Two Year Investigation by the Washington Post Published Today

This story represents two years of work by Rael Ombuor from the Washington Post. She and her editors who were the only ones willing to listen and believe the survivors when they came forward. Having helped to facilitate this story for two years now, I have been humbled, frustrated, and surprised how hard it is to make a story like this public when vested interests with lawyers have a stake in keeping it silent - even to the detriment to the children they claim to support.

This story isn’t over with the allegations public. The victims are owed restitution from those who should have protected them. Major reforms are needed in the child protection sector globally so things like this don’t continue to happen. One motivation of the survivors I worked with was that they wanted to come forward and tell their stories so that the same things didn’t happen to others. Their strength, resilience, and courage has inspired me and motivated me through this long ordeal.

There were further allegations including even the murder of a community health worker who some claim was going to be a whistleblower many years ago, but there was not time or resources to investigate those allegations further. I’m hoping that if the story gains traction amid all the other competing and legitimate crises facing the world, additional reporting might get to the bottom of that aspect of this many branching story.

Rael Ombuor, and her editors Max Bearak (former), Katharine Houreld (current) stuck with this investigation, gave it support, and kept it from getting lost. They have lived up to the ideal that journalism should comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

Covid-19: The Inextricable Link between Health and Social Justice

With all the information out there regarding Covid-19 I feel like this platform can be most useful for (1) reporting on the under-reported stories and (2) point readers to what I find are the best resources amidst the crisis.  

In that spirit. Here is what I’m following. 

Impact in Low Resource Settings: The Washington Post has been a leader in putting these issues out in front. Great article here on impact in developing countries. Coverage of slums, refugee camps, and other informal temporary, but high density settings where predominantly poor people live, has been getting a bit lost in the crush of domestic coverage. Times like these, isolationist folks might ask “Why should we care what is going on in those other countries, we need to pay attention to our own.” It is true we have plenty to worry about here, but as the virus tears through already unstable countries, the ensuing chaos has a way of spreading across borders and affecting us all. In a crisis, desperate refugees are not stopped by national boarders, and we already know viruses and germs are not either. One of my favorite writers, Fareed Zakaria writes about the coming cascade of global crises: “Expect political turmoil, refugees, even revolutions, on a scale we have not seen for decades — not since . . . the Soviet Union collapsed . . . Without some assistance and coordinated effort, countries such as Iraq and Nigeria will explode, which will likely mean the spread of refugees, disease and terrorism beyond their borders.” Full article here.

More than ever, we’re all in this together, whether we admit it or not.

Racial Inequalities: This article relays how hospitals are trying to come up with unbiased decision trees that provide guidance on rationing care amid overwhelming demand. While it is crucial and admirable that medical professionals are doing what they can to eliminate racial bias, the sad truth is, at the individual level they won’t be able to. This is because we already know that underlying health issues, comorbidities such as hypertension, asthma, cardiovascular disease, cancer, etc. . . already are over represented in the poor and especially communities of color. This is one of those prime examples where making decisions on the microlevel do not account for the upstream, macro trends that put people of color at higher risk for disease in the first place. That comes as a result of structural racism reinforced by racist polices and the racist legacy in the US. Already we are seeing troubling examples of how African American’s are already overrepresented in Covid-19 cases link here and here. NPR provides a story on how long standing biases in care are still cropping up and compounding suffering for communities. While anecdotal evidence can be limited in its broad applications, in my own life, of the 13 people within one “degree” of separation from me who have tested positive for Covid-19, 12 of them are black. The Data Research Center has released research connecting the higher death rate from Covid-19 in New Orleans to the complicating factors of poverty and ethnicity.

The take home: social inequalities are drivers of disease. Preexisting injustices which already contribute to health and wealth disparities—suffering for people of color—will contribute and complicate the spread of Covid-19. The fight against “isms” racism, sexism, ableism, is also a fight for the health and thriving of us all.

Comorbidity: Building off the above point, as we learned in the HIV/AIDS epidemic, the other under reported phenomenon right now is the interaction of two or more conditions with Covid-19. In regions of Africa it will be how Covid-19 and Ebola, Covid-19 and malaria, and/or HIV/AIDS interact and complicate the mitigation and treatment picture. Add to this social marginalization and even migration if major areas become unstable due to social unrest, the secondary and tertiary effects will be significant.  

