Well, I wasn’t expecting this to be a whole “thing”, but here we are now so let’s do it…

The line that prompted my response was straightforward, thus I responded to it:

Which professional roles should White people avoid to ensure that marginalized and under-represented folks have space in leadership?

Simply, none. That’s a thought process that the author himself claimed to use to engage the tensions of privilege, beit white, male, or what have you. Noble, appreciated, admirably self-reflective of you… we’re good, bro!

BUT… not needed. Thank you, though.

My feelings are that no one should need to “avoid” any professional roles to ensure fair representation. “In a more just society…” (yadda yadda) talent and recognition for such would be more equally distributed such that no one would need “hold back” anything as there would be just and verdant pool of talent from which to draw rendering such (kind) considerations extraneous. That’s the ideal I am driving towards so I promote it in my ethos.

Many studies have shown a distinct favoritism for white people even amongst people of color and in particular in studies of implicit/unconscious bias.

I am aware of such studies, have used them in my own academic work of recent years, and cited them here on Medium just the other day. Cheers!

My inference is that Mr. Pendoley is acknowledging an already-present deep-seated institutional bias that exists when whites are promoted, etc, and he is promoting awareness of that for whites so that in cases where the person of color may be better qualified, the reward — whatever it may be — doesn’t ‘bend’ in the direction of the white person on the basis of the institutionalized advantage.

No doubt — and I am familiar with that bias (both professionally and in academic study) — and I respect the effort.

But, if it were me in this scenario, I would reflexively caution for consideration of the unconscious paternalism inherent in the notion of needing to “avoid” something in order to “ensure… space” for the “marginalized and under-represented”.

Frankly, the phrase ‘holding back’ is a likely subconscious/unconscious revelation of white dominant thought processes.

To be clear here, I used the phrase “holding back”, and I turned that phrase purposely as to state plainly that “avoiding” taking roles in favor of ensuring other get the role instead necessarily assumes (as the author did) that white people FEEL they will have to compress their natural talents

But, as we’re not here to psychoanalyze each other’s motivations for phrasing things as we’ve chosen to do I’m just going to take what we post here on its face and not try to assume more about who I deal with here past the printed page.

However, the phrase ‘holding back’ implies that, in order to be fair to people of color, white people will have to compress their natural talents

All I am saying in retort is that such is not asked for or necessary. The marginalized and under-represented can do for themselves without qualified whites excluding themselves from consideration.

implying that at baseline whites are better.

If the implied baseline here is that “whites are better” it is in the consideration that the whites necessarily must “avoid” professional roles in order to “ensure” that marginalized and under-represented folks have space in leadership.

As an analogy, it’s like the smart individual who avoids playing chess with their lover because they’re certain they would win handily if they don’t. No one wants to win that way; even as a concession.

Obviously, if people of color need whites to ‘hold back’ in order to be successful, then whites are better if they are allowed the actual, full range of their abilities.

And that’s why I said “…don’t hold back on the marginalized’s account. You’re not doing us (or you) any favors.”

To me, a POC, this seems a reversal of reality, which is that white supremacy favors whites, therefore lowering the bar for actual achievement.

And to me — also a Person of Color — marginalized and under-represented folks don’t need whites “avoiding” roles OR “holding back” anything on nonwhites’ account OR “lowering the bar for actual achievement” when we should be working to raise the capacity for everyone to meet the bar where it need be hung.

For another analogy, consider the blowback against Affirmative Action. Detractors consider hiring or admission quotas as a means of “holding back” or selectively “avoiding” “more qualified” white candidates in favor of “less qualified” marginalized and underrepresented folks. Meanwhile, members of marginalized and under-represented folks have their actual hard work to attain such roles and admissions discounted by this system full of institutional bias as being “not deserved” or “not fairly earned” or “suspect”.

Instead, help level the playing field with calls for more equal resource distribution for areas lacking the means to provide more quality educations so the implication that some groups are inherently less qualified than others is rendered moot.

So, I say white don’t avoid something you’re qualified for (if you want the role; allies with some empathy for the plight of others are needed in such roles, too) because such ends up as “lowering the bar for actual achievement” AKA “the soft bigotry of lowered expectations”.