having me.

Thank you.

I just want to start off with a question.

If our Christian faith means anything,

why do we sound so much like everyone else on a moral issue such as race?

We're not talking about mathematics.

You know, we're not talking about,

well, Christian saying the same thing about mathematics, 2 plus 2 is 4.

Okay, that's fine.

But this is a moral issue.

So why do we sound like everyone else?

I don't think we should.

I don't think we have to.

And that's what I want to talk about tonight.

I am a professor and I'm a Christian.

And I believe that truth is truth.

And if it's truth and you find it through science

or if it's true, you find it through theology.

It's still true.

And my experience is that good science and good theology goes together.

And when they don't, either you have bad science,

you have bad theology or worse, you have both.

So this afternoon, I am going to talk theologically.

I'm also going to look at research

because I think that there is a way we can talk about race

that's going to actually be better,

where we can be more productive than we have been.

And I think that that's reinforced by Christian principles.

And I think it's reinforced by what we find out in academia.

So that's my approach.

Can Christianity teach us anything unique about racism?

Or is it just math and we sound like the rest of the world?

And of course, my answer is yes, and I want to look at that.

So that's my premise.

Okay.

Let's get started.

We live in a racialized society.

And by that, a society where race matters profoundly

for differences in life experiences,

of opportunities, and social relationships.

In other words, race matters.

The fact that society has defined me as an African-American man

matters in how I experience things,

in the opportunities I get.

And your race matters too.

Sometimes I hear whites say, well, I don't really have a race.

Yes, you do.

Your race matters because it impacts your life opportunities,

your social experiences.

And I'm not saying that all the experiences are bad.

I walk on the basketball court when I used to play,

and say, hey, let's pick the black guy.

You know, so it's not always a bad thing.

On the other hand, I'm pulled by the cops.

I wonder a little bit.

So it matters.

And the way it's matter in our society,

the way it's matter in the United States,

I think that there's two irrefutable claims one can make.

And the first is this.

We've had centuries of racial abuse in our society,

from whites to non-whites.

I don't think there's any argument about that.

Nor the second claim,

that a lot of the overt types of racism we've had historically

no longer apply today.

We don't have a Jim Crow today.

We don't have slavery today.

We're not putting Japanese internment centers today.

Now, some people use it as rhetoric,

but if you study history and then look at today,

it's not happening.

So this then leaves the big question.

How do we deal with the effects of the centuries of racial abuse

and the structures it's created

in a way where people see it as being fair?

And that's what we're struggling with today.

And to deal with that struggle,

I'm going to look at two major ways.

Am I supposed to point it?

Okay.

Two contrasting views about racism and how we deal with it.

The first view is this.

That racism is something that is overt

and done from one individual to another individual.

So it is racist if I mistreat you because of your race.

If I say I don't like you because you're white

or I like you because you're Hispanic.

It is racist if you don't get a job because someone says,

I'm not hiring people with that race.

It is overt.

And thus, those who have this idea about race

tend to advocate what's known as colorblindness.

And their solution to dealing with racism

is that we will treat everyone the same racially.

I'm not going to see race.

We're going to say race no longer matters.

So that it doesn't matter if I'm going to hire you.

It doesn't matter how I'm going to treat you.

I'm going to be colorblind.

That is one of the ways people answer this big question.

How do we deal with essential racial abuse?

We're going to ignore race and treat everyone the same.

The second, racism is structural as well as individualistic.

And social institutions can perpetuate racism

even when people don't intend for them to be racist.

So it's not about whether or not you personally are racist.

Social institutions in our society can perpetuate racism.

Now, today, the people who try to deal with this

use what's known as anti-racism.

And as Sean reminded me when he was driving me here

is that the king of anti-racism today is in Boston, right?

Kendi.

So I'm sure you all have heard of the term anti-racism.

And I'll go into a little bit on how I wanted to find it

in a little bit.

But it's the idea, look, we have social structures

that are racist.

So we must be intentional.

We can't just ignore.

We can't just be colorblind.

We must intentionally try to deal with racism.

And today, we tend to call it anti-racism.

So I want to take these one at a time

because my argument is that they both fail.

And then, even though they're very different in their outlook,

I'm going to argue they fail for the same reason.

And then, I want to try to look at a Christian approach.

That's going to be my argument for today, all right?

So let's first take the first one, colorblindness.

Is colorblindness viable?

All right.

So if colorblindness is viable, if we have a pretty fair society,

in other words, if society is pretty fair,

then we can ignore a race.

If people have equal chances, we can ignore a race

because it's not going to matter that much.

There are things that we do tend to ignore that are not that important.

We tend to kind of ignore, say, hair color.

You know, it's not really that important.

We don't totally ignore it.

I mean, if you prefer blondes, okay, fine.

