About ten years ago, I was working at home and decided to head out to Wholes Food to pick up something to cook for dinner.  Not being in a romantic relationship, I was not paying attention to the particulars of the day.  But when I got to Wholes Food I knew something was going on because the parking lot was full.  It was only11:30 or so in the morning. 

    Finally I found a place to park and wandered into the store and holy smoke, the place was packed with nervous men.  The store had set up three different lines where men could buy only one thing; flowers. Looking to the front of the line, looking at a time piece, these men’s faces were filled with tension.

    I got out of there.  I headed down to Quail Ridge Books, my favorite bookstore.  And lo and behold there were more men.  This time they were standing in front of the greeting card section.  One man was beside himself, saying to one of the clerks, “Is this all you have?”  With polite tension in her voice, the clerk replied, “You understand sir that today is Valentine’s Day and people buy cards in advance.”  That didn’t help the guy; he continued to look in anguish, sweat on his brow.

    What the hell, I thought, is going on?  When did Valentine’s Day turn into a day for the wailing and gnashing of teeth? I realized that something had changed.

    Not long after I stumbled upon and read Barbara Whitehead’s book, “Why There Are No Good Men Left: The Romantic Plight of the New Single Woman.”

    Disregard the first part of the title because that is not what the book is about.  In a way, we should also disregard the second part of the title because the book is about the plight of anyone, woman or man, who is seeking a long lasting romantic relationship.  You see, in her book, Dr. Whitehead, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University showed that there has been a major shift in the way society manages romantic interpersonal relationships. That shift has been from a marriage-dating-system to a relationship-dating-system.

    The marriage system was meant to bring two never-married-single people together for life-long marriage. That system had courtship expectations and rules.  Almost unnoticed by us in our everyday life, American society has moved away from that system and created a new system; the relationship-dating system.

    And how does this new system work.  Very simply, the relationship-dating system is designed to make sure people have intimate relationships. That’s the end of the sentence.  People, never-married or not, are expected to have intimate relationships, but not necessarily marriage, and certainly not life-long marriage.  In the relationship-dating system, there are no courtship expectations and rules, and break ups are expected.  I mean come on, how long can two people be expected to stay together… get real.

   No courtship expectations or rules… so no wonder that today dating motivations are all over the place. Once I understood the claim of a shift I began to discuss this idea in my general social psychology course.  To get into that discussion I ask students, “What are the goals of dating, nowadays?”  Every time I do this I get a flood of responses.  What are the goals of dating nowadays?  Here are some of the unedited responses I get:

    To have fun…                     

  For money…                     

  Out of pity…

    To learn…          To find your soulmate       

   To get help with homework…       

   To have a servant…         

  For serious reasons…        Social pressure…

  To feel better

   For something to do…       To have a servant…       

   To fit in…

   Companionship…              For gifts…                        

   To kill time     Fear of being alone…      

   To please family…             

   To acclimate to a new situation…

   To get a free meal…     To gain status…                 

   To meet people…     To gain experience…  

    To find out who you are…  To rebel against family…

   To experience interest…    To have a Valentine…   

   To get transportation…     

    To get over past relationships…

    Yikes…dating motivations are all over the place nowadays.  Remember these responses come from 200, nineteen and twenty year old college students. And marriage is not mentioned in this list. And the reason is we are living in a relationship-dating system.  That is also why people today say that marriage is not necessary for a good life.  That is also why having a baby is now disconnected from marriage.  As put by Frank Furstenberg, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania, “Marriage has become a luxury good.”

   So in the relationship-dating system which provides no clear ways to show our partners that we really care, without that context, way too much hangs on Valentine’s Day. Things are so loose now, that what were normal expectations are now extreme. Acts of love have to be overblown. If they aren’t, they are a deal breaker.  Valentine’s Day becomes our day of romantic apocalypse. 

    But I analyze romantic relationships because it is what I am called to do as an interpersonal psychologist. Interpersonal psychology is the area of study in which social psychologists develop theoretical and practical knowledge of how interpersonal relationships work. Interpersonal psychology is based on the idea that all relationships are relationships of interdependence; that is relationships where each person depends on the other person to obtain interpersonal satisfaction.

    Nothing brings all that together like romance.  So I study and analyze the dynamics of intimate, romantic relationships because I believe that analysis and understanding is important to all our everyday lives.

    At last night’s Grammy Awards, Adele swept all of the categories in which her album was nominated. 

