Unitarian Universalism has been myreligious
home for fifteen years. I have always felt asense
of welcome and belonging among diversegroups, and I
cannot think of a more religiouslydiverse denomination
than UUism.Our faith has always encouraged us to do good work in love and in freedom.
But, like many UUs, Iam
grieved to see the direction our UU leadershiphas
taken in the past several years. The UUA hasgone
from being an organization that supports itsmember
congregations in our liberal religious work,to
a highly centralized and insular group,disengaged
from individual congregations, anddisturbing in
its dogmatism.
This departure from the heritage roots of our denomination has
brought such distress thatsometimes I
wondered if I should leave the church; however, I cherish my homecongregation, the UU Church of Rutland, Vermont. That love fills
me with a fiercedetermination, and I want to bring
that sense of purpose to the UUA Board of Trustees. I believe
in our Seven Principles, and I will do everything I can to uphold and preserve them.
My position
The
three principles that I most wish to protect are the first, fourth, and fifth:
the inherentworth and dignity of every person, a free and responsible search
for truth and meaning,and the right
of conscience and the use of the democratic process. These principles,particularly dear to me, are also the ones that I see being
abandoned by theUUA.
For the past several years,
the UU World and the UUA
website have been telling UUs what to think and how to act, which I believe has
no place in a free church. As a Trustee I willdo
all I can to preserve and promote scientific processes and diversity of thought
withinour congregations and UU leadership.
To this end, I believe
denominational decision-making authority should be returned to ourcongregations, and I will sponsor the conversation to end the
current regionalorganizational structure and
reconstitute our congregation-led district structure. Also, the recommendations of the 2009 Report by the Fifth Principle Task Force should be revisited. Using these strategies to bolster democracy in our denomination will promote a clearer, more direct relationship between UU leadership and Unitarian Universalists as a whole, and will provide a more robust structure for the UUA to fulfill its role as a supporter of congregations.
My background
I
have many years of experience with the democratic process, both as a church
trustee andas an elected official, serving four years on the city council of
Rutland, Vermont. As a citycouncil
member, I learned to listen to all parties with care and empathy, including myopponents. I worked to build an environment that was no longer “us
vs. them” but just “us.”We engaged in
constructive debate, did our best to meet the needs of all - never perfectlyof course, but often successfully.
I believe that diversity of
thought is any group’s greateststrength.
UUism was built on the foundation of free thought, and I aim to do all I can tokeep us there. Thank you very much for your consideration.
Attend a "Meet the Candidate" Townhall Meeting
Follow this link to get dates and register for townhall meetings.
Donate to Campaign
Follow this link to get information on how you can contribute to my campaign.
Ms Mattis, because General Assembly is such a big part of the Trustees work, can you tell us about your experiences with participating in GAs and what you observed when you’ve been there?
Hello Karen, Rebecca here. I have never participated in GA; this will be my first year. My main interest in GA as a Trustee would be to do everything I could to promote full democracy, by encouraging the Nominating Committee to nominate more than one person for each seat, as well as encouraging people to run by petition. I would also do everything I could to promote diversity of thought and belief at GA, as befits a liberal religion.
Thank you Ms Mattis. I did not realize you had not participated in General Assembly before. does this mean you have not been to GA on site but been an offsite delegate, or is GA participation entirely new to you? If this is your first on site GA this year, my tip is to pace yourself and self care because it is a big event with alot of good programming going on.
In terms of potential leadership as a trustee, do you anticipate any challenges as someone new to GA? And How would you build relationships with all the stakeholder groups, including the many that put their faith in action on anti racism initiatives? Thanks Ms Mattis.
If I properly understand, you are new to General Assembly, and new to UU anti-racism undertakings. I believe you are also a strong public critic of what you level as “Critical Race Theory”. You also describe our UU Association of Congregations being “dogmatic” or “authoritarian”.
As I was first learning about our UU history and its long-standing, democratic commitment to racial justice - which our General Assembly has reaffirmed many times - this document was really helpful. I encourage you to learn more about the history behind where we are now:
Rebecca, you've argued that "...the most highly paid, most highly educated, and least incarcerated racial group in this country is not white, but Asian. Since it finds its success within American institutions, can those institutions truly be described as maintaining the dominance of whites? CRT’s only response to this argument is to say Asians must actually be white." Are you aware of the "Model Minority Myth"? Do you know why most Asians consider the Model Minority Myth offensive? - Tom Clowes
Hi Tom, Rebecca here. I am indeed aware of the model minority myth. I believe it serves to belittle the human struggles of Asian Americans. That myth has nothing to do with the demographic statistics quoted here, which are true, not false, and are therefore real, not mythical. It is not I, however, who claim that Asian Americans are "white adjacent," but the proponents of identitarian models like CRT.
Rebecca, the Model Minority Myth says that racism can't be so bad because Asians are doing great in the US. This is exactly the (rather insensitive) argument you've made. It understandably offends Asian Americans and other people of color, and there are many problems with it. For starters, the highly educated, wealthy, ambitious Korean, Japanese, and Chinese people who choose to immigrate to the US are a self-selecting group. In fact, any immigrant group is a self-selecting group of generally ambitious people willing to leave their homeland. The circumstances are incomparable to African Americans who were brought in slavery, brutalized and dehumanized, and continue to live in a society today that says, every day, that their lives don't matter. Another problem with your Model Minority Myth statement is that Asian Americans are no monolith. While highly-educated, wealthy, ambitious immigrants do well financially, this group generally doesn't include Burmese, Hmong, Cambodians, Rohingya... Asian Americans as a whole actually experience higher-than-average rates of poverty. Additionally, not all racism is economic. A Korean-American physician assistant, as an example, might make a comfortable salary, but he will still tend to be passed over for management, and will also tend to be passed over for a date! Perhaps people will ask him "So, where are you from?" and when he responds, "Kalamazoo," they will ask him, "But, where are you really from?" I could continue about non-economic forms of anti-Asian racism, but my point is, the argument you've advanced is both inaccurate and offensive.
Tom, you are putting false words in my mouth, describing an argument I have never made in my life. I know what the Model Minority Myth is, and I do not uphold it. I have never made any argument at all regarding racism against Asian Americans. Further, as an anti-identitarian, I know perfectly well that Asian Americans are not a monolith. I also know that Asian Americans experience racism. Please stop the bad-faith, straw-man comments.
Rebecca, are these your words? "...the most highly paid, most highly educated, and least incarcerated racial group in this country is not white, but Asian. Since it finds its success within American institutions, can those institutions truly be described as maintaining the dominance of whites?"
Hi Tom, Rebecca here. I think I understand what the issue is. There are two kinds of racism: interpersonal and systemic. Interpersonal is what we might call the common definition - prejudice and unkindness (or worse) based on race. Systemic racism describes something I have never really seen analyzed well, only described in a form of circular reasoning, but most people use racial disparities on measures like income, education, and incarceration as evidence of racism on a systemic level. Fighting systemic racism has produced interpersonal racism on a fairly massive scale - we could call that institutional racism. For example, Asians are routinely discriminated against in applications to elite high schools, colleges, and universities, because they are considered to be "overrepresented" in those institutions.
