I’m back here at the Kimmel Center at NYU, blogging the session called “Diversity and Inclusion in Corporations and Academia,” moderated by Ana Duarte McCarthy, Lehman Brothers. The panelists are talking about how they each got into diversity work at their corporation or university. Here’s how:

Subha Barry, Merrill Lynch:
“One of the best ways to see the diversity awakening is to see it happen around you. For me, it happened in my community. When I first moved to Princeton, NJ, I had to drive to Edison to go to Indian grocery stores, as there were no such stores in Princeton. And I thought, think about the amount of business we leave on the table simply because we don’t recognize the diversity around us.”

Melinda Wolfe, American Express: “Whether it’s Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, Citigroup, or Merrill Lynch, the investment banking world is dog-eat-dog. It’s only been recently and through the efforts of the people around this table and others that we have been able to work cooperatively around diversity. Across firms, those of us who work in this field go around with linked arms. It’s not typically what you see among competitive firms. But we all recognize that it takes truly a village to fix this one.”

Rosemary Cocetti, Georgetown University
“I got into my position because the President of the university created it and offered it to me.”

Anne Erni, Lehman Brothers
“I was on the trading floor, one of the few women who continued to move up. Most of my friends dropped out and became SAHMs. I got a call one day—the Friday of the last week in August—and I was taken aside and told by my boss: ‘Men run in packs. Women don’t. Go create your pack.’ Eventually, I was asked to leave the floor and become Chief Diversity Officer. And I told him, yes. You got me at hello.”

Ana Duarte-McCarthy next asks the million dollar question: What Makes Diversity Efforts Work? Some responses:

Melinda Wolfe: “If you don’t have breadth, depth, and leadership, your organization’s effort at diversity is not poised for success.”

Anne Erni: “The firm set aside an 8-figure bonus pool to reward inclusion. When you’re on Wall Street, you’re entire focus during the year is on how much bonus you’re going to get. So we challenged each division to do an analysis and a plan. The head of each division then presented the outcome of their plan. Six months ago, we completed the fourth round of reviews. In the beginning, you could tell some of them had just been handed the powerpoint script and were struggling about whether to say ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian,’ ‘African American’ or ‘black’. My colleague asked one guy who was stumbling to close the book and just tell him from his heart what inclusion meant for him. The next year, he won.”

Moving now to some Q&A…

This morning I’m pleased to bring you another rockin guest post from Virginia Rutter, sociology prof at Framingham State College, who is, in my estimation, quite nice. And a sassy writer to boot. Enjoy! -GWP

It Isn’t Nice, by Virginia Rutter

“It isn’t nice.” That is how I explained my extremely negative response to Todd Purdum’s Vanity Fair article on Bill Clinton and to TP’s press interviews this week. It isn’t nice to go around speculating about people’s sex lives (at least in public), but TP did. It isn’t nice to speculate about their health either. TP did.

Todd Purdum dedicates his first several paragraphs drawing tawdry atmosphere—we get the whiff of “Air Fuck One” that whisked Bill’s attendant “motley crew” to a wedding last summer in Paris. This sets the tone. And then for balance, there’s a line or two about, oh jeepers y’all, I’m not saying there is any evidence of philandering. Golly, I just want to tell you that some of Clinton’s old staffers worry about it. And then more paragraphs of tawdry atmosphere.

(1-800-CALL FOUCAULT is how my friends in the English department respond.)

One of the nice things, to me, about leaving behind the 1990s was leaving behind this kind of pants-sniffing political story telling. (Is that a not-nice thing to say? I’ll ponder that.) Remember, the story telling we have this decade is about the big lies we know about – on the economy, the war, on civil liberties, not little hypothetical lies we heard someone say someone said something about. That’s just not nice.

But here is what was pathetic: In interviews, TP is all like, I wasn’t insinuating anything about Bill Clinton’s behavior. The facts I am reporting are about how some Clinton staffers are worried about some people who are talking and thinking it might be possible that maybe Bill is, has, or will mess around. The news: someone feels anxious thinking about sex.

(1-800-CALL FREUD is how my friends in the psychology department respond.)

In interview after interview, TP keeps to his message, I repeat I am not insinuating about Bill’s sex life, I have no information about that. Sounds (ironically), a little bit like “depends upon what the definition of is is.” That’s soooo 1990s. That’s not nice—wasn’t then, isn’t now.

Here’s the deal, TP: write your “sleazy” story whatever way you want, whatever way your editors will tolerate or goad you into. If you can tolerate not being nice, and it passes muster in your business, go ahead. And, if you do it in the service of asking the hard questions, about financing his foundation, his livelihood, well, reasonable minds can accept that. But don’t also be pathetic.