      When she won the Album of the Year, she said her album was about something everyone has had to deal with.  Adele said, “This record is inspired by something really normal and everyone’s been through it…a rubbish relationship.”  Indeed… indeed…

    But how is it that we go from being “…in love” to realizing we have made a terrible mistake?  What is the dark magic of relationships that leads us to go with hope and optimism into a rubbish relationship?

    Is that the most important question?  Maybe we should ask, instead, what don’t we know about relationships that we need to know to give us a chance at success?  What do we need to know to prevent us from turning our own relationships into rubbish?

   Hold on; switchback ahead… a steep, curvy one.  Let’s talk about intimate relationships; let’s talk about the dynamics of developing intimate relationships in the 21^st century.  You see… something has changed… and there is no better evidence of that than Valentine’s Day, 2012; the apocalypse-now of romance.

    For both groups the title of my talk was, “Interpersonal Leadership: Moving from Tolerance to Acceptance.”  In both cases, the students admitted that with all the diversity in their social environments there is a lot of worry about being perceived as racist.  I told them that such worries come from trying just to be tolerant of people from different groups, rather than trying to accepting that those people are your equals.

    Tolerance, you see, is the shelter for those who are worried, uncertain and anxious. Tolerance is “…putting up with.” You can’t get to acceptance if you are worried, uncertain and anxious.  That is why we need “interpersonal leaders.”  We need individuals who are willing to stand up to the conformity pressures that push us to just tolerate, and then behind closed doors talk about members of other groups with anti-group slurs and stereotypes.  Interpersonal leaders are needed so that we move from tolerance to acceptance; respect for all.

    It was a talk I designed to be a challenge to the students; a challenge to make a difference.  It became even more of a challenge when I told them that my time is coming to an end.  My time of working to improve the diversity environment of America is almost over. 

   I started doing diversity work in the U.S. Navy in 1974.  I have been at this a long time.  That is why I had something to say, and so wrote and published my memoir of work on diversity: Making Gumbo in the University.

    Now it seems that my effort was worthwhile.  Reviewing my memoir for the journal Making Connections: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Cultural Diversity  Professor Edward Washington wrote:

     “Making Gumbo in the University deserves to be read for its progressive ideas and policies on diversity on the 21st century college campus. Nacoste argues for an intellectually dynamic university and he champions the need for ongoing dialogue about diversity as a way for colleges to remain on the cutting edge of beneficial change. Administrators should not be afraid to lead in this area, all students benefit from learning to be more tolerant of others, and the willingness and ability to change for the better is, for Nacoste, the “responsibility” of all university communities.”

A reviewer for the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education wrote:

    “Dr. Rupert Nacoste, a Louisiana-born interpersonal social psychologist, draws on the imagery of gumbo to distill lessons learned from his experience as the first vice provost for diversity and African American affairs at North Carolina State University.  (He resigned after two years and returned to the NCSU NCSU North Carolina State University faculty.) Without bitterness, he outlines his view that the recipe for achieving diversity in the modern university requires stirring up the “conflict of ideas” and allowing them to simmer into a rich concoction of durable relationships and intellectual ferment.”

         Finally, Dr. John Saltmarsh, the Director of the New England Resource Center for Higher Education (NERCHE)  at the University of Massachusetts, Boston said to his readership: “I highly recommend a very compelling and somewhat iconoclastic book by Rupert Nacoste, the person in charge of diversity at North Carolina State University at the beginning of the 2000s. His book is called Making Gumbo in the University, and is a very smart inside look at the politics and positioning of diversity on campus, and the challenges encountered when taking diversity seriously.”

   That is why I was serious when I told these NCSU students that my time is coming to an end.  But I shocked them when I told them that it is now their time to work for things to change when it comes to acceptance of diversity in America.  I shocked them.

    I know that because I saw a reaction in both sets of students’ eyes. In their eyes, I saw thoughtfulness mixed with a bit of fear, and a bit of anger.  Me!  I have to take this up now.  Me! Dammit… why me; why isn’t this done already. 

   Both sets of students had already admitted to me that they continue to experience “…the moment.”  All of them nodded with vigor to say that yes, they had experienced that moment when someone in group utters ugly, intolerant words; racial, gender, ethnic, religious slurs.  Oh yeah… they said… and they said that when it happens they are uncomfortable but silent.  Yet they looked at me with anxiety, fear and anger when I said their time to work for change had come.  Some students actually slide down in their seats. 

