My letter to Josh (A white cisgender man) about the adverse effects of assimilation

My letter to Josh (A white cisgender man) about the adverse effects of assimilation

By Frank Velásquez Jr., Storyteller Extraordinaire, Social Justice Warrior, and Relationship Cultivator

Think about the last time you spoke your mind in a meeting without worrying about tone. Or dressed casually without wondering if you’d be seen as ‘unprofessional.’ Or corrected someone without fear of being labeled ‘aggressive.’ That’s privilege. Now imagine if every one of those moments required you to think before doing. That’s what PoC do on the daily.

Hey Josh!

I’ve been playing basketball since I was around eleven. The truth is that it’s been my only form of exercise and I know my days are numbered after a couple of knee surgeries. I’ve been playing at the local Y over the last 15+ years, and you can bet I’ve been involved in a few—ahem—disagreements. 

One disagreement stands out.

In pickup basketball, an unwritten rule is that if the offensive player feels they were fouled, they call the foul. There might be some rolled eyes and minor complaints from the opposing players, but almost 100% of the time it’s accepted, and the game goes on. 

This one particular game was relatively close. A teammate stole the ball, passed it ahead to me, and I dribbled to the other side of the court for a potential game-winning layup. But as I went up for the shot, a guy on the other team bumped me kinda hard. I lost control of the ball, and the guy who bumped me corralled the ball and was about to run in the opposite direction. I immediately said, “Foul.” And this guy—a white man—not only proceeded to yell that he did not foul me, he walked to the other side of the court with the ball in hand, completely dismissing the rules of the court.

I muttered, “White privilege,” then went to sit down.

He heard me and his level of anger went to a whole new level. He followed me to where I was sitting and wanted to let me know, very loudly, that he was raised around Mexicans. (As if proximity to Brown folks gave him a pass.) I told him that means nothing. I “gently” reminded him that his white skin gave him privilege and the fact he discounted my foul call and walked to the other side proved my point. His face reddened even more. He aggressively moved into my personal space and yelled directly into my face. I was not afraid, which might have pissed him off further. 

I did not move. I looked up at him and shook my head. And I once again uttered, “Privilege.” 

He was incensed. My comment moved him from verbally assaulting me to almost physically assaulting me. It required another white man to pull him away from me.

Josh, this dude is a tall, white, cisgender man. Built like a truck. And attractive. Every one of those identity markers are all dominant in our country! He was so comfortable in his white privilege that he didn’t even know or care that he has it. Consciously or subconsciously, he carries privilege over me, a Brown shorter man with a Dad body. 

Honestly, his anger reminded me of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court. That “how dare you question me” attitude was in full-force. His indignation that I could call him privileged while he was literally demonstrating it, was privilege in its truest form. 

And this is why assimilation exists.

White people don’t have to watch their tone. They don’t have to think about consequences the same way People of Color (PoC) do. He felt comfortable using his tone. He felt comfortable getting into my personal space and threatening harm. 

I am not afforded these liberties. I have to be 100% aware of my surroundings. And even in integrated spaces like the Y, it will always default to being a white space. You walk in and see the donor names on the wall; they’re almost all white surnames. And many with the name of the donor as part of the Y’s name itself—like the Jordan, Witham Family, and Benjamin Harrison YMCAs all located in the same city! Rarely is there one sporting a Spanish surname.

I already know my place, and he made sure to remind me that I knew my place. He was the rule maker. And the expectation was for me to submit to his new rules. 

This is forced assimilation.

Josh, you possess the same identity markers as the basketball player does. You’re tall, white. You are good-looking and fit! 

Think about the last time you spoke your mind in a meeting without worrying about tone. Or dressed casually without wondering if you’d be seen as ‘unprofessional.’ Or corrected someone without fear of being labeled ‘aggressive.’ That’s privilege. Now imagine if every one of those moments required you to think before doing. That’s what PoC do on the daily.

Can you share a time when you benefitted from your privilege? What was the reason? What do you see now that maybe you didn’t see then? Have you ever had to consciously think about fitting in? Or do you just fit? Why do you think this is? How do you think PoC might be harmed by having to constantly fit in?

Josh. I got five things I want you to understand about assimilation.

White people benefit from assimilation

Whether you know it or not, you do. Hundreds of years ago, white men wiped out 90% of Native Americans and set a new standard that, to this very day, every non-white person has to meet. From “proper English” to “professionalism” to workplace norms and characteristics, PoC are expected to meet these standards. And still, a white man with a felony background has a higher chance of securing a job than a Black man without a felony.