But we kind of ignore hair color

because it's really not that important overall.

So that's the question.

Now, if society is not fair, though,

then to ignore race means that we're ignoring a problem.

If you have a wound, you don't correct that wound

by not treating that wound because then it gets worse.

So that's the question.

And what do we know?

There are reams of research on this subject.

Is society fair racially?

I'm going to give you a few, just a few studies.

I could spend, if I had prepared and I could find it,

I could spend this next hour going to study

answering this question.

So here's a few examples.

This paper, 2017, found that there's no real decrease

in racial discrimination when it comes to hiring

over the past 25 years.

Now, how do they know this?

They do something called an audit study.

It's kind of one of the studies you probably see

like in TV shows where they take a white person

and then a black Latino person and they apply for a job.

And then they are careful to make sure

that their resumes, their applications are roughly the same.

It can't be exactly the same when people go,

hey, you know, did you just copy this?

Is this plagiarism?

But they're roughly the same.

They do this over a number of people,

a number of employers so that we get a good sampling.

And what we know is that if you're,

and they signal, by the way,

they signal whether or not you're white or black

by things such as names.

So my name is probably not that distinct of George Yancey,

but if I was Leroy Yancey,

people would probably think, you know,

that he's more likely to be African American.

What they find is that due to this signal,

European Americans are called back for interviews

more often than African Americans and Hispanic Americans.

But here's the interesting part.

You know, let's say that European Americans

are called back 10% more than African Americans

and Hispanic Americans.

You can say, well, maybe 25 years ago it was 20% more,

so we're improving.

But look at that study where it says.

There's been no decrease over the past 25 years.

So this is not something that, well, yeah,

we still have some vestiges that are happening,

but we're getting better.

We're not getting better.

Another example.

Driving while black.

This study was done in Ohio.

Another study was done in other states.

Driving while black is,

are African Americans pulled over more

than European Americans?

All of these have been equal.

And so it's kind of an easy study to do.

You videotape who's driving

so you can see the race of people in the cars.

You see who's pulled over,

and then you just, you know, is it different?

And it is.

African Americans are pulled over more often

than European Americans.

Well, maybe blacks drive faster.

Well, they got the take,

so they can actually see that.

And the bad news is,

we're just as bad drivers as you white people are.

Not better, but not worse.

And then here's the kicker.

You know when you don't get this discrepancy?

At night.

It's hard to see the race of the person driving at night.

So driving while black is a real thing.

It's not just something African American people say.

Now, I doubt that people say

that have actually done the research to know this,

but they have instinctively found that,

figured out.

If you're black, you get pulled over more.

Residence of segregation.

Now, maybe you in Cambridge have conquered this.

I know in Texas, we have black parts of towns

and Hispanic parts of towns,

and even some Asian parts of towns.

We have residence of segregation.

And that means that you have black schools

and Hispanic schools.

And what this research found out

is that this segregation impacts,

and there's a lot of other ways segregation

impacts people of color,

but there's just one of the ways.

Through schools.

Because we have the black school,

the black school is not funded as well

or as high quality as the Brownlee White School.

I actually did not go to a black high school.

I went to a Hispanic high school

in the school that I went to.

Long story, not worth going into.

And our Hispanic high school was lousy

on a lot of things.

You know, we were lousy in football.

We were lousy in academics.

We're good at one thing.

In fact, we won state every year,

and it wasn't even close,

that one thing was industrial arts.

We build a home.

I say we, I didn't ever do that.

But the school would build a home every year.

They start from scratch, build a home.

Carpentry, bricklaying, everything.

They were great at state and dad.

Well, think about that.

This most Hispanic school

really doing a good job teaching people

how to be carpenters,

which is nothing wrong with that,

nothing wrong with teaching people

how to do masonry, all that other stuff,

except the white high schools in my school,

in my city,

they were good at seeing their kids to college.

So when I went to college, a local college,

I hardly ran to any of my kids from my alma mater.

I ran to a lot of kids from the other white schools.

Who's going to run our country?

Kids who build homes or kids who go to college?

Well, yeah, there's nothing wrong.

And for some people, believe me,

some of my students, they need that

instead of going to be in my class.

But think about the Hispanic school

teaches the kids to build homes.

The white school teaches the kids to go to college.

One last one, really relevant,

since we're hopefully coming out of COVID.

Got to ride in a plane without a mask

for the first time in two years,

so hopefully we're coming out of COVID.

You ever wonder why

African Americans and Hispanic Americans

were less likely to get the vaccine?

Well, here's one of the reasons, perhaps, why.

There's evidence of racism

in the beliefs and practices

of healthcare professionals.

This study, they looked at 37 studies,

and 26 of them, they found evidence of racism.

