Beer Kulture asks, "Selective Outrage: Does Inclusion Include Us?"

Thanks for posting this, @Todd

 

To me, announcing improved 'actions' and 'processes' before explaining what you're going to do for the victim who experienced racial harassment/discrimination under your employment is just spin.

 

I am glad you are calling greater attention to this, @Todd, as I believe it needs greater consideration to really find some resolution to the matter.

A bit of context to what I have posted below: I am a white male, and I consider myself a moderate, and yet I believe in the value of social justice to the point that I often take action in my community on various issues. I am also interested in the truth (insofar as it is realistically possible) even if it does NOT support my notions about reality and instead contradicts it.

I believe that in the long run, caution is needed when approaching accusations. Rushing to judgement is often a 'one step forward, two steps back' kind of situation. Take the cases of the Empire actor Jussie Smollett and the case of the Coventry boys in Washington DC. In both cases, it seems that many--including the media--jumped to conclusions too quickly. I did so as well. Although each has its context, in both cases I initially viewed those events as evidence of racism in America. With Smollett, there is evidence to show that his case was fabricated (at least the Chicago Police have stated this), and in the case of the Coventry Catholic school boys, it is now clear to me at least that the situation was not as it initially appeared, and that it was another group of people (Black Hebrew Israelites) that appeared to inflame an already tense situation--I came to my own conclusion by watching video that was much longer than the short video that was initially circulated in the media.

That stated, here are some questions I have:

1) Is it possible to reach a reasonably just conclusion about what really happened in instances where it appears a social injustice has occurred, before the law does? Although the law is one of the most rigorous ways to determine the truth, the law is seemingly fraught with unavoidable complications, and sometimes waiting for the law to determine the truth often takes longer than is good for the society at large (esp, when a case takes YEARS to come to a conclusion). I personally believe that in some cases society needs to be able to reach a conclusion sooner than the courts do.

2) In such cases, how does social media BOTH help AND harm the avenues to reaching a reasonably just conclusion? Videos and picture can help give context, and yet that can also be taken out of context when there is a limited perspective. Understanding the limitations and pitfalls of social media can help us have a more open-eyed approach to these kinds of situations.

3) How exactly do we define inclusion? When I googled 'define inclusion' I got this: "the action or state of including or of being included within a group or structure.
'federal legislation now mandates the inclusion of students who are English language learners'
synonyms: incorporation, addition, insertion, introduction;
involvement, taking in, encompassing"

4) If a business states inclusion is a core value, then how do we as a society determine, in good faith, that said business has implemented inclusion as a core value? For example, are the changes that Founders have made satisfactory, or does more need to be done? From what I have seen about Founders so far, I believe more needs to be done if they want me to believe they are SINCERELY working to change the culture to be more inclusive of black people (and not just making highly visible changes simply by hiring a black woman to HR).

I realize I am making the assumption that inclusion is an important goal of any business. And I could give countless examples of the benefit of inclusion in any society, examples that demonstrate not only how diversity enriches that society but how it is necessary to maintain peaceful relations between all members, but perhaps those examples and an in depth discussion is best meant for other forums. Suffice it to say, I believe inclusion is not only important, but attainable by those that are sincere and actively seek ways to do so--that is to say, by those that take a conscious effort to do so.

 

Here is what I believe is another good article on the topic from Vinepair.com:
https://vinepair.com/articles/hop-take-beer-industry-racism-founders-brewing-beer-kulture/

 

Yes rushing to judgement can be a major problem simply because people who have made up their mind before all the facts are known often resist changing their minds by downplaying the new information. This actually makes resolving such things as the problem of inclusion more difficult to solve though discussion and sharing of information, perspectives and views of what took place in certain events. Efectively people who rush to judgment jump to judgement on either end of the issue then tend deal with neutral parties as being against them and on the side of the other party. Hardening takes place, vitrol increases, and resolution often fails.

While it is sometimes possible for both parties to work things out when both have good intentions and good will it is more often possible through arbitration by a neutral party that both parties can trust and agree to. However, once the law suit has come into play there are things that neither party can say or do until the legal process has worked its way out.

I would agree that inclusion should be a goal of any business or educational institution.

 

Not once the law suit has been filed.

 

Thank you for your post; and I am glad, among the other things you stated, that we seem to agree on the importance of inclusion.