    Arms folded in front of them in self defense in their eyes I saw the question. Why does it fall to “…me” was the question I saw in their eyes.  And so I told them why.  Because just like they were trying to do, too many before them had been sitting and “…waiting… waiting on the world to change.”  No more, I said to them.  You asked me to come and speak with you, so now you have no excuse.  You cannot say you didn’t know. 

    You see I taught them a strategy that works.  Speak up and speak for yourself.  Based on social psychological research (see my previous post), I taught them in that moment all there is something they can do that is easily within their power. That something is to softly say to the person,

• I would prefer not to hear that kind of racial/gender/ethnic slur. I find it offensive.
• I really don’t like to hear people referred to as stereotypes. I find it offensive.

    I showed those students that it is up to them to set new norms for their communities and to talk about new norms and to display new norms. That is how they can become the interpersonal leaders we need in the 21^st century America. 

    So now they had too much information to be able to say “I don’t know what to do.”  Now, like the students in my classes, they knew too much. Now like to the students in my classes, I made it clear that they have the ability to work for change and so the responsibility.

    They felt trapped.  That is why I saw thoughtfulness mixed with a bit of fear, and a bit of anger.  Me!  I have to take this up now.  Me! Dammit… why me; why isn’t this done already. 

    Why is it up to them?  No heroes will come.  Change will come through everyday people standing up for change; being interpersonal leaders.  And now is that time. As the prologue to the science-fiction series Torchwood proclaims,

“The 21^st Century is when everything changes. You have to be ready.”

    In their own words “Wake Up! It’s Serious: A Campaign for Change” is a campaign designed to help individuals learn how to speak up in the presence of intolerance  by refusing to be silent when another person uses derogatory group terms.

     Refusing to be silent?  What does that mean?  Well, when I teach about the fact that there are no innocent racial slurs, I also teach that to reduce people’s ease with using anti-group slurs each of us has a responsibility to confront a person when they do so.   That is why Wake Up! is also a student campaign for change that is designed to spread awareness of intolerance and motivate personal responsibility for taking action and managing emotion in the face of intolerance. So we show up and participate in activities like “Respect the Pack” which was put on by student government to raise awareness of the problems the intolerant language causes on our campus.

    Ok, but is spreading awareness enough? People always say that lack of education and understanding is the problem.  But, the truth is those of us who think it is wrong for anybody to speak in anti-group (racial, gender, ethnic, religious) slurs are already aware.  So awareness is not the issue. 

     Yes, you are right.  That is why Wake Up! is also a student campaign to advocate taking a stand in the face of intolerance and to teach our student body strategies to do so.

     Strategies?  Yes, strategies… you see, as part of my course I teach students how to take a stand against intolerant language in the moment that it happens.  That strategy is not based on my opinion; the strategy I teach comes from research by other social psychologists who have studied what are effective methods, strategies for standing up for change.

     Through a set of three experiments, Czopp, Monteith & Mark (Czopp, A. M., Monteith, M.J. & Mark, A. Y. (2006). Standing up for change: Reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 784-803.)  investigated (1) whether white students’ use of racial stereotypes decreased after being  confronted about using a racial stereotype, (2) whether reactions to the confrontation were influenced by the race of the person making the objection and (3) whether a confrontation in one situation influenced the use of racial stereotypes in another situation. What did these researchers find?

     First off, race of the confronter made no difference.  It did not matter whether the person objecting was black or white the confrontation had the same effect. Second, the research shows that people’s interpersonal fears are accurate.  The research confirmed that when confronted, the person confronted shows anger and irritation toward confronters. But the research also shows that when not confronted, perpetrators act as if they have been encouraged to continue.  By not confronting a person who uses demeaning group language, the perpetrator acts as if you have encouraged them to continue and say more in the same vein.  So the question is what are you prepared to live with interpersonally?

     Songwriter and singer John Mayer has suggested that many young people today want change, but don’t know what to do to bring it about.  According to Mr. Mayer, young people do not behave to cause change because they don’t think they have the means.  So young people, Mayer says,

“…just keep waiting…

…waiting on the world to change.”

   Yet the findings of the research by Czopp, Monteith & Mark indicates that in social interaction we don’t have to stand around waiting on the world to change. One thing the research suggests is an interpersonal strategy for dealing with another person’s use of offensive racial slurs or stereotypes.  Turns out the confrontation does not have to be harsh and loud.