In my state, funds for schools are determined by property tax values. Because of redlining, Black neighborhoods are property-poor neighborhoods. So, Black schools are funded less than White schools. In addition, in my city of Chicago, property in Black neighborhoods is taxed at a higher rate than property in White neighborhoods, in part because people in White neighborhoods tend to have more resources to appeal property valuations. Are these examples of systemic racism? Why or why not? If systemic racism doesn't exist, what accounts for society's racial disparities in education, income, and more?
Hi, Rebecca here. There are so many examples of systemic racism! One of the biggest, in my view as a teacher, is the utter abandonment of students in poverty in this country, and especially black students. The disparities are outrageous, and I believe I can point to race-based - or at least, race-motivated - policies that directly hurt those children and young people. The question is, am I correct? Are there other factors, both race-based and non-race based, that also contribute to these disparities? This is what a responsible person would find out if they would like to create good social policy. It would involve a whole lot of fact-finding and careful discernment. These conversations should be encouraged, not shut down. That is my platform. Discernment requires disagreement. The UUA and UUism in general should be modeling robust dialogue on these subjects and many more, not creating orthodoxy and shutting people down who support different strategies to promote justice.
Rebecca, you call for careful fact-finding to determine whether education is in fact affected by systemic racism. As a teacher, are you aware extensive high-quality research has already been carried out that answers this question?
Hi Tom, Rebecca here. Indeed, I have read quite extensively on the subject. There is quite a variety of points of view. That is why forums need to exist in which disagreement can take place - so that we can more clearly understand how best to be of service in our communities and beyond.
Rebecca, to say there are "a variety of points of view" about whether racism affects education is like saying there are "a variety of points of view" about the existence of climate change or the effectiveness of vaccines. High-quality research has time and again shown that racism negatively affects Black students. (You could also simply believe most Black people.) To not acknowledge this is wrong and hurtful.
Tom, I did not say that there are "a variety of points of view about whether racism affects education." I said there are a variety of points of view on the subject of racism in education - that is to say, there are a variety of points of view about HOW racism affects education. Your climate change example is a good one. There are a variety of points of view about how best to fight, mitigate, and/or adapt to climate change. The science is clear on the cause, but social reality is not so clear on the solution. That is why we so desperately need to discuss these ideas - so that we can work most effectively for the outcomes that we desire.
Rebecca, thanks for clarifying. I took the following to mean that you questioned whether systemic racism negatively impacted Black students: "The disparities are outrageous, and I believe I can point to race-based - or at least, race-motivated - policies that directly hurt those children and young people. The question is, am I correct? Are there other factors, both race-based and non-race based, that also contribute to these disparities?" However, it seems that you are in fact affirming that systemic racism negatively affects Black students, and I agree with you. While I believe Black people together know best what solutions would work best to counteract that racism, I also agree with you that reasonable people could disagree about the exact measures that should be taken.
I suppose I still disagree that there are "a variety of points of view about HOW racism affects education" - this too is well-researched and well-documented (or, again, just ask Black people). But again I appreciate that you affirm the existence of anti-Blackness in education; I think that's important. Cheers.
Just reading through this conversation and what I see from one side of the argument is an assertion of their perspective as truth. Systemic racism is not a closed discussion and has not been for quite some time. You need only look at the works of academics such as Thomas Sowell, Glenn Loury, Roland Fryer, and many others who have published extensive research into the matter. The issue tends to be that systemic analysis is very difficult because of the large number of variables that influence it. Many people see a disparity and assume it to be the result of discrimination, but multi-variate analysis rarely shows that to be the case.
The statement "multi-variate analysis rarely shows that [systemic racism] to be the case." is simply untrue. There are really just a couple possible explanations for racial disparities: 1. Black people could be worse people than White people. 2. Black people could be existing in an environment where they are marginalized. But we know that #1 isn't true, because race is a social construct, not a biological one, as confirmed by pretty much all scientists in the field. That leaves #2. But people sadly cling to the racist explanation, #1. So much for following the science. RC, what evidence of systemic racism in the criminal justice system would it take to prove to you that it exists? Lastly, I'm really not a fan of White people selectively promoting Black viewpoints for their White-friendliness. If you really believe Black people, for example, have about ten cents for every White dollar of wealth and it's because something's wrong with Black people, why not quote - I dunno - Tucker Carlson? Why find the handful of Black people who have those views that are so unrepresentative of Black viewpoints? Again, to be clear, I have no problem with Thomas Sowell, but I have a huge problem with White people selectively promoting Black viewpoints that are highly unrepresentative of most Black people. Honestly this whole page is really racially offensive. I'm quite disappointed with my siblings in faith right now. I hope you all go and reflect on your views and yourselves. - highly disappointed Tom
"There is really only a couple of possible explanations for racial disparities" That statement unfortunately illustrates a significant lack of understanding of the complexities of society. A single phenomenon of disparity will likely have a dozen or more contributing factors, not least the fact that complete parity has never existed anywhere. You can call it "racially offensive" for people to want to understand issues and find effective solutions Thringstone debate and exploration, rather than the adoption of presupposed ideological positions, but I would argue that to presume me to be white and imply that somehow devalues my contribution, and to describe Thomas Sowell as "not representative of most black people" because you don't agree with him, rather than viewing him as an expert who has committed his life to understanding these issues, demonstrates a much more significant racism. There's only one person here arguing that people should be judged on the colour of their skin, and that should be cause for reflection.
"That statement unfortunately illustrates a significant lack of understanding of the complexities of society. A single phenomenon of disparity will likely have a dozen or more contributing factors, not least the fact that complete parity has never existed anywhere." Naw. This is fancy language, but it's wrong. There are studies that control for these "contributing factors" and they show racism is present, significant, and harmful. You could Google studies about identical resumes with White names and Black names for one example among hundreds. Or the racism difference between traffic stops in the daytime and the nighttime, when drivers are harder to racially identify. Among thousands of others. Are you brave enough to do so?
Believing that there are factors other than racism that explain racial disparities is just wrong. If you know that the entire existence of race as a social construct was created to justify slavery and has no real biological reality, then you know that absent racism, racial disparities would have the same significance as disparities between, say, tall and short people.
"You can call it "racially offensive" for people to want to understand issues and find effective solutions." Naw. But if you truly want to understand racial issues, again, Google high-quality research on the effects of race and racism and let me know what you find. You could also just listen to most Black people.
"I'm really not a fan of White people selectively promoting Black viewpoints for their White-friendliness." RC, this statement wasn't referring to you. But, as they say, "a hit dog will holler."
Describing Thomas Sowell as "not representative of most Black people" (FYI, I prefer to capitalize" Black" of we're referring to a specific group of people rather than the color) is simply a statement of fact. And, I went to lengths to explain I have no problem with Sowell. Again, I have a problem with White people cherry-picking and giving a megaphone to Black views because of their White-friendliness. I always find it amusing when the same people who say "Maybe there are other factors here besides race to explain why Black people keep getting s**t on" are also the ones who jump to say I'm being racist. In our words, the same people who try to explain away anti-Blackness as anything but racism are the same ones who rush to call their opponents "racist." It amuses me.
