So I’m currently reading Robin DiAngelo’s impeccable book White Fragility. I’m 1/4 of the way through and I can’t recommend it enough, not just for White people but for people of color as well. Why, you ask? I view reading material of this nature as another tool, another layer of understanding, for both Whites and POC to take into conversations with White people about race. Race is a social construct; in order to effectively connect with Whites and POC alike concerning race I believe one needs to have as much understanding of the mental and emotional aspects of race as they can acquire.

DiAngelo’s book extends beyond the basics of White fragility that many POC are familiar with and adds psychological context and extra insight...from a White person who admits they will forever be doing their own work to be better. The insights I’ve come across in this book and the candor with which they’re shared has already got me re-evaluating and building upon my approaches to conversations about race.

To make change happen one has to be willing to change themselves. That’s the only way we build a deeper understanding in White America of the way race factors into every part of our lives and how they too have to be active and evolving participants in things being better.

I feel like I say this a lot in my personal and professional lives but it always seems to bear repeating: just because you can hire a person of color, a member of the LGBTQIA+ community, a person with a disability, a cisgender woman, or anyone from a marginalized group does not mean you SHOULD hire a person of color, a member of the LGBTQIA+ community, a person with a disability, a cisgender woman, or anyone from a marginalized group. Get your organizational culture, environment, and staff aligned with empathy, equity, and inclusion THEN revisit if you're even remotely ready to begin building a staff that reflects the community you serve.

If you're interviewing candidates for a position and you're still using scoring grids, point systems, or any kind of system that alludes to the "right answer" your interviewers should be seeking that earns a candidate extra points over another then your approach to interviewing is desperately in need of an overhaul. Point systems and scoring grids are rampant with bias and favoritism and leads to "comparison shopping", comparing candidates to one another based on a perceived "more bang for your buck" value to see which one you should place in your cart. These systems have also been shown to be discriminatory as well as lacking in malleability, leaving great candidates with transferable skills and/or personal and professional backgrounds that could expand the role you're looking to fill in exciting ways on the cutting room floor.

Effective interviews are built on behavioral questions, smart follow-ups for elaboration, and not comparing candidates to one another or a scoring grid but comparing candidates to the top eight to ten non-biased attributes (tangibles and intangibles) that you are looking for in someone who will excel in the role and in your organization. Don't leave candidates on the cutting room floor - leave scoring systems instead.