Sometimes in the ways they were treated,

sometimes in the ways that they were tended to,

like what tests they were given.

So the experiences of African Americans

and Hispanic Americans is,

I go to the healthcare system,

I'm going to be treated worse

than European Americans.

Listen, African Americans still remember

Tuskegee experiment.

So when you put that in,

and I'm not saying that African Americans

and Hispanic Americans were smart

not to get the vaccine, okay?

But I'm just trying to explain

why they were less likely to do that.

You put that experience in there,

makes you a little bit wary

of people saying,

you've got to put this in your body.

All right.

All this is to say is,

we do not live in a society that is fair.

It is not, once again,

this is not Jim Crow,

this is not slavery.

I hate when, you know,

professional athletes say,

they're treated like I'm a slave.

read your history, son.

No, they're not.

But African Americans,

Hispanic Americans,

Asian Americans,

there are issues here.

And being blind to them

is not going to make them go away.

So when you go to a person of color

and say, hey, look,

let's ignore race,

and this is happening,

they're not likely to want

to go along with that.

And they know that the wound

will not get healed

until it is bandaged.

So colorblindness does not work.

And people trying to enforce colorblindness,

and I'll talk about that in a few minutes,

that does not work either.

Okay.

Anti-racism.

So people can argue about

what anti-racism is.

And so what I did in my book

was I read,

at the time,

the popular books

on anti-racism.

You know,

I read Kenny's book,

I read D'Angelo's book,

you know,

I read White Supremacy and Me,

So You Want to Talk About Race.

So I read,

those were the popular books

at the time,

because I wanted to

not get what,

read what some academic wrote

that all of five other people read.

I wanted to read what other people,

because I know that,

I write popular stuff,

I write academic stuff.

I know it's going to get read more.

All right.

Sometimes the academic stuff

is very important,

but I know it's going to get read more.

So I read the popular books,

and I treated it

as a social scientist.

What were the common themes

in all these books?

To understand it.

To understand what anti-racism,

because that's what people are reading,

and that's how people are interpreting

what anti-racism is.

And I boiled it down to three,

there could be more,

but I want to keep it

as simple as possible.

So I boiled it down to three.

The first thing

is to be very proactive

in dealing with racism.

That racism is not something

that we sit back

and wait for it to happen

and then deal with it.

No, we deal with it proactively.

We're very aggressive stance on racism.

That that is one of the things

that was in all the books.

That, you know,

we can't hold back and wait.

No, it's out there,

we've got to seek it out

and we've got to defeat it.

Second,

work to dismantle

all aspects of racism.

So racism is not just

that you don't use the N-word.

Racism is in our social structures,

it's institutionalized,

it's in a lot of different dimensions,

a lot of different institutions,

and we have to be aggressive

and look at it

in its multiple facets.

And if this was

what anti-racism was left with,

I'd probably be,

you know what,

this is pretty good

because I agree with both of these things.

It's the third one

that's the problem.

I'm just going to pre-warn you,

some people may not like this

and that's fine,

but I will challenge you

if you push back on this,

find me the example

of the anti-racism book

that doesn't do this,

this third one.

And this is where the problem is.

The responsibility of whites

is to do what people of color want.

When I read these books

that came out again and again and again,

now what they asked differed.

Sometimes they said,

well, you know,

what whites should do

is deny their own racial identity

or what whites should do

is to provide money and support

or what whites should do

is to preach anti-racism

to other whites.

But it was never a conversation.

These white people,

this is what you ought to do.

And I think this is what

is the problem

with anti-racism.

Now, that's my opinion.

But what does research say

about where anti-racism takes us?

Is that our approach successful?

Well, one of the things

that anti-racism talks about

is training people,

diversity training.

Now, not all diversity

is anti-racism,

but a lot of it is.

And here's what we know

about diversity training.

It has little long-term effect

on prejudice.

What will happen is

you'll go through

the diversity training

and if we take a survey

right afterwards,

you will see a reduction

of prejudice.

And then we do one

six months later

and it'll be going back.

And by the way,

this is not a single study.

This is what we call

meta-analysis.

And meta-analysis

is multiple studies

and we see the total effect of that.

So this is not just one study

which will have some weaknesses.

This is a lot of studies

showing that

diversity has little

long-term effect on prejudice.

It's kind of like

when you send your kid off

to Bible camp.

Right?

Kid comes back,

kid makes up his bed now

and the kid eats the vegetables

and the kid's,

you know,

and then six months later

the kid is, you know,

no longer making up the bed

and, you know,

and I hate that

that has brown stuff in it,

you know, all that.

It goes back.

And I think that's the effect

of diversity training.

It gives you a temporary high

and it goes away.

Now,

you might say,

well,

at least you get

that temporary high.

But the problem is

there are also

some problems

with diversity training

as well.