    One of the basic principles for managing interpersonal conflict is speaking for your-self. When we are confronting a interpersonal conflict episode in our relationships, we have to admit our preferences; say “I” not “You.” Make the statement an honest self-disclosure. Be not accusatory; name calling is just name calling.  Following on this for the case of group offensive slurs and stereotypes, an effective strategy is to say:

 •     I would prefer that you don’t use that kind of language around me. I find it offensive.

 •     I really don’t like to hear slurs about a religion. I find it offensive.

 •     I really don’t like that you refer to people in stereotypes. I find it offensive.

     The research by Czopp, Monteith & Mark shows that these kinds of confrontations are effective in that they have specific effects.  One, in the immediate situation, these kinds statements reduce the perpetrator’s use of stereotyped language and claims.  Two, these kinds of challenges cause the perpetrator to experience negative self-evaluations.  These effects are both specific and socially significant. So it turns out we don’t have to wait on a hero. 

     Members of “Wake Up! It’s Serious: A Campaign for Change” have realized that reality; no heroes will come; there will be not be another Martin Luther King Jr.  These young people have come to understand what Dr. King meant when he said:

 The greatest tragedy of this age

Will not be the vitriolic words and deeds of the children of darkness…

But the appalling silence of the children of light.

     Members of Wake Up! have come to understand their role as “…children of light.”

    That picture is from the very successful Open-mic that Wake Up! put on in the Fall, 2011.  Look closely at the neo-diversity of the people who turned out and stayed to be in that picture.  Have no doubt that on the campus of North Carolina State University, there is a set of students who have dedicated themselves to pushing students on our campus to “Wake Up” to the reality of the neo-diversity of the 21^st Century.  That reality being that interaction between groups is unavoidable, and that negative group language is only going to get in the way of our growth as a nation.

    These students were among the Wake Up! group who have made this commitment.

    Will you join the campaign?  Go to http://www.facebook.com/pages/Wake-Up-Its-Serious-A-Campaign-for-Change/143249339096798 and like us.

     “I have a few white friends who throw the “N word” around with an “a” at the end. It makes me uncomfortable when they use it, especially when they use it to describe me (I am white).”

     Dear Amy answered by calling this practice unacceptable.  Her answer was a good one, but I was puzzled.

     My puzzlement had to do with why this group of white people got such apparent joy out of doing this.  That quandary of mine grew when I got a paper from one of my students in which he described the same practice among his white acquaintances.  He was uncomfortable and he was verbal in saying to his friends that their behavior was “…racist.” Interestingly, his friends argued that they were just having fun; that this was harmless.

     My puzzlement went nuclear when I got a paper from a white female who said it made her “angry” that blacks could call themselves “niggers” but she wasn’t allowed too.  Really, I wondered… it makes you angry?  Why in the world would that be the case?

     A lot of different student groups on our campus invite me to lecture on neo-diversity.  Our campus is predominantly white, so most of the time I lecture to racially mixed groups.  But on October 19, 2011, I had the unique opportunity to give a lecture to a predominantly black student group because the invitation came from a black fraternity. I chose as my topic, “There Are No Innocent Racial Slurs.”

    This was a real opportunity to address an ugly within-group dynamic in this community of young African-Americans.  So, I went loaded for bear.  Using the same analysis I use in my “Interpersonal Relationships and Race” class, I made the point that black people calling each other “…nigger” is just as unacceptable as whites or members of other groups doing so. That practice is unacceptable because it is done for the same reason; to make an interpersonal power move.  Use of the word “…nigger” is always an attempt to say “I am superior to you.”  How so?

     Some parts of our language have an intergroup character; words are used to distinguish us versus them, and with that superior versus inferior.  Not only that, but the intergroup character of language has a history. Saying that “…I didn’t mean it that way” means you know that history.  Turns out, that history is so strong you can’t change the meaning of the word; there is no other way to use the word.

     Jabara Asim writes with clarity about this in his book, “The N-Word”

       Mr. Asim writes:  “…the word ‘nigger’ serves primarily—even in its contemporary ‘friendlier’ usage—as a linguistic extension of white supremacy, the most potent part of a language of oppression that has changed over time from overt to covert.”

    Going on, Asim says,   

    “’Nigger’… is not one of those words of innocuous meaning that morphed over time into something different and harmful; it has always been tethered to notions of race and racial inferiority.”