Be kind. Wash your hands. Wear a DIY face mask. This is a marathon, not a sprint.

Jezebel, Ronan Farrow, & Redistributive Justice

Jezebel published a piece last week criticizing The Hollywood Reporter's choice to award Ronan farrow at their annual women in entertainment gala in December. Link here: Ronan Farrow to Be Honored at the Women in Entertainment Gala The Hollywood Reporter (THR) wants to give Farrow  their equity in entertainment award which recognizes someone who has worked against gender based discrimination and for greater inclusion of women and people of color.

Now yes, THR should also give the award to Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey who shared the Pulitzer with Farror—for sure. I definitely agree with that. But Jezebel bases their argument not on that oversight, but rather on the fact that Ronan is not a woman or a person of color and the award should go to someone who is not white and not male.

As an observer (and I make no claims to be an unbiased one) I don’t know what to make of this. But it certainly doesn’t sit right with me. Farrow's work brought down a monster (Harvey Weinstein) who was preying on women everywhere. Going after Weinstein opened the floodgates for #MeToo and #TimesUp. Yes, Farrow has already gotten accolades and yes, I support spreading awards out to highlight the work of women and poc who have been historically ignored … and yes, this effort probably means less attention for white males in general (including me) … which I can live with.

But . . . arguing as, Jezebel does, that Farrow doesn't deserve recognition explicitly because he is a white male is problematic and runs the risk of undermining the progressive ideals we’re strive to live up to. Yes, denying Farrow the award is a bit of a (satisfying) reversal. For once, a white male is facing a type of discrimination women and poc have been experiencing for centuries.

Finally! Take that patriarchy! How do you like a taste of you own medicine for once? Aha! Zing!

But this sanctimony, I fear, represents more of a sugar-rush of schadenfreude than proper justice. Because replacing once injustice with another, is not a remedy to discrimination. It’s just perpetuating it.

I’m not arguing against overcorrection. We need overcorrection at this point in history. Things have been imbalanced in the direction of injustice way too long. But if we’re going to say “no” to awarding Farrow, let’s make sure we represent a sound argument for it. It helps our cause if that decision is based on principles of equity and redistributive justice. Otherwise, we open the door to accusations of pettiness or (gasp) “reverse discrimination.”[1]     

My thinking on this has been influenced by Ibram X. Kendi’s excellent book How to be an Anti Racist, (Short review: It’s amazing. Read it). Kendi uses research and personal anecdotes to explore many different types of racist attitudes, even among people of color (!) That is not really an issue for me to speak to, as Kendi (and James Baldwin before him in his criticism of The Nation of Islam) have already done that far better than I can. Bottom line: both authors stress that replacing one racial hierarchy with another, even if an inverted version of the first, is still morally flawed. It undermines your cause and only serves to promote injustice rather than justice. 

Jezebel’s approach anchored solely in identity politics and leaning so hard on labels is exactly what makes (fragile) white folks in the conservative media bubble scream “Look see, we're being discriminated against,” and “It’s reverse racism! White people are so oppressed!” 

<Eye Roll> 

We don’t need to fan the flames of that fire. It helps no one. 

I am trying to tread carefully here. I’m not against Jezebel’s suggestion. It has merit. It’s their argument I am critiquing. But (taken to an absurd extreme) my position might be misconstrued as a case against affirmative action. Let me be clear: it’s not. 

I’m arguing for consistency, which ultimately lends credibility to the (persuasive) case that Farrow doesn’t need recognition and the award may serve the cause, further the career of someone else in a more profound way.  

My take on affirmative action is that it is intended in a spirit of affirming the discriminatory challenges a person has faced in their past. It is a corrective to give folks who have faced structural barriers opportunity to improve their future, the same opportunity people of privilege have had. Jezebel’s argument seems to be based on a more punitive spirit. That is where we open the door to being called petty at best, discriminatory at worst.[2] Instead of lifting someone else up, we’re knocking someone down. It brings to mind one of my favorite illustrations on equity vs. equality and how to balance the assets some already have the deficiencies of others.