Am I doing the wrong one?

Oh, there we go.

Okay.

For example,

this research found

that diversity training

can generate a backlash,

which means that

for some whites,

as with diversity training,

they actually have

less respect

for people of color

than they did before.

They feel resentful

about what's happened.

Now,

I don't think

it has to be this way.

In fact,

I think diversity training

can be done

in which that does not happen.

But we're looking at

what we're doing right now.

And we're fueled

by certain assumptions.

This is the result

that we're going to get.

Here's something else

that I found interesting.

This research found

that when you teach

about privilege,

white privilege,

because that was

a big theme

in a lot of the stuff

on anti-racism.

When you teach

about white privilege,

you can create

less sympathy for whites,

but your sympathy

for people of color

does not increase.

And what she found,

she and her team found,

was that you do this

talk, you know,

training on privilege.

Marginalized people of color,

people don't feel

any more sympathetic

for them.

People who are already

sympathetic don't feel

any more because

they already were there.

People who are not

sympathetic to them,

they don't get

more sympathetic.

But people who were

sympathetic to people of color,

you teach them about privilege,

they feel less sympathetic

to marginalized whites,

homeless whites,

whites of substance abuse.

They're less sympathetic.

Because, hey,

if they have privilege,

why are you homeless?

So this becomes

a dysfunction.

Then, once again,

I think there are ways

you can teach about privilege

that doesn't do this,

but you have to be careful.

This is, to me,

this study is almost

the dagger

in the effectiveness

of anti-racism training.

What this researcher did

is that they looked

at companies,

and they asked the question,

how can we,

how can the companies

increase the number

of managers of color?

So they looked

at the companies,

they looked at the number

of managers of color,

then they went away,

came back five years,

and looked at who had increased,

who didn't,

and what techniques they used.

You know,

those who did

mandatory diversity training

actually had fewer managers

of color five years later.

Those that had grievance committees

had less managers of color

five years later.

Now, these are the things,

efforts in order to increase

managers of color.

Those that said,

here's how you have

to hire people,

dictated to the managers

how they have to hire people,

had fewer managers of color

five years later.

The ones who,

and I'm going to get

into the second,

who engaged those,

because there were companies

that actually increased

managers of color.

Those are the ones

who actually went

to their current managers

and engaged them,

rather than dictate to them.

They're the ones

who actually increased

managers of color.

So, as a very practical manner,

techniques that,

of trying to get people

to do stuff,

actually could backfire.

So, anti-racism,

in some ways,

it seems like a good theory,

but it doesn't work

in the real world.

There's other studies

that I'm not even,

you know,

there's studies I put up there

about how diversity training

actually creates a compliance

among people.

So, they don't think

there's a problem

because now we've had training.

And how when people

are given social justice

reasons for hires,

that those people

who are hired then

are seen as less competent.

Look, this is the real world, folks.

This is what the research

shows you.

Go back to those

anti-racism books

and see if they have

any research that

anti-racism actually works.

That'd be my challenge

because when I read

those books

and they don't.

Now, maybe there's

a book out there

that I've not read

that does,

but the books

that I did don't.

So,

what's happening?

Both these approaches

lack something.

Now, I'm going to get

all theological on you.

You had the science,

so now you get

the preacher.

The scientist is better

than the preacher,

by the way.

Human depravity.

Here's my argument.

Now, both of us

will talk about

human depravity

of certain groups,

but human depravity

doesn't start

when we're talking

about other groups.

Human depravity

starts when I talk

about myself.

I start with myself

when I talk

about human depravity,

and then I look

at human depravity

of others.

When we recognize

human depravity

crosses boundaries,

it changes how

we look at things,

and it changes

the sort of answers,

the sort of ways

we approach it.

I think there's

a core element

of being a Christian.

There's all sorts

of scriptural backing

for human depravity.

I'll just throw

some of these up there.

Think about it this way.

If we did not have

this human depravity,

if we could get there

on our own,

we wouldn't need Jesus.

We could earn

our own salvation.

This is a core element

of what our faith is.

This is not just

some sort of side issue

when you think about it.

We don't think about it

a lot because who wants

to think about

how depraved they are,

but it is very key.

When we look at it,

it is an incredible

difference between

how Christians see

the world,

and how,

I would say,

those are more

secular to see the world.

Maybe you can find

other religions

that also appreciate it,

but if you have

a more humanistic approach,

it's very different.

In grad school,

I was introduced

to the notion

of human perfectibility

as we say

the Enlightenment thinkers.

That had an impression

on me because I was

a Christian at the time

and I was able

to contrast that

to my understanding

of the nature of humans.

I want to talk

about that a little bit

because I think

that this really

is very telling

because when you start

with one premise

as opposed to another,

you come to

different conclusions.