    So one African-American saying to another, “What’s up… my nigger,” is not friendly or affectionate.  It is one black person reminding another black person of their place in the racial hierarchy of America.  “My nigger…”; “your nothing special, just another nigger” and not only that but “I can talk to you this way because I own you like a slave.”

     When I got around to making this point, the predominantly African American audience went hushed. I had hit home.  Like black students in my class, they had not thought of it this way.  These young black people had not realized that through their language they were perpetuating racisms legacy.

     No matter whose mouth it comes out of, there are no innocent uses of a racial slur.  The intergroup character of language has a history.

    Understanding that makes it less than a puzzle that some whites want to use the word freely towards each other; they say harmlessly, with affection.  Keep in mind that when I teach about the use of racial and other anti-group slurs, I make the point that these slurs are used for one reason: to display power.  The use of anti-group slurs is to pull the “…superiority card.” 

    Whites who call each other nigger do so to show they are still superior to blacks.  Since by being white the term cannot actually apply to them, they are just showing that they know that there are still niggers in the world; there are still people who by their skin color are inferior to white people.  That’s why those whites say that it’s fun; it feels good to remind themselves that they are still superior.

     As for those whites who say “…well if they call each other that then why can’t I call them that?”  What an arrogant, transparent argument. 

     Whites who call each other niggers do not do so in the presence of black people.  Not surprising because they know there would be justified negative consequences because those whites know there is only one way to use the word “…nigger,” however it is spelled. Yet some whites want to be able to use the word.  Why?  There is only one possibility; to show that whites are still superior to blacks. Whites who do this are making a white supremacy claim.  It is pulling the “…superiority-card.” Those whites seem to be saying “…because I am white, I have the right to use this word.” Those whites seem to be saying, “look we invented the word to use against them; so it’s our word after all.” Indeed… that also explains why a young white person would become “…angry” because that white person can’t call black people niggers even though some black people call each other that. 

     Angry about what; how is calling a black person or a white friend a nigger important to your everyday life? 

    Answer me that.

      In Greenville, the colorblindness mistake was made. With worldwide reaction, the board of Congregation Bayt Shalom hired Rabbi Alysa Stanton. That decision was significant because that meant that Ms. Alysa Stanton became the world’s first black rabbi.

     Two years down the road, January 2009, that same congregation voted not to renew her contract. Such decisions about a pastor can occur for any number of reasons, whether the congregation is Jewish or Christian. But I was struck by a statement about the relevance of race in hiring Rabbi Stanton. The article in the News & Observer indicated that “Members of Bayt Shalom said race was never discussed when Stanton interviewed for the job.” Apparently, a past president of the synagogue board said that her race “was a non-issue.”

     If that was the case, the synagogue board was working way too hard not to see her skin color.

   Keep in mind that as soon as she was hired to be the congregation’s Rabbi, the world came to attention, because a white, Jewish synagogue had taken a black female as their spiritual leader. Yet the synagogue board says they gave race no thought in making their decision. That took a lot of psychological work to pull off.

     I don’t know, but one of the problems with that racial colorblindness could have been that the board did nothing to prepare the congregation for this dramatic change. In fact, a leading member of the synagogue now says “she wasn’t a good fit for the congregation.” Since there was no discussion of race when she was hired, the synagogue board’s gargantuan effort not to see Ms. Stanton’s dark skin left it to the congregation to adjust. As noble and mature as some think it sounds, we have not come far enough in this nation to say that “I don’t see color” and to assume that means skin color doesn’t matter.

     One semester, for my “Interpersonal Relationships and Race” course, an African-American male wrote about being invited to a N.C. State fraternity party during rush. Knowing that the fraternity was all white, to be clear with the student-friend who invited him, my student asked if members of the fraternity would be alright with a dark-skinned black male coming to their rush party. He wrote that his friend said, “…he had told his fraternity brothers stories about me and they were all interested in meeting me. After hearing all of that I felt reassured and comfortable [and excited] to attend this band party.”

     At the party, my student wrote that he was talking sports with one of the fraternity members who suddenly asked, “Who are you again? And who invited you?” So my student gave his name and the name of the person who had invited him. Then the fraternity brother said, “…oh, so you’re him. [Our fraternity brother] never said you were black.” Naturally, my student was feeling confused. He asked “…is that a problem?” The fraternity brother said “…no offense but I don’t think we’re interested in having you as a part of this fraternity, you don’t embody what we stand for, but we’re glad to have you at the party.”

