This post is written by Christopher K. Scipio, Senior GBA+ Advisor & Team Lead at the Department of National Defence, Canada.

  • The problem: Workplace culture and expected behaviours are based on a perspective and cultural narrative of whiteness.
  • Why it matters: The issue affords privileges to one group while actively denying them to other identity groups.
  • The solution: Recognising the issue and speaking up can help.

Speaking up is never easy. It is even more challenging when speaking up goes against the “accepted” ways of behaviour. In her poem "A Litany for Survival", Audre Lorde writes:

When we speak we are afraid

Our words will not be heard

Nor welcomed

But when we are silent

We are still afraid.

As public servants, we adhere to the bureaucratic cultural norms that we should be silent and do the work with minimal regard for the injustices that affect how public policies are designed and experienced. We are told to keep our hearts out of it, be objective (without asking who has defined objectivity), and to let the evidence, not feelings, guide the work.

But what do you do when the workplace culture and expected behaviours are based on a perspective and cultural narrative that is exclusionary and centres a single narrative — whiteness?

It is our duty of loyalty to the people we serve to speak up and speak about the lived experiences of those who are not benefitting.

How exclusionary narratives exclude

Exclusionary narratives also enable systemic discrimination to exist. Those who do not already possess the traits of the dominant group or lack the privilege of proximity to the dominant culture are reminded daily through various interactions including the subtle acts of exclusion (SAE) (what some call microaggressions) that they are not welcomed to be the fullest version of themselves.

What are we supposed to do when our use of the tools in our policy toolkits, like Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+), shows us that the design and delivery of the initiative failed to consider potential impacts of interlocking systems of oppression that create barriers to accessing and benefitting from initiatives due to the multiple ways the intersecting identities of some groups have been marginalised?

Do you remain silent and not challenge the status quo?

Or do you look for ways to speak up in meetings to provide fresh ideas in the briefing materials so that you can contribute to developing and designing public policy initiatives that actually reduce barriers, mitigate risks for marginalized groups and lead to more inclusive outcomes as defined by the communities that need and use the public services?

Speak up and speak out

I believe that when faced with these questions it is our duty of loyalty to the people we serve to speak up and speak about the lived experiences of those who are not benefitting. When we speak up, our words may not always be welcomed, and they might even make some at the table feel uncomfortable. But the discomfort over those with access to influence public policy decision making does not and should not take precedence over the discomfort of the citizens who keep getting harmed by failed public policies.

As stewards of the public good, public servants adhere to values and ethics as well as codes of conduct. In Canada our Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector is “the compass to guide public servants in everything they do.” One of the core values in the code is Respect for People: the expected behaviour of respecting human dignity and the value of every person. To say one adheres to this value but then chooses to ignore the failures of public institutions and public policies to treat Black Canadians, Indigenous Peoples and other racialised Canadians with dignity and respect is, to me, contradictory.

Furthermore, to be silent and choose inaction when fellow public servants are sharing their lived experiences from the traumas of experiencing racism in the workplace and in other social settings is a choice that I admittedly cannot fully comprehend.

As an aspiring leader in the public service, I hold the view that when policy makers and leaders say they have Respect for People or they want the well-being of citizens, then they have an obligation to work in more inclusive ways and intentionally advance reconciliation by dismantling systemic barriers based on various identity factors. It requires a willingness to make sacrifices.

How to help

To dismantle and abolish repressive, racist, colonialist policies, programs and laws, the tearing down statues and renaming of institutions, questioning the legitimacy of organizations that have committed grave injustices is necessary. It starts, though, with a belief that your voice can have power and that you have the agency to bring about positive change.

This is why some of us, including myself, take the career risks of speaking up and being vocal even when we are told to stay silent. To those who take the risks — who speak loudly and boldly, demanding better — thank you and continue to do so! For when we ask tough questions in an attempt to hold those at the upper echelons to account, we are ensuring that all of our citizens are being treated with respect and dignity.

My own choice to speak up and to speak the same truth when giving policy advice in a meeting or tweeting is based on a moral compass and understanding of the oath we take as public servants. The oath is rooted in a belief system that says if a group of people such as Black Canadians, Indigenous Peoples, women, those with disabilities or members of the LGBTQ2+ communities are experiencing disproportionate negative outcomes as a result of a toxic workplace, where harassment and discrimination occur way too often, then this is a signal that something wrong is happening. The Respect for People principle isn’t happening the way it should happen.

In closing, I turn again to the words of the Black, lesbian, mother, warrior poet Audre Lorde in her work "The Transformation of Silence into Language and Action":

*“Your silence will not protect you […] if I were to have… maintained an oath of silence my whole life long for safety, I would still have suffered…” *

And so I will continue to speak up and take action. I know it is risky, but it is worth the risks. I hope you will join me and speak up too. — Christopher K. Scipio

We want to hear what you think about this article. Pitch an article to us or send your comments to discussion@apolitical.co

(Picture credit: Unsplash)