I was struck by your public comments about what you call “Critical Race Theory”, comments which various UU People of Color have raised concerns about (examples below). These statements seem to conflict with your stated commitment to “working across the aisle” with UUs of various perspectives? How would you in fact work with the many supporters of current UU anti-racism efforts which are varied depending on local context? Particularly UU people of color?
Your statements have included:
“My sense of justice compels me to oppose critical race theory in all its forms, because it is both objectively incorrect and morally wrong as a driver of public policy.”
“In making a virtue of bias, CRT turns itself into snake oil, a double evil. It fails to treat the illness, and it may cause its own disease.”
“CRT teaches people (of all ages) that, outside of activism, people of color have no agency and people of pallor have no morality. In promoting this limiting, racialized, radicalized view of people and society, it is set to take us down some very dark paths.”
“As an ideology, I find CRT deeply cynical and inhumane.”
“[Critical race theory] is perversely white-supremacist.”
“[Critical race theory] merely blames every disparity upon systemic racism, without ever defining systemic racism as anything other than “that which causes racial disparities.” It’s circular reasoning and as such, is at best a useless tool. At worst, it’s a wrecking ball: The only solution it offers is to tear down society, with no plans to build anything in its place.”
“I must make clear that since a certain kind of anti-racism is the “activist arm” of CRT, it is much more diffuse and potentially more extreme than anything explicitly promoted by academic critical race theorists. However, CRT-informed activism seems to cohere around the central idea of race consciousness. It has become a norm within academia and media that a person’s skin color not only does, but should, determine whether they are an agent or a victim, the value of their point of view, and what their point of view ought to be. This is by definition, racist, and is exactly what people who attack CRT are objecting to.”
Hello, Rebecca here. In my five years as a public servant, I have made several strong statements based in my liberal principles. During that time, I was working (and continue to work) with people "across the aisle" who disagree with me. Disagreeing with someone does not mean you can't work with them. In fact, the opposite is true. As a public servant I have always sought and encouraged robust discussion and debate in order to discern the best possible ways to meet human need. It is true that I believe identitarianism to be deeply immoral, and a grave mistake. That's why I argue so passionately against it. Still, I have always worked with identitarians, and will continue to do so. I also want to say that it is a mistake to assume that all people of color, or UUs of color, hold identitarian worldviews. There is as broad a range of thought among UUs of color as there is among any other large group of people.
You describe viewpoints of fellow UUs - including organized communities of UUs of color, disabled UUs, transgender UUs, youth and young adult UUs, and the majority of our voting delegates in recent years - as "deeply immoral", a "double evil", "deeply cynical", "inhumane", "perversely white-supremacist", and making a "grave mistake" and "taking us down some very dark paths". In light of your very strong statements and their divisiveness, how would you build trust and collaboration among UUs with varying viewpoints?
And of course there is a broad range of views among UUs in general, and among members of different UU groups including UUs of color. That said, how would you work with our organized UU communities of color (which are diverse in membership and viewpoints), such as DRUUMM and Black Lives of Unitarian Universalism? What challenges do you foresee and how would you overcome them?
Hi Anonymous, Rebecca here. I have no evidence whatsoever that "organized communities of UUs of color, disabled UUs, transgender UUs, youth and young adult UUs, and the majority of our voting delegates in recent years" are Critical Race Theorists. I don't know why you say that. Do you have any such evidence?
Now, it is very likely true that some, or even many, of the individuals in the groups you mention do believe in racism and other forms of identitarianism. And if that is so - yes, I believe they are making a grave mistake.
While acknowledging that there is an infinity of knowledge I do not possess, based upon what I have studied and what I do understand in this moment, I stand by my characterizations of all Critical Theory, and my reasoning behind my thought process.
Rebecca, if I understand you correctly, the way you would deal with "our organized UU communities of color... such as DRUUMM and Black Lives of Unitarian Universalism," is to tell them that, to the extent they disagree with you, that you "believe they are making a grave mistake" and that you "stand by [your] characterizations" of them as "deeply immoral" and more.
I'm noticing a comment above which reads, "Hello, Rebecca here... It is true that I believe identitarianism to be deeply immoral, and a grave mistake." I assume that that comment is from Rebecca Mattis? Recognizing the historic and ongoing marginalization of Black people in the US, I think it's normal and healthy for Black people to come together for their collective empowerment in the face of that marginalization. Even if I disagree with those efforts for some reason, I would not characterize them as "deeply immoral." To me that seems unnecessarily harsh and dismissive.
What I'm seeing is a statement that says it's from Rebecca saying that "It is true that I believe identitarianism to be deeply immoral, and a grave mistake." I guess I'm not sure how to square that statement with statements saying you would never say Black people coming together for their collective empowerment are deeply immoral. What if Black people come together with a pro-Black agenda that you believe is "identitarian"?
Rebecca, you have not to my knowledge used the strong, negative, divisive language about people themselves, but about the perspectives, which you call “Critical Race Theory” and “identitarianism”, which have been equated with identity-based groups including our organized UU People of Color, disabled UUs, trans and non binary UUs, youth and young adult UUs, and supporters of UU anti racism efforts.
While your intent may have been benevolent, can you understand the unfortunate impacts and concerns that some delegates and marginalized groups are feeling?
Now, it is very likely true that some, or even many, of the individuals in the groups you mention [organized groups of UU people of color, disabled UUs, trans and non binary UUs, youth and young adults UUs] do believe in racism and other forms of identitarianism. And if that is so - yes, I believe they are making a grave mistake.”
According to your statement, believing in racism is a grave mistake.
Do you mean to say that believing racism exists is a grave mistake? Or that UU people of color organizing around shared identity and experiences, and supporting one another with them, and raising concerns about their experiences of racism, is a grace mistake?
For folks reading “all critical theories”, which the candidate strongly opposes, refers to what Wikipedia describes thusly:
“A critical theory is any approach to social philosophy that focuses on reflective assessment and critique of society and culture to reveal and challenge power structures.”
I personally see value in this, and it seems like it is in line with UU values.
Hello Anonymous, Rebecca here. Please allow me to define my terms. Critical Theories are worldviews that understand power as the basis of all social interaction. I don't support this view and I find it destructive of the social fabric. I see sharing as the basis of healthy social interaction, and that is what I try to promote. - Rebecca
This seems like something of a "straw man" argument. In other words, no one I've ever met says that racism or any other power structure is THE basis of ALL social interaction. When a cashier tells me, "Have a pleasant afternoon," after ringing up my purchase of laundry detergent, I don't necessarily think critical race theory helps me understand that social interaction. At the same time, I believe it's irresponsible not to acknowledge the well-documented and significant effects of racism on virtual all aspects of society. I don't understand how trying to understand the effects of racism is destructive (except to racist power systems), or how doing so would keep people from "sharing" or working together. Indeed, we can all come together as one, regardless of our race, color, or creed, to crush White supremacy.
Thanks for helping clarify your statement about racism and “identitarianism” and grave mistakes. The wording confused me. I am grateful to sort this out.
