“Sure he (Fred Astaire) was great,
but don’t forget Ginger Rogers
did everything he did backwards
... and in high heels!”
— Bob Thaves, 1982
During a recent international news broadcast addressing political and racial issues in an African country, I visually witnessed an uneven “playing field,” a phenomenon all of us have seen or experienced at some point in our lives.
Throughout the entire 20-minute discussion, the one black panelist was constantly filmed in front of the only dark backdrop, which — to some degree — nullified his facial features and ominously questioned his authority. Perhaps even more dramatic was the fact that, when he was responding to questions, the one camera filming him was positioned in such a way that the television audience only saw his profile, not his eyes. Moreover, at the pivotal moment when the moderator summarized the opinions, the black panelist was completely excluded from the wide-angle shot. The camera was positioned so that the back of another panelist blocked him.
In sharp contrast, the background stage drops for the four white panelists — three men and one woman — were light and bright. Their assigned cameras allowed each to look almost directly into the lens, reinforcing the viewers’ presumptions that these individuals were powerful, superior and inherently wise. One disturbing gender issue throughout this discussion was obvious: the woman panelist prefaced each of her remarks with one or two prepositional phrases, repeating and validating what the male panelists had just said, continually minimizing the impact of her own opinions. Not surprisingly, the white male panelists predictably spoke with an air of conviction, not referencing any other panelist’s statement. That being said, the racial issue was far more offensive to me, perhaps because it was literally and figuratively “staged” and not within the black panelist’s control.
Interestingly, after a news break, when the topic was directed to a more sublime issue — acceptable levels of discipline in primary schools — a different camera was assigned to film the black panelist. That camera now picked up a bright, ever-changing backdrop. The angle of the camera filming his face was the usual 20 degrees (or so). During this politically and racially neutral segment of the news program, television viewers clearly saw the black panelist’s face, looked into his eyes and had the opportunity to actually hear his words.
The phrase “a level playing field” has been defined as an experience in which two individuals play by the same set of rules, with no guarantee that each has an equal chance to succeed. In the last few decades, we have heard the phrase used in reference to the imbalances historically inherent in our country’s work places, homes, schools, medical care systems, housing, military ... in virtually every circumstance in our society in which an individual is or may be an “underdog,” for any one of many reasons. Those reasons may include discrimination, bias, unequal opportunities or presumptions of inferiority due to gender, race, ethnicity, sexual preference, physical characteristics, age or religion. An advantaged player in one situation may be a disadvantaged player in another.
Corporate America currently spends an estimated $8 billion a year on diversity training. Compared to the amount allocated to “diversity” when I first entered the work force, this fact is impressive and encouraging. However, even today, subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) attitudes, statements, jokes, behaviors (and, yes, stage sets) cause more than 2 million professionals and managers to leave their jobs every year. Sometimes, players leave due to lack of knowledge or understanding of the unwritten rules that others (the insiders) know and are equipped to address. Other times, players move on because the decks are stacked too high and the wild cards (which others may have safely tucked away) are too elusive.
In my lifetime, what has changed in this regard is that laws in this country now prohibit many types of discrimination. Many of the written laws are actually enforced. Moreover, many individuals and companies have developed a respect for and abide by those laws, either due to a conscious acknowledgement that the laws reflect a more just system or due to fear of reprisal. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said: “Morals cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. The law cannot make an employer love me, but it can keep him from refusing to hire me because of the color of my skin.”
Although most of us have experienced disparate treatment at different times in our lives, the Rule of Law regarding basic civil rights has had a profound, positive effect in a relatively short period of time. Overt discrimination was tolerated in our country for centuries. It will take at least a few more years to level all of the playing fields.
Eileen M. Concannon is a principal at Riddell Williams P.S., specializing in commercial litigation, mediation and arbitration. For references or comments, please contact her at econcannon@riddellwilliams.com.
Go Back