Updates on NDP Convention Diversity
I'm interested in hearing updates on how the NDP may have reacted to this quiet criticism?
The party should take advice from a thread on Rabble? How come they never take advice from me...?
I think the NDP has reacted by being very quiet. 
I'm sure that is because they're still giving it much thought and consideration.
By the way, I would like to suggest a new name for the NDP: the PWP (Party of Working People). That should send a clear message of what we are about!
From the other thread:
Maybe there needs to be a quota system where by the keynote speakers need to be 50/50 male to female and of the speakers from each gender - there must be a white, a black an Asian and a first nation
Boy you guys. Please send me a notice about the next large-scale undertaking any of you organize, so I can pull it apart and find everything wrong with it too.
Thanks for the invitation, I'll be happy to do so. For those of us who are involved with planning events and are NOT stuck in 30 years ago, we actually DO go out of our way to have gender balance and people of colour on our panels and speakers' lists. We make a point of it in planning meetings (which generally have - you guessed it - lots of women and people of colour as well as men and white people on them). If we notice that our proposed list of speakers is unbalanced, we come out and say so, and we don't leave the table until we've come up with some sort of gender and diversity balance.
But any time you see me posting an event on babble that I had any hand in planning, that has an all-white, and mostly-male cast of speakers, I would be more than happy for you to point it out. I don't consider that to be some little nitpicky detail that could be classified as "pulling it apart and finding everything wrong with it" if you pointed it out. I would take that as a completely valid criticism.
But any time you see me posting an event on babble that I had any hand in planning, that has an all-white, and mostly-male cast of speakers, I would be more than happy for you to point it out. I don't consider that to be some little nitpicky detail that could be classified as "pulling it apart and finding everything wrong with it" if you pointed it out. I would take that as a completely valid criticism.
What if the criticism was framed in a way as to accuse you of deliberately excluding females and coloured people? The issue here is not so much the criticism itself (and I've long been embarrased by the fact that the Conservatives have a more ethnically-diverse caucus than the NDP) as it was the way this issue was raised.
Honestly, if you're organizing an event that has an all-white and almost all-male panel, and you consider yourself progressive, then you might as well be "deliberately" excluding people of colour (NOT "coloured people," that's so 1950's) and women. There comes a point when ignorance or "oops" can no longer be considered a valid excuse, and if you're still wallowing in your ignorance and white solipsism in 2009, then as far as I'm concerned, that's "willful" and/or "deliberate".
And whether it's deliberate or just plain unthinking - and whether the criticism is constructive or malicious - why in god's name focus on those points rather than just agreeing that it's wrong and demanding that it be addressed?
How's about waiting until the list of speakers has been finalized before jumping to conclusions.
It looks like they have reacted, at least to the gender criticism. Two women have been added to the page since the thread was started, as hosts: Niki Ashton and Megan Leslie.
You missed Zann?
They added Lenore Zann since my post.
I think you're flattering yourself if you think the speakers list is getting changed directly as a result of a thread of babble that strated less than 24 hours ago.
Ah, let's take the credit anyways. Life is for the living.
How's about waiting until the list of speakers has been finalized before jumping to conclusions.
Perhaps they should indicate on the page that it is not the complete list.
I think you're flattering yourself if you think the speakers list is getting changed directly as a result of a thread of babble that strated less than 24 hours ago.
Obviously. If they were responding to the concerns in this Rabble thread, they wouldn't be adding even more white people. Now counting 11 out of 11.
Yes, but at least now we have some representation for the Greek community and the community of actors who have ever appeared naked in a production!
Personally I blame all the hockey threads here, and elsewhere on leftish forums, for the inclusion of Andrew Ference. ;)
Ah, let's take the credit anyways. Life is for the living.
Indeed. A fucking hero is you.
Thanks for elevating the tone of the discussion.
Somebody asked in a previous thread if I had approached the party politely and discreetly. I have done so in the past many times, and in my experience it gets precisely nowhere, beyond a little bit of head patting and cooing. So, personally, I'm through with that. It's much more effective to do it publicly. I once proposed, not to the federal party but another level of the party, a forum where prominent activists of colour could lead a discussion, to which activists and communities were invited, about the NDP's problems with race and how to overcome these and build better, more honest relationships. Over discussion with an all-white group of party staffers and apparatchiks, this proposed event morphed into a panel discussion with 4 white men and one white woman (one of the people in the meeting referred to her as "the diversity person". I kid you not.) I've been to conventions and visited some of the equity caucuses and talked to some of the more active, committed, party activists of colour and I can tell you, based on my conversations, many people are keenly aware that they are tokenized within the party and that the equity caucuses have no power to push change within the party. (Obviously, I make no claim that this is the universal view.) There might have been good intent behind them, but at this point, they are effectively a way for the party to manage the situation and ghettoize people in circles with little effective power in the party.
People keep saying this is an "interim" list but there's no indication that it's interim. It was static from June 15, when it was first brought to my attention, until shortly after I blogged it.
People have asked for suggestions of whom to invite. This is not my job, but anybody who was actually connected to social struggles, as opposed to an inside-baseball electoral geek, would have no trouble coming up with people to speak. Especially if your interest is in building for social change, and not indulging in a technocratic geekfest about electoral campaigns divorced from any specific political content. Here are just a few suggestions:
- inviting a speaker from the African-Nova Scotian community, for example, someone from the Lincolnville struggle, to talk about ongoing racism, and particularly environmental racism, in Nova Scotia.
- inviting someone, for example former chiefs Frank Meuse or Sherry Pictou, to speak about the unique approaches to asserting Indigenous rights taken at Bear River, where there has been an interesting alliance of Mi'kmaq and poor white fishers.