--I understand that that they can't talk about the specifics of the case. Yet, they can address their part within the larger picture of the importance of inclusion at their company.

I do think it is odd that they haven't done so. Still, I can speculate on a number of reasons why.

It seems that one problem within our legal system today is that admitting any kind of 'fault' can be used against you in court. I personally think that is a sad situation that seems to be at play in politics as well. So, how do you admit fault while demonstrating an honest willingness to improve without risking litigation? Sadly, it seems to me that where there is evidence that an injustice has occurred the company in question often states something like, "If we have offended someone through our words or actions, we state for the record that that was not our intention, and we are heartily sorry."

But, in many cases I personally don't think that is good enough, and based on what I have seen and heard in the larger society, evidently there are others that think that way as well.

Perhaps Founder's is trying to work through the current morass they find themselves in by hashing this out some kind of delicate BOTH/AND situation with their lawyers? How can we BOTH honestly admit our part of the situation AND avoid being roasted over the coals by the Twitter mobs--not to mention face litigation--for being forthcoming and transparent?

I would think by now, if that was the case, they would have come forward with something.

That is why I believe these situations are often so complicated. There are SO MANY many potential outcomes to consider by those that DO come forward in good faith with any kind of admission. If you don't take the time to consider the potential outcomes it is SO easy to have what you say taken out of context. For example, I believe Liam Neeson was trying to demonstrate a sense of owning his own shadow by admitting his own earlier racist mindset, and I personally applaud him for that, AND I sincerely doubt he is currently ' a racist.' And yet, there seem to be a radical few that can speak very loudly and take the open admissions of others out of context and see only what they want to see--evidence of racism in others--by saying "See! I told you! He even admits he is racist!" Really people? Really? Come on. Where's the empathy here?

Can we come up with some better way to move forward when someone admits some wrongdoing without having to judge them so harshly? If we don't, and things continue to go they way they seem to be going, I believe indirectly it will encourage more and more businesses and public figures to go the way of obfuscation and denying any kind of fault. There MUST be a better way. THAT is why, at the very least, I think as many people as possible need to speak up and give their own point of view: i.e. we need to keep talking about it. And, OK perhaps some people will judge those of us who only want to talk as being 'cowards' for not being willing to stand of the front lines, but so what? Let them judge: talking about it is much better than pretending there is no problem.

 

Yes, in context of the law suit, once the legal action has begun the lawyers on both sides will insist that their client not make any public statement about the suit, background conditions, future plans, etc., etc. that hasn't been vetted by the lawyers or in some cases written by the lawyers. That is, as you say, because once the lawsuit has been filed what either party says "can be held against" them.

 

Oh yes, I totally understand that they won't comment now on the specific incident because, well, 'lawsuit pending'; still doesn't make all the new commercials and statements and announcement amounts to anything other than spin. If you make right to the one you've wronged, then congrats on turning over a new leaf and hopefully you've truly established a new culture; if not, well then who cares about the rest, it's window dressing.

 

BTW, I agree with your observations about Liam Neeson and the rush to judgment being both either/or and involving judgments out of context.

 

There is a lot to unpack here and it is difficult to frame my thoughts around beer. My experiences with law enforcement and the judicial system when I was young and dumb make the concept of white privilege undeniable to me. The obstacles I placed in my own path would have been MUCH harder to overcome were I a person of color. I understand the difference, but I can't KNOW what it is like to have to walk that path.

I listen to my wife, my sister, and other women in my life tell me what it is like to feel fear in every day situations that I take for granted. I never had to consider my surroundings when having that third fourth or fifth drink. I don't wonder why that car is driving so slowly behind me when I go for a walk very early in the morning. I absolutely believe what they tell me, but I can't KNOW what it is like.

I am aware of these things but I rarely think about them. I accept responsibility for my past, and I want to think that my successes since are entirely earned. Maybe I did earn them, but I didn't have to try nearly as hard as 3/4 of Americans would have.

I did read through the threads Todd posted, but to what end? I take an inordinate amount of pride in the small steps I have taken for equality. A man and a woman that I manage, equally hardworking, were hired at roughly the same time and his wage increases outpaced hers. I made sure that there pay became equal when I was granted a say. I fired a woman for using a racial slur. I'm doing my best to make sure my young sons understand they will experience the world differently than some of the people around them and that it isn't fair. These are small and easy and require no sacrifice on my part.

