My Position
The three principles that I most wish to protect are the first, fourth, and fifth: the inherent worth 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. I believe the UUA has lately ignored, abandoned, and even sometimes attacked these principles.
As a Trustee I will do all I can to preserve and promote scientific processes and freedom of conscience within our congregations and UU leadership. I will do all I can to foster the relationship between everyday UUs and the UUA. To this end, I believe denominational decision-making authority should be returned to our congregations, and I will sponsor the conversation to end the current regional organizational structure and reconstitute our congregation-led district structure. I will also revisit all of the recommendations of the 2009 Fifth Principle Task Force report.
A delegate shared with me your published writings about “critical race theory”, a term that critics of anti racism efforts including UU. This raises a question: Do you relationships with people of color leaders in our movement? What concerns of theirs are you aware of, and how would you collaborate and build trust with groups like DRUUMM and BLUU? Thank you for your consideration.
ReplyDeleteHello Susan, Rebecca here. I am not an identitarian. I would build relationships among groups and leaders of color within UUism the same way I build all my relationships: by listening and connecting. I would build trust the same way I always do: by telling the truth as best I can at all times.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting question from Susan. I am not sure you answered her questions, maybe Susan can tell us. And What do you mean by identitarian? Does that mean something about having relationships with UU people of color and DRUUMM and BLUU, or their concerns? Thank you Ms Mattis.
DeleteA follow up comment to my earlier question:
DeleteYou mentioned the term "identitarian" again several times during the candidate forum yesterday. Please clarify what you mean.
As you may know, “identitarianism” is a nationalist, white supremacist, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant ideology and movement. That is where the term "identitarian" originates. One can find more information from the Anti-Defamation League and other sources.
It seems you are applying this term to marginalized groups including people of color, which is striking. This seems to particularly happen when you are asked about how you would relate to different stakeholder groups, particularly those marginalized in our congregations and in larger society, including people of color, UUs with disabilities, transgender UUs, and youth and young adults.
Can you share more about why you use this term, and why you apply it to the aforementioned groups? Do you have relationships with these groups? Do you have a sense of these groups' concerns and needs?
I am also curious for your response to one of Susan’s questions above. What concerns are you aware of of people of color in our movement? While of course these groups do not share a monolithic perspective, there are large and diverse organizations like DRUUMM and BLUU to relate to. These organizations have helped amplify a wide range of concerns of UUs around the globe. There are also several books and essays in which these concerns are described in depth.
Hi Karen, Rebecca here. Please see my post, Notes on Our First Principle, for an explanation of what I mean by identitarian. I do not apply this term to marginalized groups, but to a particular worldview, which I do not support. For example, I absolutely support the right for any identity-based special-interest group to exist and to do their best to promote ideas and policies that they believe would be helpful to them.
DeleteI have a big problem when people offload their moral reasoning onto someone else based on that person's skin color or other identity label. This is very, very different from listening to and caring about a person's concerns. The UUA, and frankly a lot of people in the world today, make a grave error when they think that a special interest group (which again, has a right to exist and to promote their arguments) must represent the opinions of everyone of that identity label. The error is compounded, with sometimes terrible results, when reasoned disagreements with the proponents of said groups are characterized as "hateful," "bigoted," etc.
Our UUA does not “think that a special interest group must represent the opinions of everyone of that identity label”. That’s simple not true. It also seems like you are lumping together diverse viewpoints in “the UUA”, and painting them as a monolith which they are not. Isn’t that something you are opposed to others doing?
DeleteI think UUA leadership is presenting itself as a monolith!
DeleteIn every policy, UUA leadership has presented only a single point of view. No more letters to the editor in UU World, no more comments section in the online UU World, regular communications from the UUA promoting what it seems to think is a mandate for Liberation Theology, the Trustees saying that Robert's Rules of Order upholds white supremacy ... it goes on and on. I would love to think there's some diversity of thought there, but I'm not seeing it.
Here is an article from a distinguished professor, Dr Sue Houchins, about what Critical Race Theory actually is and how it’s being “twisted around for political ends”.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.uuworld.org/articles/what-crt
This piece is similar.
Deletehttps://www.uuworld.org/articles/idiots-guide-critical-race-theory
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?