4min readCulture 11 October 2019
When Forbes Magazine released its list of America's 100 Most Innovative leaders in September, it included only one female without even a photo. The resulting firestorm mostly centered around a lack of gender equality. A cursory look at the list also showed a lack of racial diversity.
Yes, Forbes "blew it" as its editor acknowledged on Twitter. It is important to understand such a flawed ranking in the context of who leads our American education systems. We as a society have evolved through legislation such as the 13th,14th, and 15th Amendments, as well as Title IX, to legally bind racist, biased and sexist practices in education. Yet, our school and system leaders do not reflect the majority of students. Leaders of color, and particularly women of color, are experiencing the repercussions of the corporate models even in the education space.
Women of color in the 21st century still find not only a concrete reinforced ceiling but a systematic mindset that their roles are typecasted to a classroom teacher, principal and an allotted few in district and CMO positions. In fact, in the 2019 AASA The School Superintendents Association Salary and Benefits Study based on 1,433 respondents, 90 percent of superintendents were white and overwhelmingly male. Thus making women of color in education endangered, not only in the classroom but at the tables where decisions made can impact the next generation. Our young people, the majority of whom are also of color, are essential to the reorganization of our education system that was built with racist policies and foundations. It's time for change.
To better understand where we are now and the lengths to which we as women of color must go to ensure our voices are heard in this complex system, we must understand the historical role played by women of color in education centuries before the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case came about. Shortly after the inception of public schools in the United States, white women outnumbered males in the teaching workforce. But even then, it was only because the women were seen as "cheaper." After slavery was outlawed, women of color, primarily Black women teaching in the segregated schools of the South, were meant to groom their students for a life of domestic servitude and limited opportunities post-graduation where Black codes that grew into Jim Crow laws confined Blacks to jobs with low wages. The decision of Brown v. Board of Education, while eradicating segregation of public schools on paper if not in total practice, also triggered the decline of educators of color. Decades following the Supreme Court case, 38,000 Black teachers and 2,000 Black principals lost their jobs. The more schools integrated, the less white-lead school boards and faculty hired educators of color as part of their staff. This is just one of many examples of institutional racism which is the systematic distribution of resources, power, and opportunity in our society and its legacy continues to regenerate at this moment.
Today, our system still lacks inclusive representation. Only 20% of the teaching workforce is non-white compared to the 51% of non-white students we serve and we are collectively doing those students an injustice. Research shows that when a student of color has a teacher who shares their same race and ethnic background, their learning grows exponentially and they look beyond to their career aspirations. Yet when I became a new teacher, I was a part of only 6.7% of Black women, and when I became a principal in 2009, I counted as part of the 20% non-white principals in this country. The likelihood of us having colleagues with shared experiences is low and comes with its own implications such as unconsciously enacting internalized racism on students and peers who look just like us if we are not aware.
This lack of inclusive representation continues to permeate when nearly three-quarters of executives in a survey released by the Center for Talent Innovation in 2019 stated their protégés were the same race or gender as them. Leadership takes sponsorship, no matter the industry, private or public. Sponsorship needs to be more inclusive in order to bring more talents, skills and thinking into our systems.
It is essential that we equip women of color in education, like my colleagues at UnboundEd, our partner organizations and those in our cohorts serving schools across the country with leadership tools to navigate the system. This system must also be modernized and re-built equitably. The original system was built to educate the most privileged of white male students. Almost 20 years into the 21st century, we strive to construct a system that educates ALL students with the rigor and equity to lead our country forward as our next professionals, voters, and civic leaders.
So, what's our responsibility as women of color educators and where do we begin to dismantle a system that was designed to not include us at all? We start by acknowledging the need to do the intentional work of undoing years of internalized racism. We must be honest about our own journey as educators, one filled with assimilationist ideas and incentives that so often dilute the beauty of our true intellectual selves. Whether we realize it or not, we see our students and colleagues through racialized lenses, and if we aren't mindful about our actions, we can actually perpetuate these segregationist structures. We must reflect on how our daily behaviors create cycles of inequity in our schools and organizations.
We also become students again. We learn about our collective histories. We learn about ourselves. We learn about people who are different from us and how much we are alike inside. We learn to understand that race is a power construct that must be countered with anti-racist teaching, ideas and policies, as argued by Dr. Ibram X. Kendi in How to be an Antiracist. We must be bold in the face of complacency and the "that's not how we do things here" mindset. We grow in our learning and in our boldness to hold courageous conversations with our white and non-white peers. We must all see our students as creative, resourceful and whole no matter their race, ethnicity, zip code, language or other power constructs.
