For the first time...
The first time is special, isn’t it? To be the one to, pardon the pun, enter virgin territory. The person who is first is special, unlike others, is remembered for this accomplishment. Then there’s a wash of other, lesser mortals who are forgotten and the special nature becomes ordinary.
We’re still marking “firsts” even now. Some of them are breakthroughs in science and medicine - first targeted DNA treatments for cancer; first driverless cars; robotic surgery... marvellous innovation! Some firsts are, well, sadly coming late. It’s 2017, and still we’re looking at first black, first Asian, first woman to be recognized. We should have had all of those behind us years ago.
It adds to the sadness when we actually enter debates about who is the best first. Earlier this year, Canada wanted to introduce a woman, other than the Queen, on the currency. Debates about the selection raged, with critics saying that while Viola Desmond was worth honouring there were others who were at least as deserving. When Hillary Clinton won the nomination for presidential candidate, there were critics who said that she wasn’t the best person to be the first woman president.
We imbue pioneers with a burden of perfection. They must, in order to be accepted, be free of flaws, likeable, capable of seeming approachable, well dressed while not appearing to be fashion forward, good family people, religious but secular, articulate but not polished... if a person of colour, not too ethnic, not too different and not “like them.” When they fall short, as they will, then the voices yell, “that’s why [they] don’t belong...” and they work to replace the pioneer with the norm.
How do we change this? How do we break the pattern of beating down the first? First, there needs to be a commitment to change. Then each level in the hierarchy must make the changes. And most of all, stop attacking minor flaws that really have no bearing on performance. Does it matter that a candidate smoked marijuana 30 years ago? I would argue that it’s less important than the candidate’s practices. Someone who stands on a morality platform, for instance, should be immediately vetoed for more than one marriage, or for even a single affair.
I’m anticipating the day when we run out of first for mundane things like heads of companies, countries or organizations. When we’re past the first black/ Asian/ woman / gay to do jobs. We’re getting there. And at a fairly decent pace, too. Let’s make these firsts history, and focus on eliminating disease, poverty, ignorance, torture and bigotry.
We’re still marking “firsts” even now. Some of them are breakthroughs in science and medicine - first targeted DNA treatments for cancer; first driverless cars; robotic surgery... marvellous innovation! Some firsts are, well, sadly coming late. It’s 2017, and still we’re looking at first black, first Asian, first woman to be recognized. We should have had all of those behind us years ago.
It adds to the sadness when we actually enter debates about who is the best first. Earlier this year, Canada wanted to introduce a woman, other than the Queen, on the currency. Debates about the selection raged, with critics saying that while Viola Desmond was worth honouring there were others who were at least as deserving. When Hillary Clinton won the nomination for presidential candidate, there were critics who said that she wasn’t the best person to be the first woman president.
We imbue pioneers with a burden of perfection. They must, in order to be accepted, be free of flaws, likeable, capable of seeming approachable, well dressed while not appearing to be fashion forward, good family people, religious but secular, articulate but not polished... if a person of colour, not too ethnic, not too different and not “like them.” When they fall short, as they will, then the voices yell, “that’s why [they] don’t belong...” and they work to replace the pioneer with the norm.
How do we change this? How do we break the pattern of beating down the first? First, there needs to be a commitment to change. Then each level in the hierarchy must make the changes. And most of all, stop attacking minor flaws that really have no bearing on performance. Does it matter that a candidate smoked marijuana 30 years ago? I would argue that it’s less important than the candidate’s practices. Someone who stands on a morality platform, for instance, should be immediately vetoed for more than one marriage, or for even a single affair.
I’m anticipating the day when we run out of first for mundane things like heads of companies, countries or organizations. When we’re past the first black/ Asian/ woman / gay to do jobs. We’re getting there. And at a fairly decent pace, too. Let’s make these firsts history, and focus on eliminating disease, poverty, ignorance, torture and bigotry.
Comments
Post a Comment