General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsStarbucks drops Jewish group from bias training
The ADL, whose mission is to fight anti-Semitism, will play an advisory role in the company's long-term efforts to combat discrimination, Jaime Riley, a Starbucks spokeswoman, told POLITICO Monday. But the group won't help develop the curriculum for Starbucks' May 29 mandatory anti-bias training, as originally planned.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/30/starbucks-adl-black-jewish-activists-511390
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Its not bowing to pressure.
moriah
(8,311 posts)ADL is great for Jewish anti-bias, but other groups may be better at tackling other types.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)moriah
(8,311 posts)Understandably their educational materials are directed at helping stop the bias that's their primary focus.
And they are a great org.
But they don't do much re: other types of bias. Which is why I thought of SPLC and orgs/peope they could refer to.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)But it's all directed toward anti-bullying and addressing antisemitism and anti-Israel bias.
Very important and very much needed in our society. But not really relevant to the issue that Starbucks is trying to address with this session.
Sailor65x1
(554 posts)To be effective. Starbucks took a very pragmatic view in bringing the ADL in on this thing. The ADL has a history of very successfully working on this sort of thing, and probably had good ideas to bring to the table. And why wouldn't you want effective organizations involved, if the goal is actually change, and not something else? Lobbying to ditch the ADL from this thing was silly and counterproductive from a pragmatic point of view.
Mosby
(16,161 posts)They could easily adopt it for retail workers.
Their anti-bias curriculum is completely relevent to the incident at starbucks.
https://www.adl.org/who-we-are/our-organization/signature-programs/law-enforcement-training/implicit-bias
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)The training program you're referring to is part of an larger ADL partnership with law enforcement that has raised some concerns in the civil rights community. I'm not offering an opinion about this partnership one way or the other, but I do know that many people are uncomfortable with this relationship, so trying to translate the work it's doing in its law enforcement partnership into the civil rights space would be very problematic. Moreover, it's not necessary, given that there are already numerous anti-racial bias programs that are proven and good to go - there's absolutely no need to make that kind of a stretch to retrofit an unrelated program to shoehorn it into this particular situation.
I still don't get all of the consternation here. The ADL was originally asked to help craft a training program. Starbucks later decided - likely in collaboration with its advisers (including Eric Holder and the ADL itself) to not have them help coordinate the training program, but to maintain their on-going advisory role on a long-term basis. They haven't been "uninvited," they haven't been excluded from anything, they haven't been treated badly. They are obviously fine with it. Everyone else involved is fine with it. The only objections seem to be coming from folks online who are trying to turn this into a "Blacks vs. Jews" and suggesting that the ADL is a victim of anti-semitism, something the ADL itself doesn't seem to think occurred at all.
This is all much ado about nothing.
hack89
(39,171 posts)moriah
(8,311 posts)The ADL's a great organization, and they've still involved. But there might be groups closer to the struggle now with racial bias against blacks, speakers with more experience helping people understand what white privilege is and what it's like to be black in America, etc.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)priorities for Starbucks. But that's not the point of this session - this particular session was set up to address racial discrimination, not anti-semitism.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Maybe that makes me sound cold hearted, but if I can get an organization that covers more types of biases, including anti-Semitism, than I think that would be a better investment, particularly of my employees time.
Bryant
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)As far as I know, Starbucks doesn't have a problem with discrimination against Jewish customers. This is a problem very specific to black and brown people. So, I didn't understand why the ADL was brought in in the first place. And I totally get the consternation of those who objected to them being engaged since I have no doubt that, if the shoe were on the other foot and the store had a rash of antisemitic incidents, but didn't seem to have any issues with racism against minorities, people would think it strange if the NAACP Legal Defense Fund or Black Lives Matter were brought in to address them. This had a co-opting feel that made me a little uncomfortable.
It's also an example of how discrimination against minorities is all-too-often treated very differently than other wrongful behavior in our society. In just about any other instance, when employees behave badly or in an unacceptable manner, their employers don't spend a lot of time and effort trying to discuss or retrain or have encounter sessions, etc. They just forbid the bad behavior, impose a zero tolerance policy and move on.