White people reinforce assimilation when you expect “professionalism”

White men long ago established what “professionalism” is based on a white standard. For example, all women are expected to have straight hair. Most Black women inherently have thick curly hair and yet these ‘professional’ standards expect them to have straight hair. This discrimination became so embedded into ‘professionalism’ that the CROWN Act (Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair) had to be passed to make it illegal to discriminate based on natural hair texture and protective hairstyles.

It’s not surprising that legislation was needed to protect Black women from hair discrimination. It shows how deeply assimilation has been baked into workplace ‘standards.’ So every time you uphold ‘professional’ standards – straight hair, dress shirts and ties, muted colors, clean-cut short hair, speaking without an accent – you’re reinforcing assimilation.

Assimilation physically harms People of Color

The parents and grandparents and great-grandparents assimilated to survive. My maternal grandmother, a single mother raising five children, chose to assimilate her children because she believed that life would be easier for them. It wasn’t. Not for my tías and tíos. Not for our communities of color. The stress of constant code-switching, of monitoring tone, of suppressing culture, all that compounds over generations. And after years of weathering, our bodies carry the weight, breaking them down causing literal physical harm. Don’t expect PoC to “just be themselves;” you just don’t know how unsafe that is to be in spaces designed for you.

White comfort is rooted in white supremacy

Those feelings of discomfort that come up for you when a PoC shares the harm they’ve experienced at the hands of white people is a natural response. Narratives have historically, and still currently, been shaped and formed to erase the hundreds of years of harm white people have done to PoC. But when the feelings of being uncomfortable are framed as a lack of safety, that framing is white supremacy showing up. So when a PoC names racism and your first response is defensiveness. That’s your comfort being prioritized over their safety. Sit with that. 

Assimilation exists for your comfort. Being an ally means being able to sit with discomfort while asking yourself why the expectation is that everyone conforms to whiteness.

Support acculturation instead of perpetuating assimilation

I want to be clear. Acculturation is not the opposite of assimilation. It’s PoC keeping their culture while also adapting to navigate systems. You can support acculturation by learning to correctly pronounce someone’s name, challenging ‘professional’ standards that are really white norms, and creating space where PoC can be as much as their whole selves without having to code-switch. Don’t reward conformity. Value diversity.

Josh, that guy on the basketball court felt entitled to make the rules. And to get in my face when I called out his privilege. Do better than he did. You have the same identity markers he does: white, tall, fit, cisgender man. The power you wield shouldn’t come in the form of anger and dominance. Your power comes forth when you step back, cede space, and call out the entitlement when you see it in other white men. 

That’s real power.

With ❤️ and 🙏🏽

Frank

 

Author’s note: This is an excerpt from an upcoming, yet to be titled book by Frank Velásquez Jr. Each topic addressed in the book consists of two separate letters: One written to a Person of Color and the other written to a white ally. 

It’s important to note that if I was facilitating a circle in person or virtually, I would hold these conversations in distinct healing spaces to minimize harm on each side. For PoC in America, we have historically been denied spaces to ourselves. Even when we create our own spaces, they’ve been destroyed in very visible ways, like the destruction of Black Wall Street in Tulsa and in many more subtle ways like prenatal care for Black mothers. We will never feel 100% safe in spaces that were never designed for us in mind, whether it’s workplaces, hospitals, banks, schools, restaurants, realty locations, business ventures, boardrooms, or pretty much any space PoC occupy! 

When we create spaces for ourselves, we can finally breathe. We can be unfiltered knowing we don’t have to worry about unwanted gazes, unwelcome attention, uninvited responses, and/or hurt feelings. We can be fully us. 

In our dedicated space, PoC can begin our healing journey from the lens of the oppressed. 

For white allies, it’s also important to have a separate healing space, but for very different reasons. White allies historically carry privilege not afforded to PoC. This has resulted in a generational wealth gap that favors white folks over Black folks (by a factor of ten) and brown folks (by a factor of eight). For many allies, they carry the guilt and shame of how they’ve benefitted from systemic oppression. It’s something that can be hard to reconcile with, especially when reparations enter the discussion. 

But we need white folks, and they need a healing space of their own to reflect, relearn, and reemerge stronger allies. Therefore, the separate letters aren’t for code-switching purposes; they are speaking directly to two very distinctive groups: People of Color and white allies. 

Each letter is written to a specific individual to maintain that one-on-one connection. This isn’t about specific people; it’s about you, the reader. Using a person’s name reminds me that I am writing to you as a person, not a group.

Check out the letter on the topic of “assimilation,” to the a Mexican man whose first language is English, published last week.

Frank Velásquez Jr.

Frank Velásquez Jr.