Are you saying that, if I better understand, it is very likely true that some or even many members if, for example UU people of color, believe in racism “and other forms of identitarianism”? Do you mean that some or many members of such groups believe racism exists? Or that they are engaged or complicit in racism? Do you believe UUs of color organized and supporting one another via groups like DRUUMM and BLUU are engaging in racism by doing so?
Your comments seem to indicate that you believe UU groups organized and providing mutual support to one another around experiences like being targeted by racism or ableism is something negative, which you call “identitarianism”. Your comment above seems to indicate that you consider identitarianism to be racist and/or otherwise oppressive or unjust. Is that accurate?
Thank you for your time and your efforts toward transparency. It is appreciated..
Hi Anonymous, Rebecca here. I believe that any group of people has the right to organize to pursue justice, fairness, equal access, mutual support, etc. Racism obviously exists, as do all other forms of identity-based prejudice and discrimination. I believe that to value or devalue someone based upon their identity labels, whether self-claimed or imposed, is wrong. To discriminate against someone, to force them into a stereotype, based upon certain identity categories, is unjust. I hope that answers your question! -Rebecca
I appreciate those sentiments but it doesn’t answer my question. When asked whether and how you would relate to groups like those organized among UUs of color, trans and non binary UUs, disabled UUs, etc and their concerns, you frequently respond with comments like “I am not an identitarian” rather than speaking to the issues directly. It seems that you might feel that such groups are engaged in, as you put it, discriminating, forcing someone into something, or otherwise engaging in something unjust.
Perhaps you can respond without deferring to your opposition to what you call “identitarianism”. How do you feel about groups like DRUUMM, BLUU, EQUUAL Access, TRUUST, YARN and others? (I know you are new to denominational involvement beyond your local congregation, so if you’re not yet familiar with these groups I can further explain who / what they are.) Do you have concerns or objections to then organizing themselves as they do? If so, why? What concerns of such groups are you aware of, and how would you address them?
I have no objection whatsoever to people organizing around common interest. When I say "I'm not identitarian" I mean I do not value or devalue a person (or group) based upon their label. My main concern as a candidate for trustee is how the UUA can best serve the needs of its member congregations. That's my point of view here - I'm a regular UU, wishing for more democracy and more diversity of thought within the UUA.
Do you believe then that UUs organizing communities around racial identity - such as DRUUMM and BLUU, two organizations of UU people of color - are engaged in racism, or anything else objectionable? Reply
Hello, Ms. Mattis, my question for the debate last night didn't get asked (it is great they had such an onslaught of questions though).
Would you kindly give your reply here? It is somewhat a follow-up to my question asked during the third Town Hall (but somewhat mangled, along with my name, LOL, by the presenter when the question was put to you), regarding Ms. Seese's suggestion for those who don't agree with her to form their own branch of UU.
This was clarified then and several times since by Ms. Seese, but still, to my understanding, maintains the viewpoint that her beliefs, values, and approaches are the true UU ones, while others who emphasize different beliefs, values, and approaches are the interlopers and should be the ones to be "helped" to found a new branch of UU.
The question I intended you to answer is posted in its entirety on the 5th Principle website.
Here is the follow-up question (and I'd be interested in more complete responses to both questions, if you are willing):
UUs are arguing about issues of "anti-racism/marginalization" versus "identitarianism/safetyism." How specifically would you use UUA processes both to help heal these conflicts and to advance anti-marginalization efforts our 2nd and 6th Principles support?
Hi, K., Rebecca here. As to a possible split, while I have seen a couple of UU congregations in which that has happened, it is not something I would like to see. I want to build the social fabric, not tear it. The way I would hold arguments is to make a place for arguments. I would like to see UU World have a letters to the editor section again. I would like to see the online magazine have comments. I would like to see people model good-faith disagreement - not an easy thing in today's climate, but it has been done and it is possible to do. I am a member of Braver Angels, and that group has a well-developed structure for building connections across disagreement.
Rebecca, if you'd like to model good-faith disagreement, please don't accuse me of arguing in bad faith. That hurt. I assume you are arguing in good faith, and I would appreciate the same respect returned to me.
Rebecca, one word of advice. Ask a single question of Tom Clowes if you're inclinded, then cut him loose and ignore him afterword. He is a known troller. Just FYI.
I'm so grateful that you are trying to bring the UU back to its core principles, which provide a foundation for clear seeing, sound ethics, mutual respect, and right action.
Really refreshing to hear your perspective Rebecca. Sometimes ideas can sound so good and appeal to our desire to be good and do good in the world, but then when put into action do more harm than good. That seems to be happening a lot recently, and sometimes we need to slow down and consider things about more rather than going full steam ahead.
Ms. Mattis, perhaps you can answer these questions: Is the following a statement or a question: (1) "Some UU people of color who are not African-American, whose ethnic group has not suffered anything like what African-Americans have suffered, appear to be appropriating the moral authority of African-Americans." If a question, is this part, "people of color who are not African-American, whose ethnic group has not suffered anything like what African-Americans have suffered," a question or a conclusion? (2) Is it only wrong when ministers fear social conflict, pushback or shunning and/or being forced out of their congregations for expressing "anti-CRT" (for lack of a better, brief label) views or also for ministers who experience these same fears or reality over "pro-CRT" views?
Hi K., Rebecca here. I believe that Liberal Religion should make room for all people, as much as possible. It can take a lot of courage to have conversations with others who disagree. But I've seen it done. At my own congregation, there are a wide variety of philosophical and spiritual beliefs, different opinions about how to make the world a better place, different opinions about what Sunday services should look like, etc. We all get along pretty well. Sometimes there are hard feelings, but a little forgiveness goes a long way.
As much as possible, no one should be shunned for their beliefs. People's beliefs point to needs and values they have, and a whole lot of those needs and values are universal. I think we should spend a lot more time connecting over shared needs and values.
Hi! I have a different kind of question than the ones I see being asked.
As you probably know, the UUA Board has long played a complex role in building a multigenerational faith movement, including empowering youth and young adults and advocating for institutional resources for their organized communities, . I suppose you might call them “identitarian” because they are based on age and geared toward specific groups of UUs who have at times been marginalized in our denomination, and in society.
In my experience, the most effective trustees are those entering their roles with strong relationships with denominational youth and young adult groups, like the Youth Caucus and the Young Adult Revival Network and the Youth trustee(s), and who have a strong sense of those groups’ needs and concerns, and strategy for addressing those.
I am familiar with your opponent’s experience in this area, like she having herself been a denominational young adult leader and connected with YARN. But I am not familiar with your own. Can you share what kind of relationships and communication you have had with denominational youth and young adult leaders and groups in your campaign? Also please share some insights into what these groups’ needs and concerns are, how it relates to the Board’s work, and how you would address those group needs and concerns as a trustee?
Ms. Mattis, a note of caution in case you are not familiar with UUA bylaws (which are passed democratically) specifically election policy:
“Rule G-9.13.9. Separation of Campaigns from Conduct of Official Business.
When running for office, candidates shall be prohibited from engaging in any electioneering or campaigning during the conduct of official business of the Unitarian Universalist Association.”
