The Perversity of Diversity

Rev. Dr. Mark Morrison-Reed

December 2, 2007

Step out the front door of our condo in Toronto, look west across Christie Pits Park and above the tree line I see the domed spires of the Ukrainian Catholic Church [for the] Protection of the Mother of God. But, my little pocket of Toronto is called "Korea Town" and if I walk north, the first church I pass is the Korean Beacon Church. Keep going and I pass a Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall with Portuguese language services. A little further north and west and I come across the Metropolitan Korean Church and then St. Paul's Slovak Evangelical Lutheran.

What about Clearwater? You have a Korean Presbyterian in St. Pete; Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox in Clearwater and Espiritu Santo Roman Catholic, and certainly Mt. Olive AME is an ethnic congregation. On Ulmerton Road I passed First Baptist of Indian Rocks which, from a Canadian perspective, is definitely an ethnic church.

So what about the Unitarian Universalists of Clearwater? Where do you fit in this ethnic mix? You don't know? You don't think of yourself as an ethnic congregation? I've got news for you. You are!

Our numbers? (UUs are 97.5% Euro-American). Our education? (17.2 years on average). Our language? (Inglés por favor). Our style of worship? (No amens here). Our principles? (Seven of them and not a word about Jesus). Our social norms? (This is, after all, a Welcoming Congregation). We are an ethnic faith shaped by our New England heritage and upper-middle class, liberal, progressive, North American values.

Our brother and sister Unitarians in Transylvania would find the question I asked you perplexing. An ethnic faith? Of course they are ethnic -- Hungarian Unitarians. Preserving their language, culture and faith is what they are all about, and I imagine they must find our emphasis on diversity a bit odd. Institutional religion is always a marriage of religion with culture; the Transylvanians know this. We, on the other hand, are in denial.

In 1967 the UUA "Report of the Committee on Goals" found that with regard to "Negro" ministers, 27 percent of UUs agreed that such a person's "race might hamper his effectiveness." Guess what percentage said the same thing about women? 47%. What happened in the ensuing years? The number of women grew from about eight in '67 to 199 in '87 and now, 20 years later women make up over half of our active ministry. "Might hamper her effectiveness"? I guess not.

Meanwhile, the number of African Americans, which was two in 1938, six in 1954, and eight in 1967, (identical to the number of women). This increased to 17 in 1987 and currently stands. When you include other people of color, there are 50 in fellowship of which 32 are serving congregations. We guessed wrong.

In 1975, a little over 30 years ago, Mark Belletini became the first openly gay minister to be fellowshipped. However, the first minister of color, Joseph Jordan, was licensed by the Universalists in 1888, 120 years ago. Nonetheless, in 1987 when the UUA Commission on Appraisal survey asked whether being an Afro-American or being openly lesbian, gay, or bisexual would hamper one’s ministry. Twenty-six percent said being an African American would hinder one's ministry and a whooping 66% said so about LGBT ministers. What happened? Today there are about 60 LGBT ministers, five to six percent of our ministry. We got it wrong yet again.

Culture dominates and therefore diversity advanced more quickly when the primary barrier to being inclusive wasn't culture but gender or sexual orientation. In deed, the people of color who have become UUs are those who can operate within UU cultural norms. People like me; raised middle class, a lifelong UU, trained at Meadville/Lombard. I'm pretty assimilated. It bears repeating: 'We are an ethnic faith.'

The difficulty—and why we keep guessing wrong—is that—who we are conflicts with who we want to be. That same 1987 COA survey indicated that we rank "embracing diversity" very highly. In deed, when diversity is promoted we automatically nod our heads; it would be blasphemy to do otherwise. If you read Bill Sinkford's column in last summer's edition of the "UU World", he said that among UUs he hears "a deep sense of failure" and for himself "to sing 'We Shall Overcome' felt like a lie." Why? Because we aren't as diverse as many would wish. [UU World Summer 2007 p.7]

What is it we aspire to be, then? If you had a large population of people who used American Sign Language wouldn't that be great? Of course, but it is not what we mean when we say diverse. Wouldn't it be great if you attracted even a handful of individuals who are developmentally-challenged? Of course, but that is not what we mean when we say diverse. Suppose ours was a faith to which working class people came in droves. That would be something to celebrate, but it is not what we mean either. And we all know it doesn't mean religious diversity; God knows we have enough of that—or doesn't know because "She" doesn't exist, if you prefer.

When we say diverse what we mean is "persons of color and Latino/Latina/Hispanic people"; which seems to be the current politically correct mouthful. You know what I'm talking about people like Abhi Janamanchi, John Burciago, Bill Sinkford, me. Why do we say diversity? Saying diversity is shorthand; it saves time. If we had to list everyone Asian and South Asian and Native American and Pacific Islanders and Arabs and Latino/Latina/Hispanic peoples and those of African descent and whomever else I've missed, we'd never finish the sentence.

This attention to naming looms large and the awkwardness of the nomenclature reflects an awkward relationship. People want to have their cultural identities recognized and respected in a way they haven't been. And so in a denomination that first and foremost "respects the inherent worth and dignity of every person," we try. We are awkward, in part, because we are afraid of offending, and that fear makes us cautious; and being cautious, whether looking for offence or fearful of offending, makes for stilted conversations and hesitant relationships.