And that brings me to the health stuff. The TP anxiety report extends the apprehension among well meaning FOBs about the psychological impact of his heart by-pass surgery. Makes you cranky. Impulsive. Changes your personality. No doubt big medical interventions, similar to a trauma, influence–or have the odds of influencing–state of mind. But if you are going to speculate about that, some other facts in evidence merit consideration—aka speculation—too. What else could influence Bill’s state of mind and make him irritable or impulsive? Let’s see, there’s the trauma of the 2000 election, the doubledarktrauma of the 2004 election, the traumatimesinfinity that has been the Bush administration. You could say, well we should all be a little irritable (aren’t we?)—but as irritable as the regular folk are, think about this happening when the party and the government are your baby.

And then there is the issue of gender. Just like there are no good gender scripts available for a woman in a powerful position and how best to respond when people market a nutcracker in her image (and the like), there are equally no good gender scripts available for a man in a powerful position to respond to this kind of treatment of the woman he loves.

What I mean by gender scripts is that nearly all women—whether feminist or not—are raised with ideas about delicacy; nearly all men—whether a former president or not—are raised with ideas about protectiveness. What can give a person irritatsia is when the scripts are uncertain. Bill Clinton is a feminist man who has forged a partnership with a woman who is his equal; he has given real support to her. He hasn’t been perfect. But the gender trap in this situation isn’t his clinging to old ideas of male privilege, it is not having a way to reconcile all those expectations about gallantry with the expectations Bill has bought into about equality in his marriage. And if you are a man reading this you may recall times when you have felt damn irritable, maybe even sometimes reactive, when it seems impossible to get it right.

From the look of Todd Purdum’s Vanity Fair piece, it seems impossible for Bill to get it right. Turns out it is impossible for any of us to get it right. Including TP. And I think that understanding that is being nice.

NCRW Plenary – Post #7

Ok, it’s Q&A time—generally the best part of any panel IMHO. And here we have Sandi Morgen taking the mike, expressing deep frustration about the “down tone” of this panel. We have an African American running for President, people! Applause. Says Morgen, “Women’s organizations that take a down tone right now are not helping to build the coalition that we need right now to build.”

Kim Gandy responds, asking for recognition that it’s only been a few days, and that there’s a group of people who are hurting out there (HRC supporters), and in a little bit of mourning—just as it would be in the case of the reverse. She calls for an understanding of that. And then she references a column she wrote last night about her daughters who were too young to pay attention to the 2004 election, but who were engaged in this one. Says Gandy, “They saw a woman and an African American run against each other for President. For them, forever, that’s what a Presidential election is. That’s who runs for President. My daughters will grow up never knowing a time when only white men could be considered serious candidates for president. And that is truly groundbreaking.”

Interesting convo about race and gender follows….Feminism’s uncomfortable history with race….How did women of color make their choices in this election?….An audience member says that Frederick Douglas was the only one of all the people at Seneca Falls to truly address a human rights agenda and frame women’s rights as human rights….

Ok, I’ve got to sign off. ‘Til tomorrow!

NCRW Plenary – Post #5

Diana Salas, Women of Color Policy Network at NYU, is working to teach young women of color about how to influence policy and become “research advocates,” teaching them, in other words, to collect data in ways that are truly representative. Snippets:

“We need to frame our issues in terms of a human rights agenda, and human development—the notion everyone has the right to live in dignity.”

“The abortion rights message has not been working for women of color.”

“We cannot ignore the issues of women who are too young to vote.”

NCRW Plenary – Post #6

Marie Wilson, The White House Project, who has a history of being a good trend predictor, predicts that this is the cutting edge of the women’s time. (Agree? Disagree?) Snippets:

“This election has been research on the hoof, if you will.”

“Things have changed permanently because of HRC’s run. To begin with, we’ll never have to poll the question ‘would you vote for a woman president?’ again. Because they did!”

“If HRC had come out of the gate talking about bringing people together, it wouldn’t have worked for her. It worked for Obama. But HRC had to come out ‘tough’ and ‘competent.’ She got into fierce mode—‘I will fight for you.’”

“The sexism in America came flat out. So now at least you can talk about it. That’s always a step forward.”

“Because of HRC, three-year-old women are talking about politics.”

“We need research. The Humphrey Center in Minnesota is doing research now on a new women’s political movement, and that we need to do much more.”

NCRW Plenary – Post #4

Kim Gandy, National Organization for Women, reminds us that 16% is not great, but that we are moving steadily. However, we’re moving not because some critical mass has been reached in society but rather because there are women like those here who have been funding and running campaigns.

Gandy notes that women’s unemployment is rising faster and our median earnings are falling faster (esp single mothers) than men’s, and it’s affecting us longterm, in terms of savings. This demographic, this one that is hurting most, is going to be the one to decide this election. Whichever candidate can reach out to them is going to win.