     Imagine living that moment. Naively, the friend of my student had set this up. It seems that my student’s friend didn’t think he saw my student’s skin color and that his fraternity brothers would also not see my student’s skin color.

     To not see skin color is impossible. Our sensory systems are designed to make sure we see color variations in our environments. So no one should pretend to be colorblind because in America people still give skin-color social meaning. That is why the pretense of colorblindness is not only goofy, that is why that pretense can only lead to interracial trouble in any social circle.

    I was one of the speakers at the Occupy-NCSU Teach-in.  This is what I said:

   Long ago, sociologists made this discovery: when the economy gets bad people have a tendency to scapegoat; to blame other people.  So people begin to say that “…things wouldn’t be like this if we didn’t have those ‘blanks’ around.”

    And recently we have seen that happen.  Hispanics, gays and lesbians, Muslims… they are bringing this country down. That’s the scapegoating tendency.

    But let’s think back to the success of the civil rights movement.  Your generation has been taught and convinced that racism is in people.  But that is not true.

    Racism is not in any person.

    I grew up in the Jim Crow South.  I was not allowed to go to school with white kids… by law.  That is racism; racism resides in the customs and structures of a society.

      Yes, there were men and women who engaged in violent, bigoted behavior; Bull Connor, Governor George Wallace. But the question is, how could that be; how could that happen?

   Well, individuals like Bull Connor were given free rein and power by the racial laws and customs of our society.  For that reason, the civil rights movement targeted institutions not individuals. The success of the civil rights movement was to ignore individual bigots and attack those racial laws and customs through the use of the U.S. Constitution.

    Turns out that now with Occupy-Wall-Street and Occupy-NCSU, Americans are on the right track.  Yes Bernie Madoff was a bad man who cheated people.

    And just this week we appear to have a new individual culprit.  Ex-New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine whose company MF Global filed for bankruptcy on Monday.  Why? 

    Corzine and his company lost 600 million dollars of their investors’ money. Somehow the money has disappeared they say.  They just lost that money, they say.  And now investors have once again been Madoffed.  But let’s not scapegoat individuals.

    Putting Bernie Madoff in jail and putting Jon Corzine in jail will not rid of us the problem that allowed for a Bernie Madoff and a Corzine to do what they did. Still, don’t misunderstand me.  Taking legal action against Bernie Madoff was right; it is right that he is in jail.

   But, I say again, putting Bernie Madoff in jail and putting Jon Corzine in jail will not rid of us the problem that allowed for a Bernie Madoff and a Corzine to do what they did. We have to attack the economic structures, the economic customs that set up Bernie Madoff and Jon Corzine. Those Wall Street customs support an attitude where money matters more than people.

    You need to know, for example, in the midst of the mess he created at MF Global Jon Corzine was trying to sell MF Global.  He knew millions of dollars had gone missing. But he knew too that if he sold the company, he would be given 12 million dollars.

    Turns out, when he was hired to run the company, the contract given to him by the board of directors of MF Global guaranteed him 12 million dollars if the company was sold.  It didn’t matter if that sale came because the company was failing.

    Where is the accountability for poor management of other people’s money?

    That’s just one of the common practices of Wall Street that is bringing our country down.

    And by the way, there is something else that smells funny. For some reason, with the Occupy Wall Street movement across this great nation… the police are sent to watch those gathered. That’s kind of odd in America… where we are guaranteed the right to peaceable assembly.  Now, the police should show up if there is a reported incident, but not just because people have gathered to protest the practices of Wall Street. 

    But that’s part of what’s going on.  Too many of our institutions are being used to uphold the Wall Street way, but not the American Way.

    All that more reason that it’s time for us to push for changes in the economic and political structures, the economic and political customs that set up the Bernie Madoff’s of the world. Those Wall Street customs support an attitude where money matters more than good stewardship; where money matters more than people.

   It is time for us to push back against that.  It’s time for us to force a change in that attitude and in those Wall Street customs.

   And keep in mind that this must be a sustained effort; it will not work if it’s a one-shot effort.  As one writer has put it,

    “…Everything requires energy.  We must put effort and energy into anything we wish to change.”