We model this learning for our students and advocate for changes in our systems. When American history's default is the white experience, we must demand inclusion. Why should the rich histories and American legacies of our students of color be remanded to elective selections? We should all experience the beauty of seeing ourselves as leaders, presidents, trailblazers, scientists, inventors, writers, and any other aspect encompassed in leadership.
All of this work takes work. It takes time. And, it will be worth it. What more of us will understand is that equity benefits us all. It is the true—if not originally intended—meaning of the words found in our Declaration of Independence that "All men are created equal." This has never been the case but it can be the future we--all genders and identities--co-design. We declare our independence of the old race construct that dis-serves and under-serves students and adults of color in our education system. We declare that we are the system now and the system is for everyone, every leader, every student, every family. That's what equity brings. It includes the participation and leadership of the marginalized so everyone contributes to the success of the whole. That's what America's schools can be about. Let's get to work. Let's move forward together.
From Your Site Articles
- Why The Cannabis Industry Became A Magnet For Women and ... ›
- What Most Women Are Afraid To Say About The #MeToo Movement ... ›
- The Visionary Behind Female-Led Production Company, Honor ... ›
- Enslaved But Not Broken: How Girls of Human Trafficking Overcome ... ›
- How these Women-Run Apps Are Changing Sex Education - Swaay ›
- Dear VCs: Making Pledges Or Hiring Diversity Officers Won't Close ... ›
- Does the #MeToo Movement Even Apply to Women of Color? - Swaay ›
Related Articles Around the Web
7 Min Read
Amid the mainstream conversation about inclusion and justice in the workplace, otherwise known as #MeToo, a Silicon Valley venture capital fund considered how they can be more inclusive of the women, minority, and LGBTQ entrepreneurial communities.
Their solution? Ask the CEOs they currently fund to promise to hire senior-level employees from diverse backgrounds.
Lightspeed Venture Partners, a venture capital fund that has investments with blockbuster startups such as The Honest Company, Affirm, and HQ Trivia, has asked its portfolio company CEOs to sign a “side letter" affirming their commitment to consider women and other underrepresented groups for senior jobs and new spots on their board of directors.
Can making pledges— or even hiring a C-Suite level employee to manage diversity efforts— really make an impact on the funding gap for multicultural women-led companies?
Many experts say it's going to take systemic change, not letters of intent.
It is well reported that the amount of investment going to multicultural women-led companies is incongruous to the entrepreneurial landscape and the performance of their businesses. Between 2007 and 2016, there was an increase of 2.8 million companies owned by women of color. Nearly eight out of every 10 new women-owned firms launched since 2007 has been started by a woman of color yet, these businesses receive an abysmal 0.2 percent of all funding. Amanda Johnson and KJ Miller, founders of Mented cosmetics, were just the 15th and 16th Black women in history to raise $1M in the fall of 2017.
The multicultural women who do defeat the odds to get funded receive significantly less than male founders. The average startup founded by a Black woman raises only $36,000 in venture funding, while the average failed startup founded by a White man raises $1.3M before going out of business.
The implicit and explicit bias not only impacts individual multicultural female founders, it could be stifling innovation. For example, companies with above-average diversity on their management teams reported innovation revenue as 45 percent of total revenue compared to just 26 percent of total revenue at companies with below-average management diversity. That means nearly half the revenue of companies with more diverse leadership comes from products and services launched in the past three years.
In our economy today, venture capital is responsible for funding the work of our most innovative companies. Venture capital-backed U.S. companies include some of the most innovative companies in the world. In 2013, VC-backed companies account for a 42 percent of the R&D spending by U.S. public companies.
With a wealth of multicultural women entrepreneurs and evidence to support the performance of diverse companies, why does this funding gap persist?
According to Kristin Hull, founder of Oakland-based Nia Impact Capital and Nia Community, many traditional investors consider women or minority-led businesses as a category in their portfolio, like gaming tech or consumer packaged good. Hull, who focuses on building portfolios where financial returns and social impact work hand-in-hand, argues gender and ethnicity are not a business category and investors who dedicate a specific percent of their portfolio to diverse companies are the ones missing out.
“We are doing this backwards," says Hull. “Adding diverse, women-run companies actually de-risks an investment portfolio."
Hull points to research that has found women are more likely to seek outside help when a company is headed for trouble and operate businesses with less debt on average. What's more, a study conducted by First Round Capital concluded that founding teams including a woman outperform their all-male peers by 63 percent.
Ximena Hardstock, a 43-year-old immigrant from Chile experienced this bias first hand before she raised $5.1M for her tech startup. “How do you get an investor to notice you and take you seriously?" says Hardstock. “White men from Harvard have a track record and investors are all looking for entrepreneurs that fit the Zuckerberg mold. But a woman from Chile with an accent who started a technology company? There is no track record for that and this is a problem so many women of color face."