Human perfectibility.

Humans become better

with education.

The idea is

if we educate people,

they will learn

how to become better

and our society

will become better.

All right?

So education

is the solution

that if we educate people

the right way,

they'll become less racist,

they'll become less sexist,

they'll become more giving,

more loving.

We need to educate.

People are a blank slate

and with the right education.

And this is part

of the philosophy

of the Enlightenment movement

and you can see it today.

What's going wrong

with people

who haven't gotten

bad education

or no education.

And you'll hear that.

You know,

that is the problem.

We've got to change

the education.

We've got to socialize

people differently.

I mean,

what is the argument

in the school system?

We've got to socialize

people differently, right?

Right?

Here's another one.

Another aspect.

Humans are rational creatures

who could become

convinced to become better.

Rationality.

In other words,

the idea was rationality

is going to replace religion.

Instead of religious superstition,

we're going to be rational.

Now,

at the time

I was in grad school,

I didn't have something

I have today

and that's kids.

Because if I had kids

at that time,

I would have talked

about rationality

because kids

are not rational.

But the notion is

we're rational,

you educate us correctly,

we'll grow up

to become good,

solid citizens

and we'll change society.

There's a lot of different

ways this can go.

The most common way

that people recognize

is when you understand

Marxism,

what Marxism is about.

It's about,

you change that economy

to a rational economy

based on communism,

people will be socialized

in a better way.

And it's not just

about changing the economy.

If you understand Marxism,

the structure

and superstructure,

the economy is a superstructure,

everything's built upon that

and everything gets better.

Not just the economy,

everything gets better.

So that is something

that is,

you don't have to do

this Marxism,

but that is the notion

that we have.

We change,

we educate people,

things will get better.

We can make humans

perfectible.

Humans have the ability

to overcome

our problems.

Now,

here's where it really

comes down

when it comes to

looking at racial issues.

If you take that mentality,

if our insight

is taken,

is adopted,

we can move to the end

of racial alienation.

If you adopt

anti-racism

and people become anti-racist,

we will conquer this.

You need to come follow

our anti-racism.

Or,

if you follow

colorblindness,

you know,

people can see it

easier with anti-racism,

but it's just as strong

as colorblindness.

About a year,

maybe a year and a half ago,

I was on Facebook

seeking knowledge.

Because I have,

my oldest is a seven-year-old,

just turned seven,

and,

you know,

I was thinking about

talking to him

about racial issues.

And,

you know,

there's a lot of stuff

out there on birds and bees,

which,

talking about sex,

which I'm grateful about,

because that's another topic

I need to talk to him about.

Not excited about that one either.

But there was nothing on race

that I was comfortable with.

And so,

I went on Facebook

and I just put a query out there,

and sometimes I get on Facebook

and I just kind of put stuff out there

and let people fight over it,

and I just have fun.

But I was actually being honest,

and I was,

you know,

I know that I am a race scholar,

but this is the first time

I've had a five-year-old.

And I'm just like

a clusisist parent

like the rest of y'all.

Those of you

who are raising kids of color,

how do you talk to them

about racial issues?

What's your approach on that?

I just want to get some advice.

Well,

on top of the advice,

I got a lot of people

pushing back,

and their pushback was this.

Why are you talking

to your kid about race?

Why are you even

bringing up race?

Don't worry about

marries and good

black Christian men.

We're about raising

good Christian men,

and that's all

you have to worry about.

Now,

why were they telling,

why were,

and as you probably imagine,

most people who are saying

this were white,

so why were these people

telling me as an African-American

how to raise my kid?

It wasn't just rudeness.

It's,

they believed that

if we all become colorblind,

we'll end racism.

You adopt

our perspective,

we end the problem.

Now,

contrast this

with the notion

of human depravity.

Human depravity.

Humans are inherently selfish,

and that cannot be taken away

with education.

A couple of colleagues of mine

did some really interesting research,

because here's what we know.

This is like a foundational

knowledge in sociology.

Education makes things better.

So,

you look at education

and race,

racism.

And every study

that uses education

as a variable,

as what we call

an independent variable,

measuring some race

aspect of racism

as a dependent variable,

every time education,

the more education people have,

the less racist they are.

No matter how you measure it,

the more education they have,

the less racist people are.

So,

my colleagues said,

well,

that's interesting.

So,

what do people actually do?

So,

they looked at questions on,

would you,

how willing are you,

now these are just whites,

how willing are you to move

into a neighborhood

that's racially mixed?

How willing are you

to send your kids

to racially mixed school?

And,

once again,

more educated whites are,

more willing they are

to send their kids

to racially mixed school,

more willing they are

to live in a racially

integrated neighborhood.

So,

then they looked at

some data

to see whether or not

education actually

did have this effect.