I've often worked in situations where the minority employees point out a pattern of discrimination and the employer's response is to reach out to the black folk to have "dialogue." And I always think, "Why are you reaching out to US? WE'RE not the problem. You need to reach out to the white managers who are behaving in such an effed up manner and tell them to straighten up or get out."
If Starbucks had a manager who repeatedly hit employees, I doubt the company would spend much time and resources working with them on their anger management issues, have the people they beat up come and "share" with them how getting their asses whupped felt, and allow the manager to give "the other side of the story." They would just tell the manager to stop beating people up and if he didn't, they'd fire his angry ass.
I'm not criticizing Starbucks for doing this session - I think they're really trying to do the right thing. But I think we need to consider how we address racism in this country - and hold the people who engage in it to stricter standards and consequences. It can also be helpful as part of this, to show the universality of discrimination. But shoehorning other issues into this one suggests to those of us who must endure it and are asking for it to be addressed that our concerns just aren't important enough to taken seriously on their own, but must be piggy-backed onto someone else's problems in order to have any credibility.
moriah
(8,311 posts)It may be simply that they offered. I think they're a good organization.
But my understanding of part of what it means to be an ally is to listen to the people you want to be allies with, especially before opening your own trap. If as a Quaker (we believe in social justice) I was asked to help with something like this, I'd offer my advice but try to get the group to get someone to give influence direction who was actually living with the bias, vs just disliking the bias.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)That was just odd.
And - big surprise - now it's being played as a "black people are picking on white people" scenario here.
Anon-C
(3,430 posts)H2O Man
(73,308 posts)Thank you!
Amishman
(5,540 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"they should have been allowed to contribute"
That is how headlines get people. They are still contributing to the long-term goals.
Tipperary
(6,930 posts)Smh.
Behind the Aegis
(53,823 posts)And as expected, Jews are being dismissed as an actual minority.
IronLionZion
(45,256 posts)They took issue with this one organization, not Jewish people in general. The ADL has clashed with minority groups many times as described in the article.
On a related note, you of course know there are different types of Jews. The darker complexioned Jews have a very different type of experience than the European looking ones.
Behind the Aegis
(53,823 posts)And yes, I know there are different types of Jews, thanks for 'splainin it to me. Love the rationalization though, part for the course. Some groups get to be upset with how they are portrayed, but not others.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)They may be a minority, but they're not the minority being discriminated against in this situation.
As I said, if Starbucks noted a rash of discrimination against its Jewish patrons, with no evidence of discrimination against black and brown customers, and the company decided to conduct sessions to make it stop, no one would even think of bringing in the NAACP Legal Defense Fund or Black Lives Matter to conduct the trainings. And I'm sure the ADL wouldn't appreciate having non-Jewish groups brought in, either - and would likely make just as big - if not more - of a stink about having its issues and concerns co-opted and diluted by other groups.
Behind the Aegis
(53,823 posts)However, lies were launched in a attack against the ADL, which has a long history of positive stances with a variety of minorities, including African-Americans. But, hey, it is always nice to have my concerns as a Jew explained to me by those who aren't.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Last edited Wed May 2, 2018, 02:59 PM - Edit history (1)
Many people - and not just African Americans - expressed concerns about the ADL's involvement that were in no way lies or attacks against them.
Perhaps you are choosing only to pay attention to the comments you didn't like. Your prerogative. But while numerous people objected to the inclusion of the ADL as trainers in this session, the kinds of views that you seem to be focusing on are in the distinct minority.
And, whether you agree with the criticisms or not, the ADL is not a credible voice or presence in the black community, so bringing them in for this particular training is odd.
The bottom line is that the ADL really should not have been brought in as a trainer for these sessions and many people from diverse backgrounds were unhappy about it. I'm sure that it is THOSE people (in addition to other advisers, such as Eric Holder, Sherrilyn Ifill, and Heather McGee) whom Starbucks is responding to, despite the efforts of some to turn this into something it's not.
Link to tweet
Behind the Aegis
(53,823 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)moriah
(8,311 posts)Last edited Wed May 2, 2018, 02:58 PM - Edit history (1)
Not all bias is the same, and the experience of living as a Jew can't be compared to as black/brown, or vice versa.