Hardstock came to the U.S. from the suburbs of Santiago when she was just 20-years-old. Alone with no family or connections in the U.S., Hardstock worked as a cleaning lady, a bartender, and a nanny before she began teaching and working in education. “I had a lot of ideas and Chile is still a very conservative country," she says. “Most women become housewives but I wanted to do something different. So, I moved to the U.S."
Hardstock went on to earn a Ph.D. in policy studies, served as vice president of Advocacy for National StudentsFirst and worked as a member of Washington DC mayor Adrian Fenty's cabinet. Her experience working in both education and government exposed her to a need to simplify the process of connecting lawmakers with their constituents. As a result, Hardstock founded Phone2Action, a digital advocacy company that enables organizations and individual citizens to connect with policymakers via email, Twitter, Alexa and Facebook using their mobile phones.
Because venture capital and private equity are not necessarily meritocracies, Hardstock initially struggled to get in an audience with the right investors despite her company's growth potential, her experience, and her education. In fact, it wasn't until she won a competition at SXSW in 2015 that she could get an audience with a serious venture capitalist.
While it may seem like symptoms of a bygone era, both Hardstock and Hull say the path to investor relationships is forged in places where many women of diverse backgrounds are not – ivy league organizations, golf courses and late night post-board meeting cocktails attended mostly by White men of means.
The history of venture capital has never been very balanced, according to Aubrey Blanche, global head of diversity at Atlassian software development company and co-founder of Sycamore, an organization aiming to fix the VC funding gap for underrepresented founders. “White and Asian men have built the venture system and for generations have been seeking out people like themselves to invest in."
Personal and professional networks are critical for founders to connect with investors, but many multicultural women don't have access to the networks their White peers have. According to a study conducted by PRRI, the average White person has one friend who is Black, Latino, Asian, mixed race, and other races. This common situation makes getting that all important warm introduction to established VCs very challenging for multicultural women founders.
“Is the ecosystem of your network equivalent to your net worth? Absolutely," says Hardstock. “For us, we have to build our own ecosystem and recreate what happens on the golf courses and at the Harvard reunions."
To Hardstock's point, most multicultural women with entrepreneurial aspirations lack that Ivy League network. According to reporting published in The New York Times, Black students make up just nine percent of the freshmen at Ivy League schools but 15 percent of college-age Americans. This gap has been largely unchanged since 1980.
While notable female investors such as Arlan Hamilton, Joanne Wilson, and Kathryn Finney are actively working to close the funding gap for women of color, only seven percent of current senior investing partners at the top 100 venture firms are women. Less than three percent of VC funds have Black and Latinx investment partners. Without an influential network, Hardstock and entrepreneurs like her are left screaming for a seat at the table.
When Black, Latina, and Asian women founders do get in the room with the right investors, they have to work harder to get the investors to relate to their products and services. “Entrepreneurs solve problems they understand," says Blanche. “When multicultural women entrepreneurs present their businesses to a homogenous group of male investors who may not be equipped to understand the idea, they may pass on an amazing business."
Take, for example, the founders of Haute Hijab or LOLA. Founders of both successful startups would have to explain the market for their services to a table occupied mostly by men who may never have considered that Muslim women want more convenient access to fashion and have never considered women might prefer to purchase organic tampons.
This lack of familiarity typically means reduced funding for women and a host of other consequences.
As one recent study pointed out, even the way investors frame questions to women can impact funding. According to the Harvard Business Review, female founders are often asked “prevention-oriented" questions focused on safety, responsibility, security, and vigilance. Male founders, on the other hand, are often asked questions focused on hopes, achievement, advancement, and ideals.
When all of these factors are considered, a side letter may not be enough to begin to close the funding gap.
Both Blanche and Hull say real change can be made by democratizing information and education on impact investing. Both women say educating investors and MBA candidates about impact investing is the best way to overcome current bias.
Blanche's organization, Sycamore, produces a newsletter for new angel investors who want to help close the funding gap while making money in the process. Hull's firm has an internship program for multicultural girls from Oakland to expose them to the worlds of investing, entrepreneurship, business leadership, and financial literacy.
“I'm excited about the changes I see," says Blanche. “I see more firm employing the Rooney Law on an institutional level, an increase in smaller firms looking at underserved communities, and the democratization of institutional funding."
Hull adds that as long as multi-cultural women-led firms continue to show returns and outperform or perform on par with companies founded by White men, the investor community will rethink their portfolio strategies.
This piece was originally published in 2018.