Meet Frank Velásquez Jr. (he/his/el): Storyteller Extraordinaire, Social Justice Warrior, and Relationship Cultivator! In relentless pursuit of racial and gender equity, Frank’s warmth brings folks together to talk through the tough stuff. And whether he’s delivering a keynote on leadership, language, or equity, or chatting one-on-one with a close friend or new connection, his real-talk energy remains consistent, powerful, and generous. Because to Frank, every person’s story matters like each ingredient in a yummy bowl of gumbo. Each standing on its own, but together making something unforgettable.

From major conferences like the Nonprofit Storytelling Conference, AFP ICON, and AFP Lead to training rooms everywhere from Walt Disney World to the MGM Grand Las Vegas, Frank has reached thousands of folks with narratives that just hit different, leaving each group invigorated with his unique blend of storytelling magic, quick wit, and social justice fire!

As the Founder of 4 Da Hood and the visionary behind the Ascending Leaders in Color leadership program, Frank forges pathways for Peeps of Color to step into their power – authentically, courageously, and with unapologetic joy. Because for Frank, advancing equity isn’t just a job – it’s about thriving in a world our ancestors dreamed for us, a world where communities of color have the same access and opportunity to build their generational wealth. 

And he’s doing it one connection, one story, one courageous conversation at a time.

You can follow his work at 4dahood.com and contribute towards a PoC scholarship for the Ascending Leaders in Color program here

 

My letter to Edgar (A Mexican man whose first language is English) about the adverse effects of assimilation

My letter to Edgar (A Mexican man whose first language is English) about the adverse effects of assimilation

By Frank Velásquez Jr., Storyteller Extraordinaire, Social Justice Warrior, and Relationship Cultivator

But why does it feel like achieving the American dream equates to shedding the best things about our culture, the very culture that makes us innovative thinkers, incredible leaders, and amazing people?

Hey Hey, Edgar!

Ni de aquí, ni de allá.

I feel like you feel this like I do, my brother.

My story begins with my grandmothers.

My grandmothers’ journeys couldn’t be any more different.

My dad’s mom—Grandma Anita to me—lost her husband in a mining accident in Miami, Arizona. He was 37. She was only 28 and suddenly widowed with four children. She spoke no English. I can’t imagine how fast her life changed in that moment. 

She made her way down to Tucson, remarried, lived off old Nogales Highway on a ranch, and had two more children. Every one of her children spoke Spanish as their first language. They learned English in school because that was the expectation. But as soon as they returned home, so did their Mexican culture because Grandma Anita kept it alive through food, language, and art.

Then there’s my mother’s mom, my Grandma Maria. She lost her husband in a very different way. He was rightfully incarcerated leaving her to raise their five children all on her own at the tender age of 32. Again, I cannot fathom being 32 with five kids to bring up all by myself. 

Unlike my Grandma Anita, Grandma Maria chose not to remarry. She raised her children very differently than my paternal grandmother did. Though she didn’t speak English herself, she made sure her kids did. She made them dress the part, speak the part, and live the part of what she thought a successful American should be like. She wanted my mother and her siblings to “fit in” and not go through the struggles she was going through. And just like my Grandma Anita’s children, my Grandma Maria’s kids were also forced to speak English in school. 

And let me be clear. My parents’ elementary-school years were in 1950s Arizona. At that time, Arizona educators (as well as ones all around the nation) were primarily monolingual white women. It was a common practice for teachers to pull out their wooden ruler (or some similar weaponized instrument), and hit Spanish-speaking students if they spoke their native language. The message was clear: “If you live in America, you need to speak the English language.”

Fast-forward to January 1969: about a year after my parents’ marriage and the birth of their first child (my sister) they made a pivotal decision. They decided to speak English to their children. No Spanish in the household. At all.

My siblings and I were assimilated. 

Truthfully though, assimilation began two generations earlier with my maternal grandmother. With a deep desire for her children to financially “succeed,” combined with the pressure to conform to the norms and expectations of the dominant culture—including competition, capitalism, individualism, and many more Eurocentric workplace characteristics—she determined that conforming was the best path to “success.” Sadly, that decision led to a sense of alienation and the slow erasure of her children’s identities and her children’s children’s identities, mine included.

But we weren’t the only ones. Thousands of Tucson children were raised this way. 

The trauma that all of our parents and parent’s parents experienced, severely impacted my generation. Many of us lost our language and other parts of our culture because our parents genuinely didn’t want us to experience the trauma that they did. 

And to achieve success meant we needed to speak English, lose the accent, dress in muted colors, and live the part. It was supposed to lead to the American dream. 

But why does it feel like achieving the American dream equates to shedding the best things about our culture, the very culture that makes us innovative thinkers, incredible leaders, and amazing people?

