I hear this question often, whether it pops up in comments on Instagram or gets asked during a Q&A during a panel or workshop. There are a variety of different answers people offer, including “just start doing something, something is better than nothing,” or, “educate yourself, take time to learn and find resources.” There’s also LOTS of different articles out there about 10 ways to begin your anti-racism journey or take action as a white person. This blog isn’t here to offer another one of those. Rather, I’d like to take some time to talk through why an unjust world can’t be solved through the thinking of just doing the one. right. thing.
There’s a desire, both from white folks and from people of color, to do good, to make a difference. It’s also a natural reaction to try and look for simple answers. Our brains crave simplicity. We naturally try and fit things into good versus evil, republican versus democrat, urban versus rural, black versus white, equitable versus inequitable. The trick is that injustice is much more complicated. It happens in policies and laws, in organizations and institutions, and in the actions of individuals. To truly combat these systems that have oppressed people who don’t look like the “norm,” we must embrace complexity, not simplicity.
Let’s take an example of why doing the one. right. thing, doesn’t really work. When we facilitate group conversations, one of the tools we can use is something called “progressive stacking.” Stacking is simply calling out an order of speakers when multiple people want to jump into a conversation at once. Often a facilitator will try to simply create an order based on how fast peoples’ hands went up. Progressive stacking instead calls on folks who have traditionally had less power first and people with more privilege second. This has been a great tool for conversations like our work with Colorado Access where Black birthing individuals were in conversations with people who had a lot more power, both because they were often white and because they held positions where they could make decisions about Medicaid dollars. This allowed the folks who were most impacted to speak first and allowed folks with more power to listen. We might be inclined to then say progressive stacking is the one. right. thing we should do as facilitators. But in groups that are smaller, where there may only be one or two people from a given identity group, this can have the opposite effect. Suddenly the one Black person or the one LGBTQIA person is forced to speak first every time. This puts the spotlight on them and creates a dynamic where they’re being asked to speak on behalf of their entire group. This can leave people feeling like the token Black person or token lesbian.
There are multiple reasons why there are rarely simple answers. The first is that we’re moving from a system that privileges just one way of doing things (white supremacy) to one that honors multiple cultural ways of being and doing. Another is that within all sorts of different identity groups, people are in different stages of identity development. The things that I did and cared about when I was first coming out as a queer person are very different from the things I understand now. As a result, my answer to, “what one thing I can be doing to support the queer community,” would look very different than it did when I was 16 and regularly wore combat boots and a tie on top of all of my t-shirts because I thought they were the gayest things to do. Lastly, the decisions we’re making are often requiring us to decide between multiple good things, not one good thing and one bad thing.
To think through this last one, let’s look at the decisions a very powerful institution like a philanthropic funder could do to make a more just world. Each year, funders give out millions of dollars to nonprofit organizations that each provide their own programs and services to address issues in their communities. Many of these nonprofits spend hours and hours applying for grants or funding when they’d much rather be providing services. On the one hand, we could say that doing the one. right. thing for funders would be to get out of the way of people who are trying to do good work. Give out more money with less requirements or rules and trust communities to know what’s best for them.
Sometimes, this is exactly what is needed, as was the case during COVID when getting people vaccinated far outweighed typical funding requirements. But there are tradeoffs. “Trust the community” sounds like compelling advice, but it dodges the question of “who is the community?” Communities are often conflicted about the best course of action or best use of funds. Should funders listen to the loudest community organizer or the coalition that’s been working for the past year to align on a shared vision or just go door to door asking folks what they think? Trusting one organization or coalition speaking on behalf of the community can leave others feeling excluded and resistant to the funded initiative. And when foundations simply pass on funds with few requirements, they are less accountable because they have passed on decision making to community actors. The worst-case scenario of this would be foundations handing out dollars to the folks who most loudly request it and unintentionally providing more dollars to white-led institutions without a paper trail to hold them accountable.
In short, foundations must balance the competing needs of removing unnecessary hoops and burdens on nonprofits, while still engaging enough to remain accountable for the use of community assets entrusted to them. This balance is best achieved through strong relationships with diverse networks of community partners, built over time, not by simplistic reactions driven by a search for the one. right. thing.
Instead, we can think about the multitude of approaches that achieving justice and equity require, including:
- Accountability AND adaptability
- Learning AND acting
- Listening AND talking
- Leading AND following
- Diversity AND unity
The list can go on and on. As we consider actions that may privilege one of those over the other, we can ask ourselves:
- How will acting in this way support the needs of people who are furthest away from thriving?
- How will acting in this way hurt people who are furthest away from thriving?
- How can I leverage the best of what can come from this approach while mitigating potential harm?
- When I notice that something I’m doing is doing more harm than good, how will change my actions?