I would expect the NAACP and SPLC to offer assistance in addressing an incident of anti-Semitic behavior from management, but would want to hear the main message from people who actually were Jewish about what THEY wanted me to take home from it.
I think the same is true in reverse, and in this case Starbucks is trying to deal with the perception that btown/black people are somehow a problem to management. I'd rather hear from them and know what they'd like me to learn from it than even well-meaning allies.
Edit to add: I'm out of this conversation as it's starting to get into I/P issues. I'm sensitive on I/P because I identify as a Liberal Quaker, and may never be able to visit the Holy Land as a result of the AFSC being targeted for its support of nonviolent resistance. Regardless of the reasoning, that sucks. And so I stay out of those discussions.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)That is just an excuse to spout Antisemitism.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)The ADL wont do the training, but they will remain involved as one of the key advisers, along with several other groups, moving forward.
Clearly, the ADL doesnt see this as an us vs. them thing - I hope others dont try to turn it into one to score political points.
Starbucks did not specify why Greenblatt is no longer among the originally named experts, although Greenblatt noted in a tweet that the training will focus specifically on race. The three activists leading the training are all people of color. The ADL combats bigotry of all kinds, but focuses on fighting anti-Semitism.
Greenblatt appeared to react positively to the scaled back role. He tweeted that the ADL will be there every step of the way to assist Starbucks, and acknowledged that this is an issue of race. And so we are ready to listen, learn &share our expertise+experience where we can.
https://www.jta.org/2018/04/27/news-opinion/adl-will-no-longer-co-lead-starbucks-diversity-training
Link to tweet
kcr
(15,300 posts)Not surprised to see Tamika Mallory's name come up in this.
wellst0nev0ter
(7,509 posts)And I thought she was supposed to be a leader of the Women's March, not BLM
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)It probably had more to do with inside advice and counsel they received from advisers such as Eric Holder, Sherrilyn Ifill, and Heather McGee.
I sincerely doubt Tamika Mallory had much influence on them at all. But she is a convenient target for some people
kcr
(15,300 posts)hanging around until Mallory and her ilk pointed it out. That makes sense.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Tamika Mallory has no power. She's a loudmouth who gets lots of press but I don't see anyone hiring her to advise them on anything. And I assure you that if you stopped 10 black people on the street and asked them how much influence Tamika Mallory had with them, at least 5 of them would say "Tamika WHO?" and 4 more would say, "Who in the hell is SHE?"
I'm telling you that lots of people have serious problems with the ADL being selected to participate in this training - for reasons that have nothing to do with anti-semitism - and they didn't need Tamika Mallory to tell them.
Three of the most influential, knowledgeable and respected lawyers and counselors in the country - are advising Starbucks behind the scenes and if they had a problem with the role of the ADL being changed, you can bet it wouldn't have happened.
The bottom line is that the ADL has no experience with or history of anti-bias training regarding racism against African Americans. Moreover, they do not have a strong relationship with or presence in the black community, therefore, taking a leading role in this issue is just not their wheelhouse.
I'm sure people would look askance if Southern Christian Leadership trainers were brought in to lead a training session on how to eliminate anti-semitic bias. Their objection wouldn't be based on racism, just on whether they were the right group to lead such a session. The same principal applies here.
kcr
(15,300 posts)You were making some baseless speculation I can only assume you didn't think through maybe? Because really.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)And I doubt they believe that ADL is a "racist organization." But they are NOT the appropriate organization to conduct the training.
So please stop with the bullshit argument - actually, now that I have told you otherwise repeatedly, it's an outright lie - that everyone who thinks the ADL should not be conducting this training is accusing them of being a racist.
kcr
(15,300 posts)Because she's a bigot. And stop putting words in my mouth.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)See my post above.
kcr
(15,300 posts)And Tamika Mallory is an anti-semitic bigot which is why I'm not surprised she was involved in this.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)You dont have to be antisemitic to think this. Even the head of ADL acknowledged that this is an issue of race and was fine with taking on a different role.