And,

they looked at the data

to see where did whites

actually live,

and where did they

send their kids

to school.

In fact,

the more educated whites

were,

the less likely they were

to send their kids

to an integrated school,

the less likely they were

to live in an integrated

neighborhood.

So,

what's happening here?

The whites are saying,

yes,

I'm more educated,

I'll send my kids

to these schools,

I'll live in these neighborhoods,

when actually comes,

you know,

rubber hits the road,

no.

No.

What if education

doesn't make you

a better person?

What if education

gives you more ability

to hide your sin?

There's no guarantee

education makes you

a better person.

Only by accounting

for our desire

to protect

our own self-interest

can we deal

with group conflict.

We have to be honest.

Everyone comes in here

with a self-interest,

regardless of your race

or position.

And that can take over

and that can create

a situation

that's untenable.

We have to find a way

of dealing with that.

We have to

have some checks

on us

as we enter

into these conversations.

Doesn't mean that

we don't get to

initiate what we want

and desire.

Of course we do.

but we are not

going to get everything.

And my experience is

when humans get everything,

that's usually

not a good thing.

Only holding

each other accountable

can we find solutions

for racial alienation.

Here's the crux of it.

We have to find ways

of holding each other

accountable

and working together

to find solutions.

what happens

is that

one group

will win out

for a period of time.

Just for simplicity

to say,

let's say the colorblind

versus the anti-racism group.

One group will win out

for a little while.

The other group,

they are shut out now

and they're going to

do everything they can

to sabotage that group.

And then when they will win

and the other group

will fight it.

And then that's

what we're doing.

And you can look at

issue after issue.

What's up with

the school board stuff?

Well, let me tell you

what's up with

the school board stuff.

You know,

while all these protests.

And I'm not getting

into what CRT is

or anything like that.

You know,

you want to bring

up the questions,

that's fine.

I'm just saying

this is what's

happening as a sociologist.

For a while,

a group of educators

could do what they want to.

And so they decide

on racial issues,

they're going to

institute programs

that are more progressives.

I would say more

anti-racism than CRT.

The other group

caught wind of it

and now they're protesting.

And now they've

gotten some wins.

They took out,

you know,

a governor.

And that was a major issue.

They're going to get

some more wins.

Because they don't have

any skin in the game.

They didn't have

any say in this.

Why not tear it down?

And they'll get some wins.

And then the other group

will come fighting back again.

And then we'll go

again and again and again.

And that's what's happening.

We don't have

anything sustainable.

So,

what I call

a mutual accountability

approach or a

collaborative conversations

approach is a

Christian-based approach.

I'm going to stop

for a second.

It's Christian-based,

but anyone can do it

if they're willing to.

It's kind of like forgiveness.

I mean,

forgiveness is kind of

Christian-based value,

but anyone can forgive.

And what science shows you

is the more you forgive,

the healthier you are.

Okay?

So,

even though it's

Christian-based,

I'm not saying

only Christians can do it.

In fact,

I hope we Christians do it,

and then I hope

other people do it.

But if other people

want to come and

me talk to them about it,

I will.

Because I think

it's important to do.

Whereby we recognize

that all people

always have a sin nature

that has to be accounted for.

Thus,

everyone has to work

towards healthy

interracial communications

to solve racial problems.

Here's where

the mutual problem

comes in.

And here's where

every single person

has its responsibility.

We all work together

to have healthy

communications.

say,

I want to make sure

I'm being clear on this.

I'm not saying

the solutions

have to be mutual.

In fact,

my inclination

is they probably

won't be,

at least most of them

won't be,

some may be.

I'm not saying

the solutions

have to be

some sort of

colorblindness.

It has to be

on the table.

If people bring on the table,

it has to be

on the table

to discuss.

So,

the solutions

are not going to be

some sort of egalitarian solutions

necessarily.

But,

everyone's responsible

for coming in

and having a healthy conversation.

And their responsibility

is not removed

from you

no matter what your race,

political ideology.

No.

We come in

to have the conversation

in a healthy way.

Okay.

Okay.

So,

I critique the others

empirically.

Is there empirical work

to justify this?

There is some

that needs to be more

and I'm trying to work

on some more right now.

It's a couple

exciting opportunities

I'm working on right now.

But,

there is some

to suggest

this is a better way to go.

For example,

we know that

under the right conditions,

interracial contact

helps to alleviate bias.

Now,

how's it under the right conditions?

Now,

just because you have contact

with people

of different races

doesn't mean that

you're going to be

all lovey-dovey.

But,

under the right conditions,

you will get less bias

with interracial contact.

This means we should be

encouraging this contact

under the right conditions.

Having

common group identity

increases positive feelings.

Right?