I spent most of my young adult life feeling neither from here nor from there. 

Ni de aquí. Ni de allá.  

Make no mistake, assimilation was always by design.

Edgar, you and I and every one of our family members were made to feel less than at an early age. We were forced to fit in. Yet even in the “preferred” dominant space, we were still made to feel less than. And that has extended into adulthood. We still don’t fit in. We might be able to dress the part or hide our accent, but we can’t immediately hide our skin color, dark curly hair, and brown eyes. And even when our primos have the “preferred” skin tone and hair texture for the white-dominant spaces we occupy, they still can’t hide their non-Anglo names and accents.

The constant pressure to fit in is literally killing us. Our bodies have been weathered leaving us exposed to higher rates of diabetes, blood pressure, and mortality rates. 

This is the adverse effect of assimilation.

Edgar, how did that pressure show up in your body as a child? How has it shown up now? And do you feel guilt or shame not speaking Spanish? How have you navigated these feelings over the years? How do you feel now?

There is a remedy for assimilation.

Acculturation.

Here are five real ways acculturation can stop the adverse effects of assimilation:

Acculturation helps us reclaim what was taken

Assimilation was forced upon our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents. But stopping the cycle is possible. You have the ability to keep alive the things that make us Brown and Proud! The point is you start. What is stopping you from learning Spanish now? Reconnect to your traditions. Reclaim your heritage. Relearn what was stolen. You don’t have to be fluent to reconnect. Start with one tradition, one recipe, one phrase your abuela used to say. Every word you learn, every custom you practice, that’s reclamation. That’s power. Assimilation does not have to be a permanent state.

Acculturation helps us see our culture as strength, not a liability

The things that were taken—language, customs, the cultural things that make you you—were taken because they were strengths. Teamwork over individualism; “What’s in it for us?” over “What’s in it for me?” Collaborative thinking over “Us vs. them” thinking, power-sharing over power hoarding, multilingual over monolingual—you see the pattern. Whereas white workplace culture says “every man for himself”—they value “dog eat dog”—our community has always been our strength. The cookout, the quinceañera, the backyard fiesta; culture has always been our strength. It’s made us more innovative, more collaborative, more human.

Acculturation connects community; assimilation isolates us from them

Assimilation is meant to isolate. It starts with language. You and I couldn’t communicate with our abuelas because of assimilation. We missed out on the jokes and stories that our tîos told in Spanish. This was our first disconnection but most def not our only disconnection. Customs, erased. Traditions, eliminated. But acculturation means we can reclaim our narratives so that our kids won’t carry that same wound. They can learn Spanish. They can know their nanas’ stories firsthand. And they can stay connected to the community that holds them up when white spaces try to break them down. And hopefully never experience weathering like we have.

Acculturation protects us

It’s no coincidence that assimilation in America is white-centered. People of Color (PoC) are expected to conform to whiteness for white comfort. Speak “proper” English, dress “professionally,” act like them and maybe, just maybe, you’ll be rewarded. Assimilation does not serve us. It serves them. Acculturation is about you. It says: “I’ll learn to navigate your spaces, but I’m not giving up who I am to do it.” It helps you navigate spaces while remaining whole and adapt when you want to without being forced to. Acculturation protects your well-being, your identity, and your sense of who you are. You get to be whole.

Acculturation helps us access superpowers the dominant group can’t

Navigating spaces as a PoC gives you special skills that are uniquely yours: You read rooms differently. You understand multiple perspectives because of your multiple intersections. You’re comfortable with change, ambiguity, and complexity because it’s built in your DNA through generational trauma and wisdom. These are not deficits. This is strategic intelligence. You code-switch between cultures seamlessly. You translate not just language but entire worldviews. You hold complexity that would break someone who’s only ever known one way of being. Again, these aren’t compensations for oppression. These are actual superpowers that make you a better leader, a better thinker, a better human.

 

Edgar, our ancestors made choices they thought would protect us, just like my Grandma Maria. And for that we are grateful. But the cycle needs to stop. The generational harm remains firmly in place. But we can reclaim what was taken. We can stop the cycle. Assimilation be damned! Let’s be us, fully us.

With ❤️ and 🙏🏽

Frank

 

Author’s note: This is an excerpt from an upcoming, yet to be titled book by Frank Velásquez Jr. Each topic addressed in the book consists of two separate letters: One written to a Person of Color and the other written to a white ally. 

