Equal Voice not so Equal

Image: (left to right) Leila Moumouni-Tchouassi, Shanese Steele and Cherie Wong were all fired from Equal Voice after spending months raising concerns about racism in the organization.


Equal Voice not so Equal

It's a group called "Equal Voice" - got that?  Yet it fired three "racialized" staffers for the sin of speaking out.

Maybe because of this? National Observer:

• All three women say they were hired to help the organization become more equitable after Daughters of the Vote delegates alleged in 2017 — and again in April — that Equal Voice had a problem with racial discrimination.

It sure looks as if they were hired to help the organization seem more equitable.

I hate the term "House Negro" but it does seem, at least figuratively, applicable to this case, and to the possible reason these women were hired in the first place. For a crystal clear description of what the term implies, it's important to go to the recognized expert on that subject -- the venerable Malcolm X. See the YouTube Video at the bottom of this page if you haven't already seen it a thousand times.

​It seems clear Equal Voice began looking for a reason to get rid of these three women (because they were fulfilling the group's stated mandate too well?) but couldn't look them in the eye while they did it. That seems adequately demonstrated by the fact that the administration cancelled their jobs at virtual arm's length:

• Cherie Wong received an email on July 24 saying her online workspace account had been deactivated. That was when she knew her boss would fire her in their scheduled meeting 90 minutes later.

In other words, she knew it was all over but the pink slip.
​

• That was at 2 p.m. By that time, Leila Moumouni-Tchouassi had already been fired.
• Half an hour later, Shanese Steele was fired.

But be not dismayed:

​From the Toronto Star:

• ... the organization is working on how best to learn from its mistakes and be more inclusive, both internally and externally.
• Equal Voice wants to take the time to get it right and has hired a senior adviser to work on the issue.

If that's not an admission of having failed to be as inclusive as they were letting on, I don't know what is. And to say they want to "get it right" is a blatant admission of having done wrong.

But they may well not want to get it "right"; they may just want to get it air tight. If they truly wanted to do the right thing, they wouldn't need to hire another "expert"; they could simply start by reinstating these women, apologizing to them profusely, and actually allowing them a truly "equal voice". 

Or, they could just re-name their organization.

Since, apparently, they see themselves as "partisans" of the "multi" variety, why not call themselves Multi-Partisan Voice?  Which, of course, would in no way imply an "All-Partisan Voice"; just a few selected voices with which they can feel comfortable.

Artha has an applicable definition of "partisan": - "a pike with a long tapering double-edged blade with lateral projections; 16th and 17th centuries".

And maybe they should at least start filing their tax returns? That would certainly help make them equal to the rest of us.

This sad shemozzle is just one example of why I no longer belong to any political organizations. Groups, by their very nature, are inherently political -- a mixture of passive types who will agree with the majority on just about anything because they simply like belonging to something, and attention-seeking executive wannabes whose main consideration is their own public image. Mixed in are a few true, fearless activists, attracted by the group's stated objectives, who will readily point out diversions from the stated mandate.

Sounds as if these three women were in the third category.  If so, I salute them!
​