My understanding, which may be corrected by the Elections officials, includes, for example, distributing or displaying campaign materials in the GA plenaries. I would also suggest caution for a candidate regarding promoting their candidacy during participation in GA.
Pardon my errors above. It is during GA business sessions, not GA in general, that campaign activities, such as making plenary comments in support of a campaign, that I believe may violate bylaws. Better to be on the safe side with that and stick to statements relating directly and only to the business currently being discussed during the plenary.
Ms Mattis, because General Assembly is such a big part of the Trustees work, can you tell us about your experiences with participating in GAs and what you observed when you’ve been there?
ReplyDeleteHello Karen, Rebecca here. I have never participated in GA; this will be my first year. My main interest in GA as a Trustee would be to do everything I could to promote full democracy, by encouraging the Nominating Committee to nominate more than one person for each seat, as well as encouraging people to run by petition. I would also do everything I could to promote diversity of thought and belief at GA, as befits a liberal religion.
DeleteThank you Ms Mattis. I did not realize you had not participated in General Assembly before. does this mean you have not been to GA on site but been an offsite delegate, or is GA participation entirely new to you? If this is your first on site GA this year, my tip is to pace yourself and self care because it is a big event with alot of good programming going on.
DeleteIn terms of potential leadership as a trustee, do you anticipate any challenges as someone new to GA? And How would you build relationships with all the stakeholder groups, including the many that put their faith in action on anti racism initiatives? Thanks Ms Mattis.
If I properly understand, you are new to General Assembly, and new to UU anti-racism undertakings. I believe you are also a strong public critic of what you level as “Critical Race Theory”. You also describe our UU Association of Congregations being “dogmatic” or “authoritarian”.
ReplyDeleteAs I was first learning about our UU history and its long-standing, democratic commitment to racial justice - which our General Assembly has reaffirmed many times - this document was really helpful. I encourage you to learn more about the history behind where we are now:
https://bit.ly/3z8UBia
Rebecca, you've argued that "...the most highly paid, most highly educated, and least incarcerated racial group in this country is not white, but Asian. Since it finds its success within American institutions, can those institutions truly be described as maintaining the dominance of whites? CRT’s only response to this argument is to say Asians must actually be white." Are you aware of the "Model Minority Myth"? Do you know why most Asians consider the Model Minority Myth offensive? - Tom Clowes
ReplyDeleteHi Tom, Rebecca here. I am indeed aware of the model minority myth. I believe it serves to belittle the human struggles of Asian Americans. That myth has nothing to do with the demographic statistics quoted here, which are true, not false, and are therefore real, not mythical. It is not I, however, who claim that Asian Americans are "white adjacent," but the proponents of identitarian models like CRT.
DeleteRebecca, the Model Minority Myth says that racism can't be so bad because Asians are doing great in the US. This is exactly the (rather insensitive) argument you've made. It understandably offends Asian Americans and other people of color, and there are many problems with it. For starters, the highly educated, wealthy, ambitious Korean, Japanese, and Chinese people who choose to immigrate to the US are a self-selecting group. In fact, any immigrant group is a self-selecting group of generally ambitious people willing to leave their homeland. The circumstances are incomparable to African Americans who were brought in slavery, brutalized and dehumanized, and continue to live in a society today that says, every day, that their lives don't matter. Another problem with your Model Minority Myth statement is that Asian Americans are no monolith. While highly-educated, wealthy, ambitious immigrants do well financially, this group generally doesn't include Burmese, Hmong, Cambodians, Rohingya... Asian Americans as a whole actually experience higher-than-average rates of poverty. Additionally, not all racism is economic. A Korean-American physician assistant, as an example, might make a comfortable salary, but he will still tend to be passed over for management, and will also tend to be passed over for a date! Perhaps people will ask him "So, where are you from?" and when he responds, "Kalamazoo," they will ask him, "But, where are you really from?" I could continue about non-economic forms of anti-Asian racism, but my point is, the argument you've advanced is both inaccurate and offensive.
DeleteIf you believe the Model Minority Myth "belittle[s] the human struggles of Asian Americans," then please stop advancing it.
DeleteTom, you are putting false words in my mouth, describing an argument I have never made in my life. I know what the Model Minority Myth is, and I do not uphold it. I have never made any argument at all regarding racism against Asian Americans. Further, as an anti-identitarian, I know perfectly well that Asian Americans are not a monolith. I also know that Asian Americans experience racism. Please stop the bad-faith, straw-man comments.
DeleteRebecca, are these your words? "...the most highly paid, most highly educated, and least incarcerated racial group in this country is not white, but Asian. Since it finds its success within American institutions, can those institutions truly be described as maintaining the dominance of whites?"
DeleteHi Tom, Rebecca here. I think I understand what the issue is. There are two kinds of racism: interpersonal and systemic. Interpersonal is what we might call the common definition - prejudice and unkindness (or worse) based on race. Systemic racism describes something I have never really seen analyzed well, only described in a form of circular reasoning, but most people use racial disparities on measures like income, education, and incarceration as evidence of racism on a systemic level.
DeleteFighting systemic racism has produced interpersonal racism on a fairly massive scale - we could call that institutional racism. For example, Asians are routinely discriminated against in applications to elite high schools, colleges, and universities, because they are considered to be "overrepresented" in those institutions.
In my state, funds for schools are determined by property tax values. Because of redlining, Black neighborhoods are property-poor neighborhoods. So, Black schools are funded less than White schools. In addition, in my city of Chicago, property in Black neighborhoods is taxed at a higher rate than property in White neighborhoods, in part because people in White neighborhoods tend to have more resources to appeal property valuations. Are these examples of systemic racism? Why or why not? If systemic racism doesn't exist, what accounts for society's racial disparities in education, income, and more?
DeleteHi, Rebecca here. There are so many examples of systemic racism! One of the biggest, in my view as a teacher, is the utter abandonment of students in poverty in this country, and especially black students. The disparities are outrageous, and I believe I can point to race-based - or at least, race-motivated - policies that directly hurt those children and young people.
DeleteThe question is, am I correct? Are there other factors, both race-based and non-race based, that also contribute to these disparities? This is what a responsible person would find out if they would like to create good social policy. It would involve a whole lot of fact-finding and careful discernment.
These conversations should be encouraged, not shut down. That is my platform. Discernment requires disagreement. The UUA and UUism in general should be modeling robust dialogue on these subjects and many more, not creating orthodoxy and shutting people down who support different strategies to promote justice.
Rebecca, you call for careful fact-finding to determine whether education is in fact affected by systemic racism. As a teacher, are you aware extensive high-quality research has already been carried out that answers this question?
DeleteHi Tom, Rebecca here. Indeed, I have read quite extensively on the subject. There is quite a variety of points of view. That is why forums need to exist in which disagreement can take place - so that we can more clearly understand how best to be of service in our communities and beyond.
DeleteRebecca, to say there are "a variety of points of view" about whether racism affects education is like saying there are "a variety of points of view" about the existence of climate change or the effectiveness of vaccines. High-quality research has time and again shown that racism negatively affects Black students. (You could also simply believe most Black people.) To not acknowledge this is wrong and hurtful.