And I have overlooked a lot, not speaking up when I had opportunities, overlooking misogynistic and racist jokes in the past. These are tough topics that are thankfully being discussed more and more, but we sure have a long way to go. I certainly do.

 

To sum up my long-winded post, I can relate to feeling underpaid and underappreciated by my employer. While I am angered that we are still a racist and misogynistic Society, I can't relate. I should try harder though.

 

Well stated, @DIM.

I believe personally believe white privilege exists--everywhere in the US, including the beer industry.

I have personally wrestled with concepts like this for decades (I am in my 50's), including wondering where the true responsibility for so-called 'racist' actions lies (I wish there were a better word, as that word seems to be so charged these days). Beginning somewhere when I was a young man in my 30's I came to an understanding of the reality that because that I am, in all appearances, white, some people unconsciously treated me with respect that was not all so-to-speak 'deserved.' I began to feel guilty for the times I did not speak out when I should have--I was a passive observer, and so I was part of the problem; and I believe that understanding is all well and good.

HOWEVER, there were times when I began to feel shame for simply being born 'white' into a 'white' household. THAT is NOT good. NOT good for me, nor for those around me. Why? 1) there is absolutely nothing I can do to change that. 2) there is nothing wrong with being 'white' (or 'black', or 'brown', or 'red' or whatever).

My guess is that the reluctance of some people wanting to own the problems with racism today lies in differentiating between two different mindsets: A) acknowledging the existence of white privilege and feeling guilty about having been privileged, and then making changes in my words and actions to actively support inclusivity going forward, and B) feeling shame about who I am, wishing I could change my past actions, and thinking I have to spend the rest of my life making up for them; rightly so, there is resistance to this kind of mindset.

I think choosing the mindset of A) is the healthy way to go, not B); yet, from much of the reading I have done on various new sites and blogs, it seems as though some people --often conservatives--seem to think that progressives want them to choose B). Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I consider myself to be a moderate progressive, I want them to choose A).

The mindset of A) is a kind of BOTH/AND. I believe it is BOTH true that those of us that are white have had a certain amount of privilege in life, AND it does not make us bad, nor is there reason to feel shame about it. From that acknowledgement--which is perhaps a bit of a tightrope walk--I think more would be open to stepping up and actively supporting inclusion.

 

While I agree that we shouldn't be ashamed to be white males, I think we will have accept that in order to live in a more just society there will be fewer opportunities for us. There needs to be fewer white males at the tops of corporate ladders and in politics.

 

I completely agree. And although I think FEAR that 'white folks' will be a minority sometime in the near future is at the root of the resistance to embracing diversity in America today, I personally feel no fear about this. As tempting as it is to continue down this path and address what is IMJ the power of this particular FEAR to negatively impact life in America, I will not do that in this response.

I admit I am a stickler for word usage--in a men's organization I am a part of we call it being a 'word d*ck'. Also, I have responded to you here in the hopes of continuing the conversation. So please keep these things in mind as you read this.

Perhaps you meant what I am about to state when you were posting your reply. It is the word needs here, that I want to call attention to. I guess I would state, ideally I want the power structure to be more balanced.

I judge I am taking a risk by bringing this up, but I think it is worth addressing here. I'm NOT saying you implied this, yet the words 'affirmative action' emerged in my mind not long after reading the last line of your post. I'm not saying that you support affirmative action programs or not; yet, I want to take the opportunity to state that I am a firm believer that affirmative action programs do not work IN THE LONG RUN. There may be a short term benefit to some in attempting to correct a wrong, but in the long run I find it causes more problems that it fixes.

That is what I meant in one of my previous replies in another thread by 'significantly unbalancing the scales'. We can so easily swing too far in the other direction in our want to balance the current situation of unbalanced jobs and wages for women and minorities. I see 'affirmative action programs' as a short term solution to a long term problem. Admittedly, being older now, I am aware of a tendency of mine to take the long view.

This problem is not easy at all to address; perhaps this is an oversimplification, but if it was 'easy' to address it would already have been addressed, and there would be no problem. (and btw, 'easy' and 'simple' are NOT the same thing here, as I believe there may be a 'simple' solution to this problem)

IMJ being a white male means my perspective on this is limited in regards to my own race and gender coupled with my belief that I have benefited by the system. That is why I like to post my own perspective with the hopes of hearing from others.