We stumble along: Who we are isn't who we want to be and the way we are going about addressing this challenge isn't working as fast as we would like. We know it when we look around the room at UU gatherings and notice the lack of racial and cultural diversity. We think, this doesn't reflect the world in which we live, and feel a sense of discomfort. We ask, 'Why?' And worry, perhaps not even consciously, that the absence of persons of color shows we aren't as progressive as we like to pretend. We ask, 'Why, when we have such good intentions and have been working at it for 50 years, has there been so little change?'

What is going on?

The numbers—not our wishes or impatience—say there has been change. The number of females now simply reflects their percentage of our UU population, while the number of LGBT is moving in that direction. And the same is true of ministers of color. If I add the handful of other minister of color to the African American ministers this is what I get. Over the past 70 year the number of ministers of color serving congregations grew from 2 to 6 to 8 to 21 to 50, in other words it a little more than doubles every 15 years. This increase happened whether we were doing little as in 1952, marching in Selma in '64, responding to Black Power in '67 or retreating from it in '70, finding our feet again in the 80s or in the middle of the current anti-racism effort; it continued even when our overall membership plateaued. This suggests to me that the determining factor is not our indifference or our efforts or our fretting. In fact, it has little to do with what the UUA has done or not done.

What has happened? Over the past 70 years the ethnic group we draw from has changed, changed with the growth of the Afro-American and Hispanic middle classes, the substantial increase in number of people of color graduating from college, the growth in the number of mixed marriages and of the children of those marriages, a group that is overwhelmingly middle class. And because we are an ethnic faith and these individuals fit into our UU ethnic culture we have seen incremental growth, and the numbers indicate this will continue regardless. Rather than leading we are simply reaping the reward of societal changes.

In the 1987 COA survey that I keep referring to, not only did "embracing diversity" rank as the third highest factor in being a vital congregation it also ranked second lowest in being met and 20 years later, Bill Sinkford is still hearing that we feel "a deep sense of failure" in this regard.

Why the fretting?

We, as UUs, have a self-image problem. In 1967 our self-image was that of civil rights activists and that led us to say it would be more difficult to be a woman minister than an Afro-American minister. Today we think of ourselves as open, tolerant, justice-seeking, gay-affirming, feminist liberals attuned to a multicultural world; and seduced by our own self-image we make outlandish predictions and set unattainable goals. Then, of course, we don't live up to one particular racially–focused set of expectations, which were unrealistic from the beginning. And what? We feel bad about ourselves. And what do we do? We flagellate ourselves because our efforts at racial diversity haven't kept pace with our achievements vis-à-vis women and GLBT. This response isn't really about social change or spiritual transformation or even diversity in its broadest sense; it is about our self-image as liberals. It is about our collective ego. We want to be different than we are because we want to feel better. We want to look around be able to say, 'Yes, this reflects the world in which I live.' We want our congregations to reflect the multi-cultural pluralistic society that is emerging and we want to think of ourselves as on its vanguard when we are not.

What are we to do about this?

First, lecturing and cajoling is not the way. Pulling the race-card and kicking you in the teeth by telling you what low-down racists you are, is not the answer. Sinners, we have jettisoned the old language but held onto the attitude, and that is not the way. Why? Our earnestness is sabotaging this project, for guilt always deals cruelly with vision. What kind of enthusiasm and commitment do you bring to the things you ought to do? And this trepidation only encourages timidity. You can’t try something different and, at the same time, be too careful. We have to stop being so guarded and protective over our egos. We’ve got to lighten up and laugh at our mistakes, apologize for our gaffs and forgive the inevitable blunders. The sort of transformation we are seeking can't be rooted in 'I should', but will only grow out of what we want and what we yearn for.

Second, let's be honest with ourselves about who we are, why we want to be different and what is possible. Who are we? We are an ethnic faith, and that defines who we can successfully attract. Why do we want to be different? Frankly, so we can feel better about ourselves. What's possible? Being realistic and stop setting ourselves up for frustration and failure by creating expectations we can't meet.

Third, if we want to be diverse we must first appreciate the diversity we have achieved. Find that diversity. Treasure the complex and unique identities already represented among us. Who we are is worth celebrating, and the more we do that the more inviting a place we become. Praise and joy and affirmation will serve us better than blame, guilt and earnestness. Finding the diversity that is already where and celebrating it will send a hopeful message about love to newcomers.

Finally, accept that we are caught in a conundrum. There is a perversity to our call for more diversity. What makes it so, is that we feel ambivalent about change. Having found a comfortable religious home (no small challenge) we are reticent to let it slip from our grasp. Being a justice-seeking community and an openly tolerant one is, of course, important. But, we have other needs that you'll rarely hear a word about. In this unpredictable world we want a haven of stability, predictability and familiarity, while in the face of personal struggles and tragedy we seek comfort. We don't want too much change but we can't be honest about that. Instead, when someone new behaves or believes differently we warn them with a raised eyebrow, a frozen smile and silence. We want diversity but what we'd prefer is a change of appearance rather than substance, settling for looking different rather than being different. But pursue diversity and you invite change, change and you become something different than you were drawn to in the beginning. That is the conundrum.

However, since demographics seem to be in control forget about diversity and about "them" and focus instead on yourselves. Since we speak most loudly with our lives, focus on becoming the best person you can be which will require taking down the boundaries you have constructed; that means addressing your own racism, ageism, sexism, classism, homophobia, egotism and pretence. And, yes, change will mean discomfort but we welcome that when we see that it is to our own benefit, and the good of this community and the world.