The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2021

38 JULY-AUGUST 2021 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL Messaging around creation of the diversity and inclusion councils has directed the councils to look at all forms of diver- sity. One of the first, from then–Director General Carol Perez, focused on ensuring singles feel included. This is important, and a real problem, but it is not the primary challenge the Foreign Service faces. The idea that “all diversity matters,” like “all lives matter,” is true, but not the exigent issue at this time. Our diversity and inclusion councils should concentrate on efforts to dismantle structural racism in the department. Right now, the councils’ work risks becoming a distraction—something to do so we can believe we are doing something, without threatening the sys- temic advantage enjoyed by white males. To seriously address structural racism in the State Department, I believe we need to start by addressing three pernicious and interrelatedmyths that help perpetuate our systemof white male privilege: Diversity is a bonus, equal is fair, and white males should be the default frame of reference. These are by nomeans the only myths that keep structural racism alive in the department, but they are three of the most prevalent and destructive. Myth 1: Diversity Is a Bonus We often talk about diversity as an important “add-on”— something to strive for, so long as it does not prevent us from hiring the best people. I know of one senior department official who, after speaking to a group on the importance of diversity, reassured the audience by adding, “Don’t worry; we will still have qualified people in all our positions.” Diversity is not just nice to have; it is critical to finding solu- tions to the difficult foreign policy challenges we currently face. I have been in political sections where everyone is a white male, and we had a lot of the same (old) viewpoints. Conversely, a truly diverse section can come up with the kind of novel analysis and solutions we need to be ready for the future. Diversity is a requirement. We need it to meet today’s chal- lenges. Too often at State, people justify giving jobs to white guys because they are assumed to be “more qualified,” based on prior work in the region. This approach ensures that bureaus with a history of insufficient diversity silently discourage new, diverse candidates from even trying to break in. This reinforces a self- perpetuating system that is harmful to both the individual and the institution, and it is the essence of systemic racism. Myth 2: Equal Is Fair This myth can be especially hard to see through for those who have benefited from privilege. We have created an entire infrastructure to cater to the needs of white men; and we believe that if everyone is treated the same in that system, then it is fair. Many of the cables on diversity from the Director General’s office repeat this myth, saying our goal in promoting equity is to ensure everyone is treated the same—not to give special treatment to some groups. This sounds laudable on the surface, but different people have different needs. Treating all employees like they are white men is not fair; and meeting the needs of different groups is no more special treatment than the special treatment white men already get. Yet this thinking pervades the State Department’s (and America’s) views on racial equity in ways large and small. For example, we do not prepare our minority officers for the racism they will face in Eastern Europe, some Asian posts and some Latin American posts. Regional security officer briefings often don’t even acknowledge the separate threats faced by minorities in these places. The particular challenges for women who serve in the Persian Gulf states and in other countries with patriarchal cultures are sometimes recognized. But the pervasive threat to people of color overseas, especially in majority-white countries, is not treated with the same seriousness. I am beginning to believe that of all the advantages I have been given as a white male, one of the greatest is the privilege of walking down an average street and not having to worry about being racially abused or sexually assaulted, with little chance the perpetrator will be brought to justice. I want to underscore that the difference is race and gender, not socioeconomic. My wife Right now, the councils’ work risks becoming a distraction— something to do so we can believe we are doing something, without threatening the systemic advantage enjoyed by white males.