And, as I said, Starbucks has many other advisors who have been quietly advising them and I am certain that, if they thought it was a good idea for ADL to continue on as a trainer, they would have so advised Starbucks and backed them up - and, no matter what you think of Mallory, Eric Holder, Sherilynn Ifill and Heather McGee have considerably more influence with Starbucks and credibility in the black community and beyond than Tamika Mallory does. If they thought the ADL should have continued in that role, it would have continued in that role.
Tamika Mallory is a convenient boogeyman, but she has little power and no real influence.
kcr
(15,300 posts)I think the head of ADL was being gracious.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)trainer regarding racism against African Americans? If not, please explain exactly what you mean.
If you think that it's anti-semitic to believe this, then you surely must also believe that changing their role is an anti-semitic act. And you think that the head of the Anti-Defamation League would quietly allow his organization to be subjected to anti-semitism in order to be "gracious?"
kcr
(15,300 posts)I have no idea why you're agreeing with or supporting this.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Lots of people disagreed with the decision to have the ADL serve as trainers for Starbucks in this session.
Most people, including me, objected because they believe that the 1) this training should be handled by individuals and organizations with experience and background in anti-racism training; 2) ADL does not have the experience to conduct anti-racism trainings since that's not what they do, that's not what they've ever done; 3) ADL does not have relationships in or strong credibility in the black community and, thus, is not in a position to address anti-black bias. People in this group have not accused the ADL of being anti-black, racist or otherwise bad. Just not appropriate for this particular job.
Some people, such as Tamika Mallory, objected for the foregoing reasons AND have harshly criticized the ADL as a racist organization.
Apparently Starbucks agreed that ADL is not the appropriate group to conduct this training. The ADL has publicly agreed with n supports Starbucks' decision.
Given this, insisting on morphing all of the objections together under the Tamika Mallory umbrella or insist that everyone who disagreed with Starbucks' original decision must have based their objections on anti-semitism or have "attacked" the ADL is not operating on fact.
I am sure that if the Anti-Defamation League believed that they were the victims of anti-semitism in this scenario, they wouldn't go along with it - and assuming otherwise means that you think they are a bunch of sellouts willing to let themselves be abused by Starbucks so that they can be "gracious." The ADL has been many things over the years, but "gracious" isn't one of them - nor should they be since "graciousness" is not a quality that an advocacy group should be striving to display in the face of discrimination.
I hope this clears up any misapprehension that you may be operating under that I am either anti-semitic or support anti-semitic behavior.
kcr
(15,300 posts)Their focus isn't solely on anti-semitism. But even so, it would be one thing if the argument was only the black community can effectively educate on such matters. I can understand that and would fully support it. But it's clear this wasn't the motivations behind this particular protest. The rise of anti-semitism can't be ignored.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)bias against African-Americans. That's not a knock on them. It's just a fact that everybody doesn't do everything.
I would have the same objections if the Southern Christian Leadership Conference or National Urban League were sent in to handle training against anti-semitic bias. Not their wheelhouse.
The ADL is still involved in the Starbucks issue and will be working alongside numerous other anti-bias groups of all backgrounds to address all manner of discrimination. But having them conduct THIS particular training, the first one, that is intended to respond to a case of clear anti-black bias - even if you think the "motivations" clear - was misguided. And now it's been corrected.
But since everyone involved seems to be perfectly content with this development - including the ADL itself - why are you still making a big deal about it?
kcr
(15,300 posts)Again, I will repeat. If your stance is that only groups who solely focus on the black community should be involved, that's one thing. But the ADL is not a single-issue organization in the way you seem to think it is. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. You should do some research. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that members of the black community asked for this change separate from the bigoted protests for entirely different reasons having nothing to do with bigotry and anti-semitism, and of course, we heard nothing about that. But Tamika Mallory is an anti-semite and her claims against the ADL are baseless.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)I know their strengths and weaknesses, perhaps better than most.Among other things, I know that they are not experts in anti-racial bias training any more than a black civil rights group is an expert on training against anti-semitism.
But, whatever.
We're not going to agree and I'm not going to waste any more of my time arguing with you.
