My employer claims that they “[strive] to be a 21st century learning community defined by excellence through the affirmation of differences in the composition of its leadership, faculty, staff, and students.”

I say Bullshit.

They go on to define diversity as “The various mix or combinations of human differences and group/social differences that can be engaged in the service of learning and working together.” They identify human differences as “personality, learning styles, and life experience” and they identify group/social differences as “race/ethnicity, class, gender/gender identity, sexual orientation, country of origin, and ability as well as cultural, political, religious, or other affiliations.”

From this it appears that leadership claims to strive for “differences in the composition of its leadership” and they include “class” as one of those differences, but I am yet to find anyone in leadership who is not part (or who does not think of their self as part) of the privileged class. Or perhaps they are only affirming what differences exist and not necessarily striving to ensure a representative mix? If that is their reasoning, their claims are manipulative and misleading. And I believe it is not only fair, but necessary, to differentiate between leadership and token leadership (though token leadership, if not one of the privileged, still represents the privileged) and between actual improvement and token gestures.

Then, within their definition of equity, my employer says, “To advance equity is to allocate resources, programs, and opportunities to staff, faculty, and students to address historical imbalances.”

I would argue that income is covered by the umbrella of resources and opportunity, and I would strongly argue that greater income does not equitably equate to greater ability and that more and more frequently there is less and less correlation between income and ability. And, how much more historical can you go than the imbalance between the privileged and the majority?

Until this year I made less than $20 per hour. I am not sure if the increase I received this year that bumped me just over that bar is because someone believed I deserved it or because I am loud; but I am as certain as I can be that it did not come around to address any historical imbalance. (And this is not to say that $20 per hour is a magical kingdom of equity; it is still far below the average hourly income of $37.41 as calculated for the 9,743 employees included in this assessment.)

A year ago, I reached out to leadership to argue some of these points, and I was cast aside; shunted off to an HR rep who wanted to quote policy and procedure that protects the status quo; a token leader who wanted to defend a bureaucracy that protects the privileged. And regarding token gestures: I consistently receive invitations to provide input (in the words this week of the University president) “to create a more inclusive environment” or some such rhetorical parallel. I will once again take him up on his offer and provide him with this input and, (same as it ever was), fully expect to once again be unheard; shut down. No one in a position to do so wants to risk their privilege by doing the hard work that might actually make a difference. Yes, this hard work of empathy minus self-interest and entitlement goes against the grain of the American Way and it would take the air completely out of the myth that is the American Dream, but if, (as happened last year), we continue to widen the gap by rewarding larger percentage increases to those who are privileged, (some identifiable pockets of leadership including so-called equity specialists received between 8 and 11 percent raises and then so-called leadership turned around pretending largesse giving our custodial staff 1.77%), all actions and all leadership will merely continue to be tokens serving the status quo.

I claim that any difference other than class has become a device utilized by leadership on any scale to distract, manipulate, mislead and maintain. There are real steps we can take toward eliminating class differences, and until we begin this hard work, I say Bullshit.

Suggestions:

• Percentage pay increases for those in the top 10% are tied to the average percentage pay increase for those year to year making less than $20 per hour. Last year this (respective) difference was 5.52% vs. 0.33% which would have saved nearly 12 million payroll dollars.
• Take the savings from above and distribute it amongst the bottom 25%. This action would have resulted in an additional (highly impactful) $400 per month for the working poor, and it would have narrowed the wealth gap a baby step.

I personally believe that even more drastic steps are necessary, but there are many practical arguments against any plan that might result in a noticeable narrowing of the wealth gap. So I believe the bureaucratic institution I work for will continue to distract, manipulate, mislead and maintain, and every so often I will become loud, and every so often they will bump me up to shut me up, and because everyone is so wrapped up in their own American way, empathy will continue to be addressed by token leadership with token gestures. This makes me sad.