I mean,

I'm in Boston

or close to Boston

and it wasn't too long ago

that New England Patriots

were pretty good.

Oh,

I know.

That's bad,

huh?

Well,

they did make the playoffs

last year,

so that they...

When they were good,

wasn't there like a,

hey,

we're all in this together

and these other differences

don't matter as much?

Because he had

this common group identity.

This common group identity.

And we know

this is the case.

When I was in college,

I thought my dorm

was the best

because these were

the guys I was with.

But yet,

whenever we went

to a football game,

then the dorm differences

didn't matter

because now our common identity

was the whole school.

So the more...

We should be encouraging us

to think of

how to have a common identity

and less polarization.

And part of what

this approach is,

building community

instead of polarization.

Perspective taking.

As I said,

you can do diversity training

to be more effective.

And one of the things

they found out

is perspective taking

shouldn't be effective.

So if I learn

how to take the perspective

of other people,

if I learn how to listen

to other people

and take their perspective,

that has a more

effective change

than if I'm just sitting there

and listening to them

talk to me.

We've got to encourage

perspective taking.

We've got to encourage

the extraordinary communications

where I learn

about the perspectives

of others

and try to incorporate that.

Collaborative conversation

in an atmosphere

of mutual support

creates relational compliance.

If people have had a chance

to have their say

and are heard

and have something,

you know,

not just heard

and we're going to dismiss,

but, you know,

take into account

as we try to fashion

the solution,

they may not get everything,

but you know what?

They're going to actually work

to make it successful

rather than work

to tear it down.

Because the way

we do things today,

a group wins

and 40% of the country

is trying to tear down

their efforts.

And that's no way to go.

But collaborative conversations

with mutual support

will help us

to have that sort

of volitional compliance.

Was there another one there?

Oh, yeah.

Skill development.

That's just,

it's very important

we develop skills.

Part of,

you know,

I think one of the

fair critiques

of my approach is

do we have the skills for it?

And I say probably right now

our country doesn't.

So part of the more

make this work

is we're going to have

to develop skills

to learn how to actually listen,

to learn how to have communication,

to communicate

in an effective manner.

Because communication

is not just sitting

and yelling at people.

Yeah, you're communicating,

but it's not getting through.

Skill development.

Is a key

to do successful

diversity training.

See it one time.

Okay.

Implication of this approach.

First,

no one has

all the right answers.

All right?

No group has

all the right answers.

No person

has all the right answers.

But we can need

better answers

by working with each other.

And, you know,

there's actually research

showing that

one of the reasons

why diversity is good

is you bring in

these different perspectives

and people learn

how to work together

and people can see things

they didn't see before.

That's one of the reasons

why diversity works.

All right?

So if we,

if that's true,

then we should

bring in

different voices

to get better answers,

to see shortcomings.

second point.

We need intentional

efforts to

collaborate with

to collaborate with

conversation.

I'll be very clear

about this.

This is not,

hey,

let's just have a dialogue

and then we just

go to Twitter

and we just have a dialogue.

We need productive dialogue,

which means we need

to learn how

to have productive dialogue.

And there are techniques

that we can learn

and that we can

teach each other.

So the conversation

is intentionally

to be collaborative,

intentionally be productive.

Unless anyone think

that I'm just talking about,

hey,

we just talk about it

and nothing gets done,

the purpose of this conversation

is to solve problems.

Now,

good relationships

is going to be

a result of that.

But good relationships

is not the intention

of these conversations.

There we go.

All right.

The needs of everyone

must be respected.

So this is a conversation

where we're going

to go into and say,

okay,

what needs

does everyone have?

Can we respect them?

Because that is

what's going to get by you.

Trying to figure out

what people really,

and also trying to figure out

what people really want

and what they really need.

Because sometimes

we want everything,

but we don't need everything.

And if you're married,

you know that sometimes

giving up a want

to meet your spouse's need

is a very smart thing.

It's like this.

Do you want to win

the argument now

or do you want to lose,

or do you want to win

the argument later?

Because the one you win now

is going to cost you later on.

All right?

So is that really

a want or a need?

And we need to have

that conversation

when it comes to racial issues

as well.

What's a want

and what's a need?

Skills of active listening

and productive communication

is valued.

So active listening.

When I interview people,

I engage in what's known

as active listening.

Maybe I should do this

all the time.

Probably make me

a better person.

I'm working on myself.

Active listening is

listening for understanding.

I'll give you an example.

So about 10 or 12 years ago,

I wrote a book on atheists.

And to get the information

from that book,

I interviewed a lot of atheists.

Altogether,

my research team,

our research team

interviewed about 50 atheists.

I probably interviewed

about 25 of them.

As a Christian,

I was not in agreement

with what they were

talking about.

But I wanted to understand

why they rejected religion

and what their perspectives was.