It’s important to note that if I was facilitating a circle in person or virtually, I would hold these conversations in distinct healing spaces to minimize harm on each side. For PoC in America, we have historically been denied spaces to ourselves. Even when we create our own spaces, they’ve been destroyed in very visible ways, like the destruction of Black Wall Street in Tulsa and in many more subtle ways like prenatal care for Black mothers. We will never feel 100% safe in spaces that were never designed for us in mind, whether it’s workplaces, hospitals, banks, schools, restaurants, realty locations, business ventures, boardrooms, or pretty much any space PoC occupy! 

When we create spaces for ourselves, we can finally breathe. We can be unfiltered knowing we don’t have to worry about unwanted gazes, unwelcome attention, uninvited responses, and/or hurt feelings. We can be fully us. 

In our dedicated space, PoC can begin our healing journey from the lens of the oppressed. 

For white allies, it’s also important to have a separate healing space, but for very different reasons. White allies historically carry privilege not afforded to PoC. This has resulted in a generational wealth gap that favors white folks over Black folks (by a factor of ten) and brown folks (by a factor of eight). For many allies, they carry the guilt and shame of how they’ve benefitted from systemic oppression. It’s something that can be hard to reconcile with, especially when reparations enter the discussion. 

But we need white folks, and they need a healing space of their own to reflect, relearn, and reemerge stronger allies. Therefore, the separate letters aren’t for code-switching purposes; they are speaking directly to two very distinctive groups: People of Color and white allies. 

Each letter is written to a specific individual to maintain that one-on-one connection. This isn’t about specific people; it’s about you, the reader. Using a person’s name reminds me that I am writing to you as a person, not a group.

Stay tuned for the letter on the topic of “assimilation,” to the white ally, coming next week.

Frank Velásquez Jr.

Frank Velásquez Jr.

Meet Frank Velásquez Jr. (he/his/el): Storyteller Extraordinaire, Social Justice Warrior, and Relationship Cultivator! In relentless pursuit of racial and gender equity, Frank’s warmth brings folks together to talk through the tough stuff. And whether he’s delivering a keynote on leadership, language, or equity, or chatting one-on-one with a close friend or new connection, his real-talk energy remains consistent, powerful, and generous. Because to Frank, every person’s story matters like each ingredient in a yummy bowl of gumbo. Each standing on its own, but together making something unforgettable.

From major conferences like the Nonprofit Storytelling Conference, AFP ICON, and AFP Lead to training rooms everywhere from Walt Disney World to the MGM Grand Las Vegas, Frank has reached thousands of folks with narratives that just hit different, leaving each group invigorated with his unique blend of storytelling magic, quick wit, and social justice fire!

As the Founder of 4 Da Hood and the visionary behind the Ascending Leaders in Color leadership program, Frank forges pathways for Peeps of Color to step into their power – authentically, courageously, and with unapologetic joy. Because for Frank, advancing equity isn’t just a job – it’s about thriving in a world our ancestors dreamed for us, a world where communities of color have the same access and opportunity to build their generational wealth. 

And he’s doing it one connection, one story, one courageous conversation at a time.

You can follow his work at 4dahood.com and contribute towards a PoC scholarship for the Ascending Leaders in Color program here

 

Building workplaces that embody kindness and care

Building workplaces that embody kindness and care

As the third largest employment sector, the nonprofit sector certainly has come a long way in rethinking and reshaping workplace culture in the United States, but there’s more we can do to reduce the cycles of harm.

Between the three of us, we have collectively worked in nonprofits for over 20 years, committing to good work in California, New York, and Bombay for people all over the world. We’ve pushed through traumatic moments and immense burnout in hopes of accomplishing community goals. We’ve held on to small moments of immense fulfillment. 

What we’ve noticed is there is often a separation between mission and values and the day-to-day processes at nonprofits that always seems to create a disconnect. Do we uphold practices or ideologies that prevent us from accomplishing the mission or do we look inwards to create alignment before trying to help communities externally? 

Each of us were hired at various different nonprofits because of our personal connection to the missions and ability to help bring the missions to life. But after a period of time, we were expected to slowly fit into a mold set by those in power. This mold included: white dominant hierarchies, harmful power dynamics, and general toxicity. Over the years, we imposed harm upon ourselves, trying to live up to standards that do not actually align with who we want to be in the world. 

When we began to question the mold in both healthy and unhealthy ways, it ultimately led to burnout. 

To make sense, survive, heal, and try to build some semblance of an emergency savings fund we began centering self and collective-care. This included: sharing the toxicity with supervisees to ensure they were prepared in case we were pushed out, advocating by unapologetically saying “no,” organizing employees to leave Glassdoor reviews, and taking a minimum of three week long vacations. 

We simply wanted to be a part of a team and community that prioritized and embodied kindness and care. 

