Nicole Cardoza Nicole Cardoza Nicole Cardoza Nicole Cardoza

Study Hall! Affirmative action, sliding scale pricing, and the right intentions.

Get daily actions in your inbox. Subscribe Now ›

Welcome to our weekly Study Hall where we answer questions and reflections from the previous week. We dove into some tricky topics this week, and I appreciated your kind and thoughtful reflections.

Remember that you can always respond to these emails with a question and we'll do our best to add it to future newsletters! It can be related to the topic or something else that you're learning about. Sometimes it sparks an idea for a future newsletter!

As always, your support is greatly appreciated. These contributions are our only source of funding and help us pay writers and develop new resources. You can give one-time on our website, PayPal or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza), or subscribe for $5/mo on our Patreon.

Nicole

ps – if you opted-in to weekly digests this is the only newsletter you will receive. If you prefer to get weekly newsletters than the daily ones, update your profile here. 

Share | Tweet | Forward

TAKE ACTION

1. Reflect on the questions prompted by our community.

2. Ask yourself two questions about one of the topics we discussed this week. Discuss these questions with a friend or colleague.

GET EDUCATED

You mentioned that the government should do more to support unemployed workers right now. What do you think that should look like?
From Understand the unemployment gap | COVID-19 on Sunday, August 8.

I'm certainly not an economic expert, so I'll leave this up to the officials. But I do think we need a more long-term, sustainable solution than the federal aid announced last weekend. And that proposal was more generous than the actual outcome; it looks like most people will receive $300, not $400, and these extended benefits don't support some of the lowest-wage workers. Workers must qualify for at least $100 a week in unemployment benefits to be eligible. According to the NYTimes, would exclude roughly one million people, nearly three-quarters of them women (NYTimes).

I agree with the importance of learning names as parts of identities. It's also important to honor when individuals choose to use their Americanized names instead of their given names, too! 
From Respect the relationship between name and identity on Monday, August 9.

Absolutely. Some people may choose to adopt a name that's easier to say for their own comfort and ease. And if that is their choice, it's our responsibility to respect that. Names are an important part of our identity, regardless of which ones we choose to adopt. Your response cautioned us not to "bulldoze people with our good intentions" of asking for a different name or using it without consent, which I appreciate. Thank you for this important note, Risa!

Why didn't this piece talk about how the travel industry exploits different communities and harms the environment?
From Travel for diversity and inclusivity. on Tuesday, August 11.

There's many ways we can look at how white supremacy impacts certain industries, including travel. We are committed to publishing one newsletter a day in perpetuity – that's 365 opportunities to talk about racism this year. We often publish a newsletter / day that focuses on one aspect of large and complex issues. This issue was about Black representation and stigmatization in the industry.

When we write about one issue, we don't consider it the only issue. And one issue within an industry shouldn't minimize the issues of another. We have a lot of work to do to unpack the patriarchal, colonized approach to travel in America, and reckon with its environmental impact. But as we do, we can also rally for inclusivity and representation to make the industry safer for those marginalized.

Many of the issues that affect communities of color are sidelined because they don't seem "as important" as others. That dismissal in itself is systemic oppression in action. As we continue this work remember that there is enough space in our hearts and minds to take action on a wide range of issues, even if they're not "as important" to you. 

How does tokenization differ from affirmative action? I know that affirmative action is looking to add more representation in certain spaces, but can it cause more tokenization as a result?
From Don't tokenize people of color. on Thursday, August 13.

I had a feeling this question would be coming, so I'm writing a whole newsletter on affirmative action for next week. But in short, there's absolutely a relationship between the two. Tokenization can happen consciously or unconsciously. Our newsletter last week looked at more conscious examples of how we can tokenize people – hiring them and placing them in visible roles without addressing racism internally, using people of color as examples that "racism doesn't exist anymore," etc. 

But tokenization can also happen because of other structures and systems that place people of color into visible and inequitable spaces. Affirmative action is one of them. Although the intentions of affirmative action may not be to tokenize, the impact may be the same. And, there are absolutely affirmative action programs that are intentionally designed so organizations "look diverse" without "being diverse;" using the diversity data of new members to avoid blame and guilt, and maintaining oppressive systems that don't truly support non-white communities. We see this often in colleges and universities.

I'm a therapist and when I was starting private practice, I wanted to advertise a sliding scale fee for BIPOC to decrease barriers to services. I've seen a few organizations do this. But colleagues responded that I should not do this as it assumes BIPOC people don't have the capacity to pay. What are your thoughts on the two perspectives?

General question

Sliding scale pricing (which means providing a range of payment options for products and services) is a great way to increase accessibility for people of all socioeconomic statuses. And non-white people are more likely to be lower-income than white people (Pew Research). But, as your colleagues mentioned, advertising services that connect socioeconomic status with racial identity does infer that all non-white people can't afford to pay, which is likely untrue. I also think it alienates the white people that could also benefit from lower prices – most lower-income people by population size are white, most lower-income individuals are feeling the strain of the economic impact of COVID-19.

I'd recommend offering sliding scale pricing for everyone, regardless of racial or ethnic identity.  

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.

Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza

Read More