Have a good evening.
kcr
(15,300 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Please be specific.
kcr
(15,300 posts)Seemed like defense to me. Any corporation is going to have a problem when bigots make a protest and they immediately acquiesce to their demands. That is always bad optics. It doesn't matter if there happens to be legitimate reasons for that decision. My point was the bigotry. That was it. Tamika Mallory's attack on the ADL was pure and utter bigotry and you seemed to have a problem with that point.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)I have no problem with you slamming Tamika Mallory. Slam away if you want because I couldn't care less and have never indicated otherwise.
My problem is with your assumption that anyone who objects to the ADL being brought in to craft this training MUST be objecting for the same reasons that Mallory is giving, MUST be "defending Mallory, and MUST be anti-semitic
kcr
(15,300 posts)I've even stated multiple times that there are legit reasons for objecting to it.
kcr
(15,300 posts)Things like putting quotes around "involvement", and claiming she probably had little to do with it. Whether or not a woman named Tamika Mallory had anything to do with an ant-Semitic attack on the ADL is really not relevant, but the attempts at downplaying her role are still curious.
Whatever works for you.
moriah
(8,311 posts)All posts were diminishing, not praising, TM, if you read the thread.
But then I'm anti-Semitic because I'm a Quaker and support the right to nonviolent protest like BDS even if I don't support the cause they're protesting. At least according to the Israeli government, who banned the AFSC for that opinion and criticizing home demolitions.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)think she has considerably more power than she does.
I sincerely doubt that Starbucks gives two hoots what Mallory thinks about anything. And if they believed that they should keep the ADL's role as it was, they could easily have done so without any worry about what Mallory would say or do. Obviously, they thought changing their role was the right thing to do - as did their advisers, including the ADL itself - so Tamika Mallory is really irrelevant.
My dog barks like a maniac every time the mailman comes to our door and every time, the mailman leaves. Then she struts around the house for about 10 minutes thinking she's the baddest little bitch on the block because she once again saved our lives by running the mailman away. But that doesn't mean the mailman leaving our house had anything at all to do with her.
Same thing here. Starbucks' decision probably had nothing whatsoever to do with Tamika Mallory, although it plays right into her hands to think that they "acquiesced" to her in doing something they likely would have done even if she hadn't uttered a word.
kcr
(15,300 posts)Why would Starbucks give two hoots about the woman who led the Women's March? Huh. No idea...
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)take Tamika Mallory seriously.
If Starbucks really gave a shit about what she thinks, they would be talking to her. Instead, they're listening to Eric Holder, Sherrilyn Ifill, Bryan Stephenson, Heather McGee, and Jonathan Greenblatt. She may seem like a big deal to you, but corporate America is not shaking in its collective boots because Tamika Mallory tweeted mean things about somebody.
kcr
(15,300 posts)Now, if only Tamika Mallory were the only anti-Semite in the world who ever attacks the ADL... I now see the reason for downplaying her role. Well played! You win the internet for the day. I didn't see that move coming.
I don't know if I won the Internet, but given your whipsaw shift from "Tamika Tamika Tamika" to "every anti-Semite in the world," I sure got the best of you.
kcr
(15,300 posts)But yes. This really was about the anti-Semitism and the attack on the ADL the whole time. Yeah, mention a detail and it's so easy to derail. My mistake.
MichMan
(11,786 posts)I don't know you so I can't say what your motives are, nor would I accuse you of anythng
If you attend Louis Farrakhan speeches and later say things like Tamika Mallory did....
"The ADL is CONSTANTLY attacking black and brown people This is a sign that they are tone deaf and not committed to addressing the concerns of black folk.
Anyone that attends speeches by a known bigot like Farrakhan would likely also be an anti semite, just like those attending white supremecy rallies are likely to be racists.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Last edited Wed May 2, 2018, 07:29 PM - Edit history (1)
What have *I* written that would lead anyone to conclude that I am anti-semitic or defend anti-semitism?
And please be specific.
BumRushDaShow
(127,295 posts)Apparently what Starbucks plans to do will be continual (whether annual or whatnot). So the training is NOT expected to just be a one-off thing about "implicit bias" and they move on. The. End.