 

@HopsAreDaMan

I didn't mean to imply a means to the end of greater diversity in positions of power. A few thoughts though.

It is easy for people in power and comfort to "take the long view". Speaking for myself, it has been easy to see the progress towards racial, gender, and LGBTQ equality as a steady upwards movement toward the peak of a just and equitable society. It is all to easy to forget that generations of people fought like hell and died to achieve grindingly slow progress.

I take an undeserved, vicarious pride in the progress made for LGBTQ rights in my lifetime. In the 1990s a Democrat signed the Defense of Marriage Act. The Supreme Court ruled a couple of years ago that any couple in love can marry. Taking the long view, that is extraordinary really fast progress. But how many couples died waiting for that change? What is it like to live in a society that legislates you as less than? I don't know, but I do know it's a damn shame they had wait for a slim magority of straight people to decide it's finally time.

But it's always been that way. Men had to decide it was okay for women to vote. White people had to decide people of color deserve to go to the same schools and restaurants.

Today it is largely white males hiring and promoting at large corporations and making the largest donations to candidates and political parties. How patient should people of color and women waiting for opportunities be? The pendulum has been working for us for a LONG time, if it works against us for a little while so be it.

 

Thank for for your reply. Again, it sounds like we are, more or less, on the same page.

"It is all to easy to forget that generations of people fought like hell and died to achieve grindingly slow progress."-- This seems to sum up much of what you stated here. Very good point. Agreed. I have no more to say to that other than to state that I think it is right and good to honor those who have gone before us that 'fought like hell and died'. Think it is right and good to realize that I stand on the shoulders of my ancestors--those that have gone before me that have given their blood, sweat and tears so that I can lead the life that I lead.

Without going too much into it, I believe we have nearly lost the ability to empathize with another person's pain WITHOUT feeling toxic shame born out of the reality that some have had to endure so much. IMJ, the untrained listener often seems to take on some kind of personal responsibility for the pain that a person shares. I think that is why some people don't want to hear about someone else's struggle.

Call me optimistic, but I think the majority of people that choose NOT to step into conversations about inclusion refrain NOT because they don't care, it is because it can be very difficult to stay with the person expressing pain and NOT want to try to fix them, comfort them out of a sense of guilt or utter some platitude in an attempt to make things better. And then, there is little context for some Americans to truly understand the struggles of others, because those aloof Americans--for lack of a better word--aren't listening to the realities of others, they chose to opt out. Yes, sad.

I believe life is filled with little paradoxes. At a funeral, sometimes saying nothing is the best thing to say. It's their presence that matters most. But saying nothing can give the impression that they are doing nothing, and IMJ that can be very uncomfortable for people--I know it has been difficult for me.

I will end on a positive note with some things I have learned about getting together with guys over a beer: a realization that presence matters much more than substance. I used to go out of my way to get the best beer at the store--the special releases, for example, visit the restaurants that are serving the best beer, make an effort to get together with as many people as possible so we can crack as many high ABV beers to share. I know it may sound silly, but it's the company that matters--the people I am with. It's not whether or not I am doing some kind of epic vertical with a bunch of guys, or drinking that whale I took lots of time to get. It's having a beer with my friends, whatever that beer is.

My goal in life is much more about being present to those that I am with than in chasing sought-after beers or achieving great things: whether that is at a funeral, a protest march for civil rights, or just simply having a beer with friends. If we were a all bit more present then I believe a desire to 'include' those that are different than us becomes natural.

 

Thanks

Thanks for your reply. The phrase "taking the long view" got me a bit fired up because I take it to mean slow change. And slow change means that more people will suffer under the system that needs changing.

We might differ on the usefulness of guilt, I don't think that is a topic for this forum. We'll discuss that over a beer one day.

 

Thanks for the post Todd - it is an important discussion and brings up some uncomfortable issues. I think it is too easy to think that being a cool and hip craft brewery or being a cool and hip craft beer drinker makes one immune to the issues of racism and sexism that permeate society - it does not as these articles ably testify. The Founders case is troubling because it is all too common and too often goes unnoticed. Having a group hug about not-being racist anymore does not undue or fix the initial acts of racism. The Trillium actions are disgusting and I think most places can do without tipping - I saw a tip bucket at my bank which definitely is going too far. The Great Lakes News article - regardless of what it is called - is so mind numbingly stupid that they might want to think about closing up shop and look for something else to do.