- inviting any of a number of Indigenous activists working on the tar sands (Mike Mercredi, George Poitras, Eriel Deranger, Clayton Thomas-Muller, Chief Allan Adams, the list goes on) to talk about the impact of the tar sands on First Nations in the area
- inviting someone to talk about the relationship between the tar sands and the economy of Atlantic Canada, and what is the impact on working class people and their families in the Atlantic region
There are so many issues of interest and potential speakers to invite to talk about them. It requires only the consciouness, the will, perhaps some research, and a bit of follow up. There's just no way to explain or justify that this wasn't done. Obviously, it was not a priority. It is a failure of organizational culture. The NDP does not have an anti-racist culture. And it's a failure of communications. Even in the corporate world, no competent communications person would have let that list out the door. Even assuming, as others have asserted without evidence, that it was interim, sometimes something is so flawed that it doesn't go out the door. That was the case with this list. Unless you believe, as Stockholm apparently does, that it's either an all white list or a complicated system of quotas and tokenism on every axis imaginable. Because obviously, you know, those are the only two options.
......Over discussion with an all-white group of party staffers and apparatchiks, this proposed event morphed into a panel discussion with 4 white men and one white woman (one of the people in the meeting referred to her as "the diversity person". I kid you not.) ....
Sadly, I know you are not. Excellent post.
Diversity? NDP? Really? I hear Peggy Nash is considering the post of Party President. Dumbed down, hand selected diversity may be the order of the day!
WTH Peggy Nash is hardly dumb.
Whatever that means - she's running for President of the party. If you think you would do a better job - then run against her.
Not saying peggy is dumb........just the hand selected diversity,,,,,,after all the record speaks for itself.......Just ask the purged ones....We were considered uppity!!
I have no idea what Jullrah is carrying on about.
Vancouver Island's T'Sou-ke Nations Chief Gordon Planes should be asked to speak, in conjunction with a Mi'kmaq Chief. Chief Lawrence Paul, Chief Shirley Clark, or Chief Deborah Robinson should/could be asked to speak if they have not been, already. Please excuse me for leaving out other Mi'kmaq Chiefs, but those are the only one's I am familar with.
It would mean inclusion of one coast to another coast FN's viewpoints, and economic and self sustaining activities undertaken by them living in coastal communities.
Planes could speak on his Band's educational and solar power initiatives and any of the Nova Scotia Assembly Chiefs could address what they are doing, on similar fronts and both could inidcate want they to do in the future.
See this thread for Chief Plane's actions on environmental sustainability and education.
Two women have been added to the page since the thread was started, as hosts: Niki Ashton and Megan Leslie.
Both women are, from what I've heard, intelligent and dedicated to the well-being of their communities. It would be good to hear from them.
It also doesn't hurt that both are quite good-looking! ;)
Two women have been added to the page since the thread was started, as hosts: Niki Ashton and Megan Leslie.Both women are, from what I've heard, intelligent and dedicated to the well-being of their communities. It would be good to hear from them.
It also doesn't hurt that they are the two youngest members of Caucus.
Niki Ashton is a star and one of the only MPs who makes party politics almost useful. The NDP should be begging her to speak.
The NDP does not have an anti-racist culture.
Which is both the explanation for the speakers list, and the problem.
It's easy and even understandable how the assumptions of priviledge can lead to 11 white speakers, most of them men. That happens. I'd love to think that the raising of this as a public criticism would be met not with silence or defensiveness, but with listening. Maybe even hearing.
It's easy and even understandable how the assumptions of priviledge can lead to 11 white speakers, most of them men. That happens. I'd love to think that the raising of this as a public criticism would be met not with silence or defensiveness, but with listening. Maybe even hearing.
Exactcly. Even if the final slate ends up having minority representation, the problem won't be solved. Only by tuning into the grassroots struggles people face in their day-to-day lives (and this includes members of visible minorities) will all facets of party life be more reflective of reality.
oh... why not... has anyone worked out the geographical distribution represented on any panel... I see remind mentioning getting a speaker in from the west coast...
darn, turning this into a central canadian overlords thing again, what can I say, I can't resist but should apologize to those who are, and quite rightly so, taking this more seriously than I am at this hour, my only defence is that I have extremely low expectation of what the party does in situations like this
Corvin, thank you thank you for your post #21. Your insight as, I presume, an NDP supporter is amazing, and brave. Bravo to you!
As for the other points, I think that the nurturing of an anti-racist and anti-oppression culture within any organization needs to be strived towards, nurtured and prioritized. As I've stated before, many other issues will shift and move if the membership and the leadership within the party changes over time. As it must.
This isn't just about the speakers at convention next month. What Aristotle24 said.
Exactly.
(especially the last point)
Someone mentioned the need for a speaker from the west coast. Ken Georgetti of the CLC is from BC
My mention was to get FN speakers from each coast, not necessarily a speaker from the west coast.
In respect to Chief Planes, he is very involved with direct actions on environmental sustainability and education inclusiveness for FN, and I believe he would be an asset to the convention speakers line up.
No one has mentioned the length of the speeches.
The greater diversity, the less time for debating resolutions, unless the length of the speeches is reduced.
Does anyone have a draft agenda?
I htought debating resolutions was on Friday morning? :)
I thought debating resolutions was on Friday morning? :)
In panels, to prioritize or group them, yes.
But the floor debates are still where the decisions are made, or at least ratified. I suppose we could shorten them to quickie rubber-stamp debates and spend most of our time listening to speeches. Not my idea of a democratic convention.
Therefore the hockey player is an absolute must!