NCRW Plenary – Post #3

Kathy Bonk, Communications Consortium Media Center, offered as a sidenote that she hitch-hiked in college and got involved in the Shirley Chisholm campaign! But that’s not what she’s talking about here. Snippets from her comments:

“What’s been very painful for me is that in the past 2 election cycles, the only ‘women’s issue’ that’s up for debate seems to be abortion. It wasn’t always that way. If we’re going to do anything for women, we need to move away from personality and back to issues.”

“’Values voters’ is a code word for evangelicals. But I too am a values voter. We should shift the debate so that we look at feminists—and not just evangelicals—as values voters.”

“We can’t loose ground on abortion. In Colorado, there’s a ‘personhood’ referendum on the ballot—meaning the antis are advocating that personhood starts with conception. But abortion issues can’t be all.”

Note: Bonk was involved in spearheading a public opinion poll called “Moving Forward”, which polled voters on their ideas for an agenda that’s not just about abortion but a broader range of issues. She’s got data, if anyone is interested in following up.

NCRW Plenary – Post #2

Among her many other projects and accomplishments, Barbara Lee, of the Barbara Lee Family Foundation, helped the Center for American Women and Politics with a study on women as governors. Snippets from Lee:

“Whether it’s for President or governor, it is the highest glass ceiling of all. Ann Richards once said of media coverage of women: ‘If you’re single, you couldn’t get a man. If you’re divorced, you couldn’t keep a man. If you’re a widow, you’ve killed a man.’ The same holds true with women candidates.

The White House Project was created to create a climate of acceptance for women running for office. Our most recent study asked voters to rate incumbent women governors. Voters rate women govs higher than male counterparts on managing a crisis, problem-solving, and getting things done. Once they’ve seen the women in action, they like them. But the hard part is getting them elected.

Women still face double burdens—they must be viewed as both likeable and capable. Voters tend to meld these qualities for men. Women must prove that they’re qualified whereas men are just assumed to be. Everything about a woman candidate has to be ‘just right’—her hair, her husband, her hemline.”

Headbands, Monica, Cleavage-gate anyone?

NCRW Plenary – Post #1

Ruth Mandel, Eagleton Institute of Politics, is moderating. Snippets from Mandel:

“This year I’ve been reading nonstop about this emotionally, analytically demanding election. When you start your professional career at something called the Center for American Women and Politics at a time when women were fewer than 5 percent of all elected leaders in the country, and then you watch someone run and be taken seriously as a potential presidential nominee by one of the major parties, that, certainly, is coming a distance. But we still have a long distance to go. We’ve started this year at the Center by looking at that number 16 – 16 women in the Senate. That’s not even a quarter. Thirty-seven years after we opened the Center, what does this mean? Sixteen used to be a good number – sweet 16. Not so sweet anymore when we think about that as a level that we’ve seen to arrive at in the political leadership arena after so many years, so much work, so much effort.”

Later, Mandel lists the questions on everyone’s minds:

“What was the impact of gender on HRC’s race? What will HRC do next? What should she do next? What will HRC’s voters do next? What has she achieved beyond this campaign? What’s the legacy of the campaign? Has HRC’s run opened paths for women going into politics? Or has it deterred women from deciding to run, after seeing how she was treated? Why didn’t more young people see HRC’s run as something they wanted to be a part of?”

Last night I went to a 90th birthday party for NCRW’s founding president Mariam Chamberlain (pictured here, in blur, being toasted by a current Mariam Chamberlain Fellow). I felt the love, and I waxed nostalgic for my days doing program work for this amazing network.

And now I’m here at the opening plenary of NCRW’s annual conference, in the Kimmel Center just south of Washington Square Park, the conference I used to plan.

The room is packed. NCRW president Linda Basch takes the podium noting that this year, an election year, they are focusing on what they’re calling The Big Five: economic security, education, immigration, violence, and health. She talks about “that pernicious 16” – the 16% of women in corporate officer positions, the 16 women in Congress. (And I just learned that women are also 16% of the military, 16% of police and fire departments, and 16% of law firm partners. Eerie, that same number each time. What up?!)

Catherine Stimpson (aka Kate to friends), Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences at NYU and former NCRW board chair, had emergency dental surgery yesterday but is looking sharp. She’s up there doing the host’s welcome, speaking of this network’s sense of “gritty realism” and “unreasonable hope.” Next comes NCRW Board Chair Eleanor Horne, who reminds the crowd of our need to remind everyone not here that even though a woman ran for prez not all is hunky dory. She asks participants to not just “confer” here these next few days, but to go out and act.

Nicole Mason, Director of Research and Policy Initiatives at NCRW, who I know has been eating breathing and sleeping (or rather, not sleeping) this conference for the last year is last, and now here we go. The next bunch of posts are snippets from the opening plenary, “Stir It Up: Women’s Activism Reframing Political Debates.”