Read on Twitter
This week, I received an email from a client asking me to ensure my talk is in compliance with the recent Executive Order banning anti-racism workshops, which included not using the term "white privilege" during the session.
I said no and offered to cancel the agreement.
Thread
I said no and offered to cancel the agreement.
Thread
Even if I *could* deliver a compelling talk without using the term, I could not agree with the *spirit* of the ask.
I understand the predicament companies are in right now - "Does this expose us to legal risk?" "Will we get sued?" "Will we lose our government contracts?"
I understand the predicament companies are in right now - "Does this expose us to legal risk?" "Will we get sued?" "Will we lose our government contracts?"
I understand it's a challenging place to be. AND. THIS is when you get to exercise your *accomplice* muscle (note this is different than allyship).
Are you willing to *break unjust laws* in order to uphold your commitment to equity and justice for all? 
Are you willing to *break unjust laws* in order to uphold your commitment to equity and justice for all?
I need every company's legal team to fasten their seat belts and be willing to go to bat for people willing to speak truth to power.
And I need executive leaders to signal to their teams we're no longer in "compliance" mode -- we're in the "right side of history" mode.
And I need executive leaders to signal to their teams we're no longer in "compliance" mode -- we're in the "right side of history" mode.
Brace yourselves - we are only going to get louder.
For folks catching up: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/M-20-37.
re: Allyship and Accomplice... https://medium.com/awaken-blog/allyship-vs-accomplice-the-what-why-and-how-f3da767d48cc