The universe gave us some relief by bringing us to rootid

Working at rootid has been healing, but a lot of self discovery had to happen before we could appreciate and build a culture that works for us (and we still have to remind ourselves that it’s possible!). 

When toxicity meets the workplace

We’ve all experienced it to some degree: the -isms, tantrums, expectations, hierarchy, and low pay.

As the third largest employment sector, the nonprofit sector certainly has come a long way in rethinking and reshaping workplace culture in the United States, but there’s more we can do to reduce the cycles of harm. (This is by no means a full list, but a starting point). 

Leadership

Regardless of whether you’re in a top-down, shared leadership, or horizontal structure, it’s important to be intentional about how your leadership behaves and addresses conflict. When decision makers are conflict avoidant, problems brew and then not surprisingly explode—leading to employee dissatisfaction or high turnover. Dealing with conflict as soon as it arises means the problem stays in a manageable form and could lead to a creative resolution. 

The lack of action we commonly see from leadership during conflict or rupture is rooted in each individual’s personal discomfort or dysregulation and, unfortunately, other employees are caught in the crosshairs.

An example on how conflict avoidance plays out in a negative way: a board member arrives at the organization’s office to attend the monthly board meeting. As they’re waiting for others to arrive, the board member asks an employee out for dinner in front of program participants. The employee brushes it off, but the next day brings it up to the CEO. The CEO disengages from the conversation because this board member is their friend. 

Pause and Reflect: as an organizational leader, how would you handle the situation?

Leadership’s main goal should be to create healthy environments that help achieve the organization goals. That includes making your employees feel valued by acknowledging their contributions, creating opportunities for them to grow and take on more responsibility should they want it, and helping facilitate decisions, especially when there is conflict. Leadership is about trusting your team to do the jobs they were hired to do, not being the only expert in the organization. 

A lack of humble and evolved leadership unfortunately contributes to burnout, exhaustion, and reduced productivity and creativity. 

Antidotes to conflict avoidant leadership styles

We could be free, free. We can’t fix it if we never face it. Let the past be the past ’til it’s weightless.

Huntrix of K-Pop Demon Hunters

Pay disparity

Let’s say, the highest paid employee at an organization makes $175,000. The lowest paid employee makes $65,000. That’s a huge difference. In much of the US, that $65,000 barely allows you to afford rent, transit or gas and groceries, let alone allow you to build a reserve fund in case of job loss. 

While this pay disparity is often explained as addressing the level of responsibility, it’s often those with lower pay that are accomplishing the mission, taking the day-to-day risks, and who have the most fragile work stability. Pay and treat employees well (e.g. with transparency, sincerity, humility, and 100% health benefits paid by employer). 

Organizations should audit their pay structures in order to ensure fair wages for all employees and clear opportunities for employees to move up in title and pay. Don’t wait until they ask for it. Highest paid employees who don’t make that much more than lowest paid employees show camaraderie not hierarchy. 

An example of how low pay or opportunity plays out in a negative way: an employee is ready to accept more responsibility and continue their learning journey. They have a track record for being a smart and capable employee. They’re a key piece in ensuring success. Every time they approach the topic of a promotion with their direct supervisor or HR, they’re often told there’s no money or roles for them to move into. 

What do you think the employee will do?

In an ideal world, the difference between the highest and lowest paid employees wouldn’t be more than $25,000 or, even better, $0, like the Sylvia Rivera Law Project. We imagine an excuse for not closing the pay disparity is that no one will want to fund it. But if a core value of the organization is retaining talent, key decision makers could easily find the right framing for this and how to communicate progress, both internally and externally. 

Not having the ability to build financial security in a capitalist society unfortunately contributes to burnout, exhaustion, and reduced productivity and creativity.

Antidotes to pay disparity:

Seems like nobody gets what they want. Seriously. Five years ago, our school’s roof caved in. Instead of fixing it, they had a counselor come in once a week to deal with the emotional burden of not having a roof. Apparently, they were like, ‘I know you feel a dank draft, kid, but how does that dank draft make you feel?’ Uh, dank! The hell?!

Mx. Cassidy Geoffrey of Abbott Elementary

World, meet workplace

Yes, what happens in our world affects how we show up in the workplace. Climate disasters. Human rights violations. Economic uncertainty. Genocide. Hate speech. And when it happens simultaneously and consistently, it feels like there is no hope or humanity left. 

Being in the nonprofit sector, is it not our responsibility to ensure people in our community have access to opportunity, regardless of mission? Is it not our responsibility to create a space where people of all backgrounds, abilities, races, genders, and economic levels can feel that there are people who still care? Is it not our responsibility to create and contribute to community? This only helps us achieve our mission no matter what it is. 