    I am asked to speak by these varied groups because they too are experiencing the press of neo-diversity.  That neo-diversity press creates anxiety that comes from knowing you have to interact with people from different American-groups everyday of the week.  What are we supposed to do, how are we supposed to interact is always the question.  Sometimes though the question is how can we help “…them”?

    Truth is, though, that before anyone can help another group, you have to heal your own community.  Church groups want to help, to reach out to various groups in need.  Yet many members of those groups have not faced up to the neo-diversity problems in their own community.  How can you reach out to others, when there are members of your community who suffer because of your silence?

   So has your community addressed the use of stereotyped language by your group members?  Has your community set a new standard that forbids tolerance of intolerance in language?  Or are members of your community still getting away with whispering or speaking out loud about “…them” and “…those people.”  Whenever people in a group think “…we can talk this way because it’s just us,” an awful mistake is being made. With neo-diversity, you see, it is not always easy or possible to know who is a member of a “…minority” group within your group.  And so in the presence of a vulnerable person, letting your group members speak in stereotypes or use anti-group slurs lets group animosity live on in your community.

    Last week was a very busy week for me.  In addition to my regular teaching, I was involved in a number of diversity events on campus.  One of those events was called, “These Hands Don’t Hurt.” I was asked to participate as a “…prominent man on campus” who stood against violence against women. You see violence against women is not a woman’s problem.  Violence against women is most often perpetrated by men.  How can men let that go on?   Violence against women is a problem of my male community; we have to begin healing our own community.

    A neo-diverse group of men (students, staff, faculty and administrators) stood out front of the D.H. Hill Library on the brickyard.  We put our gloved hands in colorful mixtures and then made our handprint on a big sheet.   Then we gathered for a group picture.

    We men stood to say that we will speak up against violence against women.  We stood in public to say that we will also support and help anyone we know is being abused. 

    We stood to begin the work of healing our own community.

    These are our words.  These are the first words used to describe what it means to be an American citizen. 

    We hold these truths to be self-evident; so obvious that there is no need of discussion; there is nothing to be explained. Yet, for a long time in America, the whole country said that these words did not apply to someone with my skin color.

    No right to my own life; so I could be sold and used as a slave.

   It took the Civil War to start to have those words apply to someone who looks like me. But even after that, Americans resisted. Racial segregation became the law of the land, so no right to liberty to choose where to live or go to school; no right to vote until 1965.  And no right to choose who to marry, that is no right to the pursuit of happiness until 1967.

    Racial segregation, Jim Crow, which I grew up in… did something very important.  It made it clear who was ‘we’ and who was a ‘they.’

    With those immoral laws gone, we now live in a time when interacting with someone who does not look like us is unavoidable.  Now we struggle with neo-diversity anxiety. That anxiety is causing some of us to want to keep other American citizens in the category of “they” and “them.” 

    But the problem is we have made a diversity promise to all Americans. Diversity, it turns out, is the core value of the American identity.

    “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.  That they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

    That statement makes diversity the American value.  And so we are all required to accept and work for that American value. 

        About that principle, General Colin Powell said,

    “This beautiful statement was not the reality of 1776, but it set forth the dream that we would strive to make a reality…Governments belong to the people and exist to secure the rights endowed to every citizen.”

     Whenever we have fought diversity in the past, we have held ourselves back. In fact, that seems always to be the point in fighting against diversity.  Those who fight against diversity seem to want America to stay the same; to stagnate.  When we do that we fight against our own best interests.

    But, when we have come to accepting diversity, we have moved forward… we have grown as a nation.  Why?  Because we have begun to use all the talents available to us… and that makes us stronger.

    I served in the U.S. Navy… 1972-1976.    At one point in our American history, that would have been impossible.  Then when it became possible for a black man to serve, at first all that black man could be was a cook. America fought through that discrimination against it citizens.  My older brother was a submariner.  I served in air anti-submarine squadrons as a personnel clerk.  My younger brother graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and became a Navy pilot.

  I served with men of honor.  Some of those men were gay.  On board ship, aircraft carriers, did we know that… yes, we did.  Yet all that mattered was that everyone did their job.  That’s all…

   About finally removing don’t ask, don’t tell, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, said,

     “I still believe that it was first and foremost a matter of integrity, that it was fundamentally against everything we stand for as an institution to force people to lie about who they are just to wear a uniform. We are better than that.”