And so I listened for them.

I listened for understanding.

And one of the ways

I did this was

when I heard them out,

I would rephrase

what they were saying

in my own words

so that I knew

whether or not

I understood them or not.

That's listening for understanding.

Now,

let's not listen

so I can get

the next debate point in.

Because there was

no debate there.

I was listening

to understand them.

I mean,

if you don't understand

where a person comes from,

how do you even

disagree with them?

Sometimes we're so eager

to prove them wrong,

we may even agree with them

more than we think.

And productive communication.

There's research out there

that shows

that when people

feel threatened

by what's communicated

to them,

they shut down

and literally

cannot hear you.

One thing I like to say

to Christians is,

you know,

you could be 100% right

in your outlook,

100% wrong

in how you deliver it.

You'd be sinning

against that person

even though you're right.

So what we want

is learn how

to communicate

to people

where they can

actually hear us.

I'd like to give

two examples,

one from people

who are more conservative,

one from people

more progressive

on how they say things

that shut down

conversations.

And the person's

going to still be there

looking like they're listening,

but they're not listening.

All right?

So here's my first example.

When a person says,

I do not see race.

I understand

where they're coming from.

What they're trying to say is,

I'm not going to mistreat you

because of your race.

But what a lot of people

of color hear

is this important part of me,

I don't recognize.

It doesn't matter to me.

That important part.

Now,

I'm an African American man.

Being an African American

is not my most important

social identity.

Being a child of God is.

But it is an important

part of my social identity.

It is part of what shapes me.

It's not the only thing,

but it's an important part of it.

So,

I want people to understand

that part of me.

All right?

I want people to understand that.

It's hard to say,

you know,

I,

to say something such as,

you know,

my race is not important to me

because then you're

talking about yourself.

But when you don't see race,

what you're telling me,

what a lot of people of color hear,

you know,

is you don't see

an important part

of who I am.

All right?

I've dealt

enough people

that I don't become defensive,

but a lot of people of color will

if you tell them,

I don't see race.

From the other end,

when you throw out

terms such as racism

and white supremacy,

I guarantee you

a lot of whites

are shutting down

at that point in time.

Because their idea

of racism and supremacy,

white supremacy,

is the KKK members

running through the town.

and you can say,

no, no, no, no,

academically,

that's,

come on,

let's be real, folks.

Let's be real.

You can use a different term.

You can use a different term.

You know,

the way people interpret

racism

is nooses.

All right?

And that white person

is going to think,

I,

that is not me.

You're using that term

about me,

and that is not me.

And that person

will no longer hear

what you have to say.

And what you may say

may be great,

but they cannot hear it.

And let's just say,

I'm,

I'm telling policing,

yes,

we do that all the time

with people we care about.

You don't tell them

police around your friends,

you'll have those friends

for much longer.

Because,

trust me,

I don't say everything

that pops into my mind.

That would make me a monster.

And you don't want,

you don't want that.

Yes,

there is,

there's some amount

of tone policing

in relationships.

Period.

And it's not always fun,

but it is what it is.

Once again,

do you want to communicate

to feel good,

or do you want to communicate

to get to break through?

You know,

it's your choice.

Work for solutions

that are win-win

instead of win-lose.

Let's try to find ways

where everyone feels

like they got something.

You know,

if you enter

in negotiations

and the person feels,

in an ex-negotiation,

you feel they got nothing,

why are they going

to keep working with you?

Why are they going

to keep working with you?

Negotiations,

dealing with issues,

we want to find out

what people really need

and how we can meet

those needs.

And sometimes you can

meet those needs

with something

that's pretty simple.

And why not do that?

Sometimes,

sometimes it's not

going to be as easy.

And you know,

let's acknowledge

that as well.

We should work

towards win-win

and try to avoid

win-lose

as much as possible.

Now,

there's more to this.

You know,

obviously,

there's more to this.

You know,

I could go more

into some of the research

looking at

how this could be effective

and I could look

into some of the techniques

and some of the procedures

and larger ideas

about this.

So there is more to this.

But I just want to give you

all an introduction

to this perspective,

which I think is

a much more viable perspective.

If I had an elevator talk,

you know,

if I was on an elevator

on the fifth floor

and someone said,

hey,

what's your book about?

I'm worried about

the first floor

so I have like 20 seconds.

It's just about this.

My book is about

how we can solve

racial issues

or learn how to have

better conversations

with each other

so we can solve problems

where everyone wins

and get away from

one group winning

and the other group losing.

In a nutshell,

that's what this is about.

Now,

executing it

is not as simple

but that's what

this is about.

Now,

I was told to go

to the last slide

that if you didn't get

a book

and you're interested

in one,

you can scan that

and get one.

I know that

some of y'all

got the book