A lot of the time, leadership will refer to community calls to action as “mission creep,” if the call to action is not in line with the strategic plan, which prevents the nonprofit and the employees within it from being a good neighbor.

An example of how this plays out in the workplace: employee works at an arts organization for young people with disabilities. Then a devastating wildfire spreads throughout the state, but not in the area where the organization is based. Employee is devastated and brings it up at the monthly staff meeting, asking whether the organization can share resources or host an art auction for folks affected by the wildfires. Leadership says it’s a nice idea, but not mission aligned, so it would be weird to say or do something. 

Is there a way to build community without losing mission alignment?

Staying silent or lacking genuine action (i.e. more than a statement of solidarity) in moments of crisis when shared humanity is imperative contributes to burnout, exhaustion, and reduced productivity and creativity.

Antidotes to separating our nonprofits from the world:

It’s true. Around this office, in the past, I have been a little abrupt with people. But the doctor said, if I can’t find a new way to relate more positively to my surroundings, I’m going to die.

Stanley Hudson of The Office

Moving forward

Healing and shifting our approach to work will take time and thoughtful consideration. The ways in which toxic leadership and the influence of external injustices evolve within our workplaces is not insurmountable. So much of what we must collectively navigate in order to have what we need can be accomplished with a team that holds and embodies shared values. 

In 2020 our team agreed upon the following:

“We believe that to be good ancestors we must recognize and honor our interdependence and co-design practices that are anti-racist. We begin with humility and use curiosity and reimagination to interrupt historical patterns of oppression and marginalization within ourselves, our team, our partnerships, communities, and systems. We believe that form follows meaning. We strive to deeply contribute both locally and globally—collaboratively growing access to the knowledge and tools needed to heal and liberate.”

rootid holds space and creates opportunities to have difficult conversations with ourselves and to discuss and work through barriers together. Navigating these muddy waters of intergenerational trauma is possible, we promise.

Give yourself the time and permission to identify, recognize, and grieve, and then remember: what you accomplish is not just for your healing, but for the generations of people to come.

    We need to remember what’s important in life: friends, waffles, work. Or waffles, friends, work. Doesn’t matter, but work is third.

    Leslie Knope of Parks and Rec

    The authors of this article suggest that you pay your land tax to the Indigenous Tribes and Nations whose land you currently occupy. (Sogorea Te Land Trust in the East Bay of California or Manna-hatta Fund in New York, for example.)

    Mabel Colón

    Mabel Colón

    Mabel (she/her) is a UX & Service designer who views change as emergent from accountable, accessible and collaborative processes. Through her nonprofit and education sector experience she has designed and updated systems and tools to center the needs of those most impacted and uplift the collective value of traditional and local knowledge. As a language interpreter and translator, Mabel focuses on inclusion—making sure access to information, experiences and resources are available to all.

    Mabel has her Bachelor’s Degree in Women’s Studies and Psychology with double minors in Latin American and Caribbean Studies as well as Spanish Language and Literature from Stony Brook University. In her free time, she enjoys baking, dancing and good tv.

    Anjali Mehta

    Anjali Mehta

    Anjali (she/her) brings over 10 years of nonprofit experience to rootid. In her time, she has built fundraising programs and internal organizational culture with equity in mind. In her work, she employs cross-collaboration, active listening, and problem-solving action. Often in her work, she references Tema Okun’s White Supremacy Culture article to ensure harmful behaviors are not being perpetuated.

    Anjali has a degree in Global Economics with an emphasis on Southeast Asian Economies from the University of California – Santa Cruz. In her spare time, you can find her trying a new recipe, gardening, listening to a great podcast, reading a book, or planning the next great adventure.

    Valerie Neumark

    Valerie Neumark

    Val (she/they) is a brand strategist, educator, facilitator and coach focused on using communications, design-thinking and technology as vehicles to advance equity. Through partnerships and collaborations, Val endeavors to co-design anti-racist, anti-oppressive spaces and tools that facilitate strategic-thinking, community building and sustainable growth for non-profits and social impact organizations.

    Val has a Bachelor’s Degree in Visual Arts & Media from University of California San Diego and a Master’s Degree in Education from Pepperdine University. A 2016 recipient of Pepperdine University’s inaugural 40 under 40 Award. In their free time Val loves to hike, read books and practice karate with their kid.

    valerie@rootid.com | @wearerootid | @ValArtNStuff

    A statement regarding the three largest DAF sponors’ halt on grant-making to the Southern Poverty Law Center

    A statement regarding the three largest DAF sponors’ halt on grant-making to the Southern Poverty Law Center

    We call on these organizations, who altogether hold over $100 billion in donor-advised funds, to stop complying in advance. Compliance in advance helps authoritarianism grow.