DeleteTom, I did not say that there are "a variety of points of view about whether racism affects education." I said there are a variety of points of view on the subject of racism in education - that is to say, there are a variety of points of view about HOW racism affects education.
DeleteYour climate change example is a good one. There are a variety of points of view about how best to fight, mitigate, and/or adapt to climate change. The science is clear on the cause, but social reality is not so clear on the solution.
That is why we so desperately need to discuss these ideas - so that we can work most effectively for the outcomes that we desire.
Rebecca, thanks for clarifying. I took the following to mean that you questioned whether systemic racism negatively impacted Black students: "The disparities are outrageous, and I believe I can point to race-based - or at least, race-motivated - policies that directly hurt those children and young people.
DeleteThe question is, am I correct? Are there other factors, both race-based and non-race based, that also contribute to these disparities?" However, it seems that you are in fact affirming that systemic racism negatively affects Black students, and I agree with you. While I believe Black people together know best what solutions would work best to counteract that racism, I also agree with you that reasonable people could disagree about the exact measures that should be taken.
I suppose I still disagree that there are "a variety of points of view about HOW racism affects education" - this too is well-researched and well-documented (or, again, just ask Black people). But again I appreciate that you affirm the existence of anti-Blackness in education; I think that's important. Cheers.
DeleteHi,
DeleteJust reading through this conversation and what I see from one side of the argument is an assertion of their perspective as truth. Systemic racism is not a closed discussion and has not been for quite some time. You need only look at the works of academics such as Thomas Sowell, Glenn Loury, Roland Fryer, and many others who have published extensive research into the matter.
The issue tends to be that systemic analysis is very difficult because of the large number of variables that influence it. Many people see a disparity and assume it to be the result of discrimination, but multi-variate analysis rarely shows that to be the case.
The statement "multi-variate analysis rarely shows that [systemic racism] to be the case." is simply untrue.
DeleteThere are really just a couple possible explanations for racial disparities:
1. Black people could be worse people than White people.
2. Black people could be existing in an environment where they are marginalized.
But we know that #1 isn't true, because race is a social construct, not a biological one, as confirmed by pretty much all scientists in the field. That leaves #2. But people sadly cling to the racist explanation, #1. So much for following the science.
RC, what evidence of systemic racism in the criminal justice system would it take to prove to you that it exists?
Lastly, I'm really not a fan of White people selectively promoting Black viewpoints for their White-friendliness. If you really believe Black people, for example, have about ten cents for every White dollar of wealth and it's because something's wrong with Black people, why not quote - I dunno - Tucker Carlson? Why find the handful of Black people who have those views that are so unrepresentative of Black viewpoints? Again, to be clear, I have no problem with Thomas Sowell, but I have a huge problem with White people selectively promoting Black viewpoints that are highly unrepresentative of most Black people.
Honestly this whole page is really racially offensive. I'm quite disappointed with my siblings in faith right now. I hope you all go and reflect on your views and yourselves.
- highly disappointed Tom
"There is really only a couple of possible explanations for racial disparities"
DeleteThat statement unfortunately illustrates a significant lack of understanding of the complexities of society. A single phenomenon of disparity will likely have a dozen or more contributing factors, not least the fact that complete parity has never existed anywhere.
You can call it "racially offensive" for people to want to understand issues and find effective solutions Thringstone debate and exploration, rather than the adoption of presupposed ideological positions, but I would argue that to presume me to be white and imply that somehow devalues my contribution, and to describe Thomas Sowell as "not representative of most black people" because you don't agree with him, rather than viewing him as an expert who has committed his life to understanding these issues, demonstrates a much more significant racism. There's only one person here arguing that people should be judged on the colour of their skin, and that should be cause for reflection.
Apologies for typo - "Thringstone" was supposed to be "through". Blogspot isn't well optimised for phones.
Delete"That statement unfortunately illustrates a significant lack of understanding of the complexities of society. A single phenomenon of disparity will likely have a dozen or more contributing factors, not least the fact that complete parity has never existed anywhere." Naw. This is fancy language, but it's wrong. There are studies that control for these "contributing factors" and they show racism is present, significant, and harmful. You could Google studies about identical resumes with White names and Black names for one example among hundreds. Or the racism difference between traffic stops in the daytime and the nighttime, when drivers are harder to racially identify. Among thousands of others. Are you brave enough to do so?
DeleteBelieving that there are factors other than racism that explain racial disparities is just wrong. If you know that the entire existence of race as a social construct was created to justify slavery and has no real biological reality, then you know that absent racism, racial disparities would have the same significance as disparities between, say, tall and short people.
Delete"You can call it "racially offensive" for people to want to understand issues and find effective solutions." Naw. But if you truly want to understand racial issues, again, Google high-quality research on the effects of race and racism and let me know what you find. You could also just listen to most Black people.
Delete"I'm really not a fan of White people selectively promoting Black viewpoints for their White-friendliness." RC, this statement wasn't referring to you. But, as they say, "a hit dog will holler."
DeleteDescribing Thomas Sowell as "not representative of most Black people" (FYI, I prefer to capitalize" Black" of we're referring to a specific group of people rather than the color) is simply a statement of fact. And, I went to lengths to explain I have no problem with Sowell. Again, I have a problem with White people cherry-picking and giving a megaphone to Black views because of their White-friendliness.
DeleteI always find it amusing when the same people who say "Maybe there are other factors here besides race to explain why Black people keep getting s**t on" are also the ones who jump to say I'm being racist. In our words, the same people who try to explain away anti-Blackness as anything but racism are the same ones who rush to call their opponents "racist." It amuses me.
I was struck by your public comments about what you call “Critical Race Theory”, comments which various UU People of Color have raised concerns about (examples below). These statements seem to conflict with your stated commitment to “working across the aisle” with UUs of various perspectives? How would you in fact work with the many supporters of current UU anti-racism efforts which are varied depending on local context? Particularly UU people of color?
ReplyDeleteYour statements have included:
“My sense of justice compels me to oppose critical race theory in all its forms, because it is both objectively incorrect and morally wrong as a driver of public policy.”
“In making a virtue of bias, CRT turns itself into snake oil, a double evil. It fails to treat the illness, and it may cause its own disease.”
“CRT teaches people (of all ages) that, outside of activism, people of color have no agency and people of pallor have no morality. In promoting this limiting, racialized, radicalized view of people and society, it is set to take us down some very dark paths.”
“As an ideology, I find CRT deeply cynical and inhumane.”
“[Critical race theory] is perversely white-supremacist.”
“[Critical race theory] merely blames every disparity upon systemic racism, without ever defining systemic racism as anything other than “that which causes racial disparities.” It’s circular reasoning and as such, is at best a useless tool. At worst, it’s a wrecking ball: The only solution it offers is to tear down society, with no plans to build anything in its place.”