There is an expectation that there will be a series of training courses on various subjects - done in a phased fashion (according to her) and the ADL will most likely be involved in different training initiatives.
The thing here is though, for the IMMEDIATE problem that has impacted blacks most egregiously, there needed to be an immediate remedy right now. One would need a week to cover all of the material to address most types of bias (been there done that), including doing break-outs and role-play, etc., so that needs to be planned out in order to deal with minimal downtime. She also mentioned that they are aware that at places like Starbucks, there is a high turnover, so that has to be factored in.
I expect that in the future, they might break it out so that different "regions" would have training on a schedule of different days so that you don't have the whole chain down at once on a single day.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Really interesting additional info there.
BumRushDaShow
(127,295 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Starbucks and ADL have both made clear that the will continue to be involved. They just aren't handling this initial training, which is appropriate.
Unfortunately, some people are running with the "Black people are being anti-semitic/Jews are anti-black" narrative - falling for a generations-old game intended to pit two natural, long-time allies against each other.
People need to understand that black people wanting to take the lead on anti-black racism efforts does not mean they are antisemitic. And just because a couple of loud-mouthed black people DO say things that can be taken as anti-semitic does not mean that all black people agree with them or that any objection to something a Jewish group does is, by definition, anti-semitism or in collaboration with those who are anti-semitic.
BumRushDaShow
(127,295 posts)I posted a clip of this interview in post #45 (am listening to it again as I had heard it live yesterday). And she explains what the plan is supposed to be. And his final question was about the ADL thing (and she is underscoring that none of them, including the ADL or the NAACP LDF or even Eric Holder, who is also involved, are actually "doing the training" but are "advising" ).
We are always told we need to focus on working with and having more accountability for our community but then when we try to do that, in comes the naysayers and distortions and it goes downhill.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Jonathan Greenblatt was originally going to be a part of a team that developed the training - the team also consisted of Bryan Stephenson, Sherrilyn Ifill, Heather McGee and Eric Holder. He'll still be involved in advising moving forward, but he won't be part of the team that puts the training together. So what's the big deal?
I suspect much of it is based on the "they don't know what they're doing, so why WOULDN'T they want white folks to help them?" mentality.
And I also suspect that if this were a training regarding anti-semitic bias or bias against LGBTQs, they'd look at Starbucks a little cross-eyed if they brought in Black Lives Matter or the National Urban League to help develop the program.
BumRushDaShow
(127,295 posts)You bring in the experts in the subject matter. And certainly the NAACP LDF (which Thurgood Marshall founded ), knows all about the litigation side of that equation and what types of things that employers and employees need to look out for when it comes to public accommodations discrimination. I expect this would be part of the training on those "biases", showing how they might lead not only to painful interactions with customers, but to legal issues and monetary damages (which is basically just about what happened here).
And if you look historically, the "they don't know what they are doing" thing basically contributed to W.E.B. DuBois fleeing the very organization that he helped to found.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I was initially incensed by the title but reading through this thread and the links makes me feel a little better about it. That said, being intersectional is a challenge and everyone needs to keep it in mind and push back against their own groups when they fail to meet high standards.
I get it. If a chain had a series of anti Semitic events and they brought in GLSEN or NOW or the NAACP to craft training to address thse specific instances it would raise a few eyebrows I am sure.
It would have been nice if the group that will be developing this training would have invited the ADL to stay on as a partner. I think that message would have been better.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Some of the things that were said about that organization were ridiculous and offensive.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Theyre just not helping to coordinate this first one since it is specifically focused on racial bias, something the ADL does not focus on.
All of the carrying about this is interesting. As you said, it would be very odd if the NAACP or NOW or GLSEN were brought in to craft a training to deal with anti-Semitic bias. And I sincerely doubt the same folks who are wringing their hands over this would be demanding that these groups be included and insisting that not allowing them to have a hand was racist or sexist or homophobia.
But for some reason, some people seem to believe that issues involving race are fair game for everyone to piggyback their own issues. Not only is this sense of entitlement to co-opt troubling, but it also suggests a certain they dont really know what theyre doing and couldnt possibly manage this on their own, so they need our help paternalism.