Lee B. Weathers, the former publisher of the Shelby
Daily Star of Shelby, N.C., wrote to the editor of Look
magazine in 1956: “No race in the world has made
as much progress as the Southern Negro since he was
set free as a slave 90 years ago. The Southern white
man has contributed gladly to that advancement and will
continue to do so, if social reformers who know little
about our problem will let us work it out in our own
way.”
Advertisement
It’s easy to “Tsk, tsk!” Weathers,
to shake one’s head and be amazed that he managed
to be so ignorant, so obstinate, so deluded and so provincial.
But to varying degrees, we are all Lee B. Weathers.
He was a human being, we are human beings and human
beings have common appetites. We all crave measures
of predictability. We all want to dictate the pace of
change and to be loved and honored for what we’ve
ceded in the name of change, however slight. Like Weathers,
we don’t just want to know what’s going
to happen: We want our firm, heavy foot on the brake
pedal of change.
And like Weathers, we employ truisms to obscure our
ignorance, our obstinacy, our delusions and our provincialism.
And we repeat our truisms, until they become our mantras.
Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi minister of propaganda, asserted
that if we repeat a lie enough times, it becomes the
truth. Through weight of repetition, the mantras of
our political parties, corporations and other organizations
now appear true.
“We want the best person for the job,”
and “We want to think outside of the box,”
they say.
And we believe them. But such contentions curtain delusion.
Ronald Heifetz, of Harvard’s Kennedy school of
government, argues that organizations are akin to organisms,
and what all organisms want is constancy. For example,
if the human body’s temperature rises a mere degree,
it sweats and we shed clothing. If our temperature drops
a mere degree, we shiver and we don additional clothing.
Organizations behave in similar ways. They want the
“same old, same old.”
America’s corporations, government and communities
seek constancy. Via acclimation, we prefer “presidential”
appearing candidates, which is code for patrician-appearing
white men.
Yes, I know that there’s been progress.
One might assert: “No gender in the world has
made as much progress as the American woman since she
was set free to vote nearly 90 years ago.”
Since the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ceded
women the right to vote 94 years ago, there has been
progress. Women, the majority gender, today comprise
1.2 percent of the Fortune 500 CEO population. Seven
of the 50 governors are female. There have been no female
vice presidents and no female presidents. The numbers
also are telling for black Americans, who comprise 0.6
percent of the Fortune 500 CEO population, with no black
governors, vice presidents or presidents.
Yes, change is hard. It entails losses: the loss of
the familiar and the loss of predictability. It also
entails the loss of privilege, but in the end, the refusal
of the Republican and Democratic parties to offer candidates
that aren’t white, rich and male is embarrassing.
American organizations might assert that they want
to think outside of the box and acquire the best person
for the job, but the years and the figures suggest otherwise.
I understand that the two primary parties have “contributed
gladly to … (the) advancement (of women and folk
with degrees of pigmentation beyond pink) and will continue
to do so, if social reformers who know little about
(the) problem will let (them) work it out in (their)
own way.”
But I wince when I hear their mantras, like I would
wince if Lee B. Weathers started pontificating in 1956
about the contributions of the Southern white man to
the unprecedented progress of the Southern Negro.
Help
us help you. Take this three-minute survey to help us
get better ads.