“I must make clear that since a certain kind of anti-racism is the “activist arm” of CRT, it is much more diffuse and potentially more extreme than anything explicitly promoted by academic critical race theorists. However, CRT-informed activism seems to cohere around the central idea of race consciousness. It has become a norm within academia and media that a person’s skin color not only does, but should, determine whether they are an agent or a victim, the value of their point of view, and what their point of view ought to be. This is by definition, racist, and is exactly what people who attack CRT are objecting to.”
Hello, Rebecca here. In my five years as a public servant, I have made several strong statements based in my liberal principles. During that time, I was working (and continue to work) with people "across the aisle" who disagree with me. Disagreeing with someone does not mean you can't work with them. In fact, the opposite is true. As a public servant I have always sought and encouraged robust discussion and debate in order to discern the best possible ways to meet human need. It is true that I believe identitarianism to be deeply immoral, and a grave mistake. That's why I argue so passionately against it. Still, I have always worked with identitarians, and will continue to do so. I also want to say that it is a mistake to assume that all people of color, or UUs of color, hold identitarian worldviews. There is as broad a range of thought among UUs of color as there is among any other large group of people.
ReplyDeleteYou describe viewpoints of fellow UUs - including organized communities of UUs of color, disabled UUs, transgender UUs, youth and young adult UUs, and the majority of our voting delegates in recent years - as "deeply immoral", a "double evil", "deeply cynical", "inhumane", "perversely white-supremacist", and making a "grave mistake" and "taking us down some very dark paths". In light of your very strong statements and their divisiveness, how would you build trust and collaboration among UUs with varying viewpoints?
DeleteAnd of course there is a broad range of views among UUs in general, and among members of different UU groups including UUs of color. That said, how would you work with our organized UU communities of color (which are diverse in membership and viewpoints), such as DRUUMM and Black Lives of Unitarian Universalism? What challenges do you foresee and how would you overcome them?
Hi Anonymous, Rebecca here. I have no evidence whatsoever that "organized communities of UUs of color, disabled UUs, transgender UUs, youth and young adult UUs, and the majority of our voting delegates in recent years" are Critical Race Theorists. I don't know why you say that. Do you have any such evidence?
DeleteNow, it is very likely true that some, or even many, of the individuals in the groups you mention do believe in racism and other forms of identitarianism. And if that is so - yes, I believe they are making a grave mistake.
While acknowledging that there is an infinity of knowledge I do not possess, based upon what I have studied and what I do understand in this moment, I stand by my characterizations of all Critical Theory, and my reasoning behind my thought process.
Rebecca, if I understand you correctly, the way you would deal with "our organized UU communities of color... such as DRUUMM and Black Lives of Unitarian Universalism," is to tell them that, to the extent they disagree with you, that you "believe they are making a grave mistake" and that you "stand by [your] characterizations" of them as "deeply immoral" and more.
DeleteNope. I would not.
DeleteI confused. Did you describe your ideological opponents as "deeply immoral"? If so, do you stand by that statement?
DeleteNope, never did.
DeleteI'm noticing a comment above which reads, "Hello, Rebecca here... It is true that I believe identitarianism to be deeply immoral, and a grave mistake." I assume that that comment is from Rebecca Mattis?
DeleteRecognizing the historic and ongoing marginalization of Black people in the US, I think it's normal and healthy for Black people to come together for their collective empowerment in the face of that marginalization. Even if I disagree with those efforts for some reason, I would not characterize them as "deeply immoral." To me that seems unnecessarily harsh and dismissive.
I never, ever called people coming together for collective empowerment "deeply immoral." And I never would.
Delete-Rebecca Mattis
What I'm seeing is a statement that says it's from Rebecca saying that "It is true that I believe identitarianism to be deeply immoral, and a grave mistake."
DeleteI guess I'm not sure how to square that statement with statements saying you would never say Black people coming together for their collective empowerment are deeply immoral. What if Black people come together with a pro-Black agenda that you believe is "identitarian"?
Rebecca, you have not to my knowledge used the strong, negative, divisive language about people themselves, but about the perspectives, which you call “Critical Race Theory” and “identitarianism”, which have been equated with identity-based groups including our organized UU People of Color, disabled UUs, trans and non binary UUs, youth and young adult UUs, and supporters of UU anti racism efforts.
DeleteWhile your intent may have been benevolent, can you understand the unfortunate impacts and concerns that some delegates and marginalized groups are feeling?
Now, it is very likely true that some, or even many, of the individuals in the groups you mention [organized groups of UU people of color, disabled UUs, trans and non binary UUs, youth and young adults UUs] do believe in racism and other forms of identitarianism. And if that is so - yes, I believe they are making a grave mistake.”
DeleteAccording to your statement, believing in racism is a grave mistake.
Do you mean to say that believing racism exists is a grave mistake? Or that UU people of color organizing around shared identity and experiences, and supporting one another with them, and raising concerns about their experiences of racism, is a grace mistake?
DeleteFor folks reading “all critical theories”, which the candidate strongly opposes, refers to what Wikipedia describes thusly:
Delete“A critical theory is any approach to social philosophy that focuses on reflective assessment and critique of society and culture to reveal and challenge power structures.”
I personally see value in this, and it seems like it is in line with UU values.
Hello Anonymous, Rebecca here. Please allow me to define my terms. Critical Theories are worldviews that understand power as the basis of all social interaction. I don't support this view and I find it destructive of the social fabric. I see sharing as the basis of healthy social interaction, and that is what I try to promote. - Rebecca
DeleteHello Anonymous, Rebecca here. I believe racism is a grave mistake.
DeleteThis seems like something of a "straw man" argument. In other words, no one I've ever met says that racism or any other power structure is THE basis of ALL social interaction. When a cashier tells me, "Have a pleasant afternoon," after ringing up my purchase of laundry detergent, I don't necessarily think critical race theory helps me understand that social interaction. At the same time, I believe it's irresponsible not to acknowledge the well-documented and significant effects of racism on virtual all aspects of society. I don't understand how trying to understand the effects of racism is destructive (except to racist power systems), or how doing so would keep people from "sharing" or working together. Indeed, we can all come together as one, regardless of our race, color, or creed, to crush White supremacy.
DeleteThanks for helping clarify your statement about racism and “identitarianism” and grave mistakes. The wording confused me. I am grateful to sort this out.
DeleteAre you saying that, if I better understand, it is very likely true that some or even many members if, for example UU people of color, believe in racism “and other forms of identitarianism”? Do you mean that some or many members of such groups believe racism exists? Or that they are engaged or complicit in racism? Do you believe UUs of color organized and supporting one another via groups like DRUUMM and BLUU are engaging in racism by doing so?
Your comments seem to indicate that you believe UU groups organized and providing mutual support to one another around experiences like being targeted by racism or ableism is something negative, which you call “identitarianism”. Your comment above seems to indicate that you consider identitarianism to be racist and/or otherwise oppressive or unjust. Is that accurate?
Thank you for your time and your efforts toward transparency. It is appreciated..
Hi Anonymous, Rebecca here. I believe that any group of people has the right to organize to pursue justice, fairness, equal access, mutual support, etc. Racism obviously exists, as do all other forms of identity-based prejudice and discrimination. I believe that to value or devalue someone based upon their identity labels, whether self-claimed or imposed, is wrong. To discriminate against someone, to force them into a stereotype, based upon certain identity categories, is unjust.