   Yet some of us still want to tell American citizens, some of whom are willing to risk their lives to serve and protect our American freedoms… some of us want to tell gays and lesbians they have no right to marry… That these American citizens, that “they” have the right to life and liberty but not to the pursuit of happiness…

   Some of us want to put that restriction on other American citizens because of anxiety; because we want to hold on to something to point to in order to say who is a ‘we’ and who is a ‘they.’

    “We can do this and they can’t.”

    But by our first citizen principle, diversity is at the heart of the American identity; diversity is the first American value.  It has been so from the beginning, when we declared…

    We hold these truths to be self-evident…

[Above are the remarks I made at a forum on the State of North Carolina’s legislatively proposed amendment to the state’s constitution to ban gay-marriage; October 13, 2011.  I along with Maxine Eichner, a UNC-Chapel Hill law professor, participated in the forum to inform students of what is at stake, and at risk, if this constitutional amendment is passed by vote of the citizens of NC. For a report on the forum, go to:

http://www.technicianonline.com/news/forum-held-to-educate-students-on-glbt-marriage-ban-1.2651605]

    You may have wondered why I focus on the interpersonal when it comes to (what seem to be) racial matters.  Anytime I have discussed neo-diversity, the reason has been implied.  But to be direct the reason for the interpersonal focus is that interacting with each other remains our great racial, ethnic, gender, religious, challenge. 

       Fast and dramatic social changes have put us in the same situation as Dr. Seuss’ Sneetches.

    We rid ourselves of the immoral racial laws of segregation. With that change and other changes in the social world, we were no longer able to say “…well they can’t come in here”; they can’t come to our frankfurter parties.  With that some yelled out like Dr. Seuss’s Starbelly Sneetches did:

 “Good grief!”groaned the ones who had stars at the first…

“We’re still the best Sneetches and they are the worst.

But, now, how in the world will we know,”they all frowned,

“If which kind is what, or the other way round?”

      Caught off guard by the changes, we began our struggle with neo-diversity.  And we sent our children out into that neo-diversity unprepared and without hope of getting aid. 

      2006 is when I created and first taught the course, Interpersonal Relationships and race.  Why did I create the course?  What was my motivation? In the Spring 2004, in my introduction to social psychology course, I was teaching the section on race as an interpersonal phenomenon. I teach this topic late in the semester because I want students to have gotten to know me. Otherwise having me, a 6’3”, 280 lb., dark-skinned black man as the professor might dampen the discussion of race relations.  To a certain degree that strategy had worked in the past, but this time the class of 200, mostly white, students froze up.  The tension in the room was palpable. Discussion was strained.

    After class, I returned to my office.  I sat and waited for a student from that class to show up for a previously arranged appointment. When this young white female came into my office, after she took her seat, and we exchanged our quick hellos I said,

     “Sorry but before we get to your questions, I have a question.”

     She looked at me as if to say, “I knew he was going to do this.”

     By that point in the semester, my students know me well. That means they know that I notice things and will ask about what I think is going on.

     “Did you feel that in the class today?”

    Still looking at me in that way, she hesitated.

     “Yes…” she finally said.

     “What was that,” I asked.

     She looked into my eyes then dropped her gaze to the floor.  I waited.  Again, she looked up, dropped her gaze briefly then looked back up at me.

    “Everybody says we have to be more accepting,” she said.  “But nobody tells us what that means.”

    Profound… this was a profound statement about the state of race-relations and diversity on our campus and elsewhere.  During orientation, colleges and universities tell students that the campus is one that has and accepts all kinds of people.  Students are told that they too have to accept all kinds of people.  But, as this young woman said, nobody tells students what that means.         

     It turns out that even as America becomes more and more diverse, nobody tells citizens what that means. And so Americans are struggling with how to manage their day to day interpersonal lives because the old racial, gender, ethnic rules do not apply.  Without laws and social understandings prohibiting who can go where, we all find ourselves interacting with people from other American racial, ethnic, gender and religion groups. We struggle then with the question, “who are among the ‘we’ and who among the ‘they’?”

     We are all Sneetches wondering:

 “Whether this one was that one… or that one was this one

Or which one was what one… or what one was who.”

    With that anxiety we interact with people who do not look like or sometimes even sound like us.  Our racial struggles are today intergroup struggles of interacting with many different American groups. Those interactions are formal and informal; at work, running errands, going to a sports bar, sitting in a classroom.  And whatever the case, those interaction struggles are all interpersonal.