But wait, there’s more. The story has additional twists! 

Farrow is white. He is male. He is also gay. Therefore, an argument exists that Farrow DOESN'T conform to the straight white male patriarchy. So, go ahead, give him the award. Gay Pride! Love is Love! Whoohoo! 

Take that heteronormative white patriarchy! Zing! 

But wait there’s even more. 

Some activists of color and lesbian women argue that none of that "matters" because Farrow is white. He still coasts on white male privilege.[3] 

So, no-way don’t give him the award, you sexist, racist pig. 

If this is starting to feel a bit like “keeping score” in an oppression contest you’d be forgiven.

“Sorry, my transgender Afro Latina one ups your lesbian friend because even though she is gay, your lesbian friend is white and cis-gendered and so has a lower oppression score.”  

This is when I wonder if there is a point when the continual splitting off and sub dividing into more and more granular categories of identity politics (while highlighting the unique experiences of historically marginalized groups—valuable right?!) begins to have diminishing returns. 

When does it flip from recognition to competition, pitting us against one another? Does this oppression hierarchy/scorecard sacrifice solidarity and obscure all we have in common? When does a spirit of proper acknowledgment turn into decisive tribalism … we vs. them, you vs. me? I’m less worried about being accused of “reverse discrimination” than I am of failing to see the humanity and authentic pain of others.  

As a straight white male, I'm handicapped by my own biases and privileges here and so I’m curious for the perspective of others. 

And to an extent I feel sympathy for my gay male friends—the white ones, yeah them. 

I’ve heard my gay friends describe the pain, fear, and anxiety of growing up perceived as straight by their families. They struggled through years of adolescence and sexual awakening paired with a growing recognition that their orientation was different—not the default. This was followed by the trauma of having to confront their families (some accepting some not) and explain to parents and siblings that their perceptions were fundamentally flawed. As a cis-gendered straight guy, I’ve enjoyed the privilege of never having to “correct” my family’s sense of my core identity—gender, sexual orientation or otherwise. Their defaults aligned with my inner reality. 

That made things easier for me. 

But that is a privilege fundamentally different than the experience of my gay friends–even the white male ones. I don’t know if this struggle of theirs should be dismissed or diminished, even if the person who went through it was a white male. Love is love and pain is pain.  

Let’s pause to consider, that coming out as gay is the number one reason teens are kicked out of the home and left homeless (white kids, kids of color, whatever). The statistics for these teens the moment they hit the streets are harrowing. Close to half will be solicited for transactional sex (for food, shelter, money) within 36 hours of being kicked out of the home. Many are at high risk of drug use and addiction—not from recreational use have you—but rather using substances to escape the emotional trauma of abandonment, rejection, and abuse (not to mention the use of amphetamines just to remain vigilant and awake while trying to pass a night unsheltered on city streets). Given all that, I’d probably use too. 

So does your lesbian, southeast Asian, cis-gendered friend still trump my gay white cis gendered male friend? 

When does it matter? When doesn’t it? 

Bottom line, I don’t know.  

This I do know: I don’t think Farrow (alone) should get the award or maybe at all. If he gets it, he should definitely share it with Kantor and Twohey. I think the argument against awarding Farrow should be grounded in principles of redistributive justice and recognition—not in a spirit of corrective punishment or revenge. I want to live and walk in a spirit of recognizing everyone’s differences and their traumas, their resilience, their unique stories … but not at the expense of seeing the humanness that links us all together. 

Like I said above, can we lift others up without knocking others down?

________________________________________________

[1] I’m still not even sure this is a thing, but some people really do claim it.

[2] For the record, I support Affirmative Action and the principles behind it. I also support reparations for slavery and have mentioned before that Bryan Stephenson, author of Just Mercy and founder of the Equal Justice Initiative has offered some of the best (and realistic) forms of reparation I’ve heard to date. 

[3] I've heard the same criticism of Pete Buttigieg diminishing the significance of his candidacy because he is a white male. This is just sad.