DeleteI hope that answers your question! -Rebecca
I appreciate those sentiments but it doesn’t answer my question. When asked whether and how you would relate to groups like those organized among UUs of color, trans and non binary UUs, disabled UUs, etc and their concerns, you frequently respond with comments like “I am not an identitarian” rather than speaking to the issues directly. It seems that you might feel that such groups are engaged in, as you put it, discriminating, forcing someone into something, or otherwise engaging in something unjust.
DeletePerhaps you can respond without deferring to your opposition to what you call “identitarianism”. How do you feel about groups like DRUUMM, BLUU, EQUUAL Access, TRUUST, YARN and others? (I know you are new to denominational involvement beyond your local congregation, so if you’re not yet familiar with these groups I can further explain who / what they are.) Do you have concerns or objections to then organizing themselves as they do? If so, why? What concerns of such groups are you aware of, and how would you address them?
I have no objection whatsoever to people organizing around common interest. When I say "I'm not identitarian" I mean I do not value or devalue a person (or group) based upon their label.
DeleteMy main concern as a candidate for trustee is how the UUA can best serve the needs of its member congregations. That's my point of view here - I'm a regular UU, wishing for more democracy and more diversity of thought within the UUA.
Do you believe then that UUs organizing communities around racial identity - such as DRUUMM and BLUU, two organizations of UU people of color - are engaged in racism, or anything else objectionable?
DeleteReply
Hello, Ms. Mattis, my question for the debate last night didn't get asked (it is great they had such an onslaught of questions though).
ReplyDeleteWould you kindly give your reply here? It is somewhat a follow-up to my question asked during the third Town Hall (but somewhat mangled, along with my name, LOL, by the presenter when the question was put to you), regarding Ms. Seese's suggestion for those who don't agree with her to form their own branch of UU.
This was clarified then and several times since by Ms. Seese, but still, to my understanding, maintains the viewpoint that her beliefs, values, and approaches are the true UU ones, while others who emphasize different beliefs, values, and approaches are the interlopers and should be the ones to be "helped" to found a new branch of UU.
The question I intended you to answer is posted in its entirety on the 5th Principle website.
Here is the follow-up question (and I'd be interested in more complete responses to both questions, if you are willing):
UUs are arguing about issues of "anti-racism/marginalization" versus "identitarianism/safetyism." How specifically would you use UUA processes both to help heal these conflicts and to advance anti-marginalization efforts our 2nd and 6th Principles support?
Hi, K., Rebecca here. As to a possible split, while I have seen a couple of UU congregations in which that has happened, it is not something I would like to see. I want to build the social fabric, not tear it.
DeleteThe way I would hold arguments is to make a place for arguments. I would like to see UU World have a letters to the editor section again. I would like to see the online magazine have comments. I would like to see people model good-faith disagreement - not an easy thing in today's climate, but it has been done and it is possible to do. I am a member of Braver Angels, and that group has a well-developed structure for building connections across disagreement.
Rebecca, if you'd like to model good-faith disagreement, please don't accuse me of arguing in bad faith. That hurt. I assume you are arguing in good faith, and I would appreciate the same respect returned to me.
DeleteRebecca, one word of advice. Ask a single question of Tom Clowes if you're inclinded, then cut him loose and ignore him afterword. He is a known troller. Just FYI.
ReplyDeleteI don't know who is making these hurtful comments anonymously, but I would prefer they attack my ideas rather than me personally. Thank you.
DeleteAnswer a single question. Sorry for the typo. Just don't feed the troll(s).
ReplyDeleteI'm so grateful that you are trying to bring the UU back to its core principles, which provide a foundation for clear seeing, sound ethics, mutual respect, and right action.
ReplyDeleteReally refreshing to hear your perspective Rebecca. Sometimes ideas can sound so good and appeal to our desire to be good and do good in the world, but then when put into action do more harm than good. That seems to be happening a lot recently, and sometimes we need to slow down and consider things about more rather than going full steam ahead.
ReplyDeleteAmen to that MLK quote, Tom! It couldn’t apply more.
DeleteMs. Mattis, perhaps you can answer these questions:
DeleteIs the following a statement or a question:
(1) "Some UU people of color who are not African-American, whose ethnic group has not suffered anything like what African-Americans have suffered, appear to be appropriating the moral authority of African-Americans." If a question, is this part, "people of color who are not African-American, whose ethnic group has not suffered anything like what African-Americans have suffered," a question or a conclusion?
(2) Is it only wrong when ministers fear social conflict, pushback or shunning and/or being forced out of their congregations for expressing "anti-CRT" (for lack of a better, brief label) views or also for ministers who experience these same fears or reality over "pro-CRT" views?
Hi K., Rebecca here. I believe that Liberal Religion should make room for all people, as much as possible. It can take a lot of courage to have conversations with others who disagree. But I've seen it done. At my own congregation, there are a wide variety of philosophical and spiritual beliefs, different opinions about how to make the world a better place, different opinions about what Sunday services should look like, etc. We all get along pretty well. Sometimes there are hard feelings, but a little forgiveness goes a long way.
DeleteAs much as possible, no one should be shunned for their beliefs. People's beliefs point to needs and values they have, and a whole lot of those needs and values are universal. I think we should spend a lot more time connecting over shared needs and values.
Hi! I have a different kind of question than the ones I see being asked.
ReplyDeleteAs you probably know, the UUA Board has long played a complex role in building a multigenerational faith movement, including empowering youth and young adults and advocating for institutional resources for their organized communities, . I suppose you might call them “identitarian” because they are based on age and geared toward specific groups of UUs who have at times been marginalized in our denomination, and in society.
In my experience, the most effective trustees are those entering their roles with strong relationships with denominational youth and young adult groups, like the Youth Caucus and the Young Adult Revival Network and the Youth trustee(s), and who have a strong sense of those groups’ needs and concerns, and strategy for addressing those.
I am familiar with your opponent’s experience in this area, like she having herself been a denominational young adult leader and connected with YARN. But I am not familiar with your own. Can you share what kind of relationships and communication you have had with denominational youth and young adult leaders and groups in your campaign? Also please share some insights into what these groups’ needs and concerns are, how it relates to the Board’s work, and how you would address those group needs and concerns as a trustee?
Thanks very much!
Ms. Mattis, a note of caution in case you are not familiar with UUA bylaws (which are passed democratically) specifically election policy:
ReplyDelete“Rule G-9.13.9. Separation of Campaigns from Conduct of Official Business.
When running for office, candidates shall be prohibited from engaging in any electioneering or campaigning during the conduct of official business of the Unitarian Universalist Association.”
My understanding, which may be corrected by the Elections officials, includes, for example, distributing or displaying campaign materials in the GA plenaries. I would also suggest caution for a candidate regarding promoting their candidacy during participation in GA.
Pardon my errors above. It is during GA business sessions, not GA in general, that campaign activities, such as making plenary comments in support of a campaign, that I believe may violate bylaws. Better to be on the safe side with that and stick to statements relating directly and only to the business currently being discussed during the plenary.
Delete