    In response to the Justice Department’s indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the three largest donor-advised fund (DAF) sponsors—Fidelity Charitable®, Vanguard Charitable, and DAFgiving360™, (formerly known as Schwab Charitable)—have halted grant-making to the civil rights organization. There has yet to be evidence of criminal wrongdoing, and the organization still currently maintains its 501(c)3 status, which is the only requirement for an organization to receive donated funds. 

    After the announcement of the indictment against SPLC, donors rushed to provide financial support for the organization to help them fight back against the Trump administration. Because the donors received no communication regarding the halt, they learned of it when their attempts to direct their DAF funds were denied. It’s important to note that most donors believe the money they hold in DAFs is intended to be stewarded by them. However, a district court in 2021 ruled that after donors have transferred their wealth into a DAF with a sponsoring organization, they relinquish control and the money no longer belongs to them. Most see this as a nullification of the entire concept of a donor-advised fund.

    Following an outpouring of disgust, Fidelity shared their reasoning: In an article in The Chronicles of Philanthropy, Fidelity claimed they reserved the right to decline granting to an organization when “the organization is being investigated for alleged illegal activities or non-charitable activities, such as terrorism, money laundering, hate crimes, or fraud.”

    We see these DAF sponsors—the largest in the U.S.—capitulating to the accusations of an administration that thrives on fearmongering and has been using the Justice Department as a weapon of control. While they are technically within their legal rights to refuse a donor’s wishes, this is compliance in advance, not an act based on due diligence. The SPLC has existed for 55 years and has a track record of contributing to the advancement of civil rights in this country.

    We call on these organizations, who altogether hold over $100 billion in donor-advised funds, to stop complying in advance. Compliance in advance helps authoritarianism grow. It is only when enough of us say enough, that we can stop this decline into an autocratic society. 

    Community-Centric Fundraising is currently primarily funded by a multi-year Fidelity Charitable® Catalyst Fund grant, and we will continue to use their funds to support our movement, challenge the philanthropic sector, and call out exploitative and extractive fundraising practices. We reserve the right to have a difficult discussion with any of our funders about behavior that erodes community trust and the advancement of social justice; we will not stay silent when we see this type of compliance take place. 

    For our part, we will have a difficult conversation with our Fidelity Charitable® Catalyst Fund representative during our regularly scheduled meeting on May 14. We have an existing relationship with them and will lean into that relationship to ask for change. We will directly ask why Fidelity has chosen to uphold this policy when they previously were, according to an article in The Chronicles of Philanthropy, among the biggest donors to hate groups the SPLC exposed, granting $4.6 million to 23 groups without such reservation. 

    We have signed this letter in support of SPLC, and we encourage you to do the same. 

    We also cosign this suggestion published in an article in The Chronicles of Philanthropy: If you have DAFs with Fidelity, Vanguard, or DAFgiving360, transfer your assets to a local community foundation that allows grants to SPLC, support them and their life-saving work, and then take this time to spend down all that you have stored in DAFs. Nonprofits this current administration feels threatened by—primarily BIPOC-, immigrant-, and queer-led nonprofits protecting and supporting the most marginalized among us—are doing the best they can with reduced resources and could use that wealth. Support the nonprofits doing good works in your community and the world.

    For any questions or inquiries about this statement, please message us at hello@communitycentricfundraising.org.

    “On a quiet day”: What cumulative grief is trying to tell our sector

    “On a quiet day”: What cumulative grief is trying to tell our sector

    By Esther Saehyun Lee, Founder of Elevate Philanthropy Consulting with a Scorpio sun and Cancer moon (so writing about grief in the nonprofit sector was basically inevitable.)

    Cumulative grief does not resolve through individual effort. It becomes more bearable in community. When we can name it together, sit with it together, and refuse to let it harden into cynicism together. 

    If you have ever read articles about grief, hope is usually nearby. People who are grieving are told that hope is on the way, that they shouldn’t lose it, that it’s waiting for them on the other side. The relationship between hope and grief is a close one. Our sector is good at selling hope. We are terrible at naming grief.

    Working in the nonprofit sector means having a direct line into grief:

    Grief for the version of myself that entered this sector so full of hope.

    Grief of realizing the systems are working exactly as designed.

    Grief of being complicit in a sector that creates the problems it claims to solve.

    Grief of knowing there is enough money, enough food, enough houses, enough resources to ensure that no one is hungry, houseless, or alone and that the biggest barrier is us.

    Grief that another world is possible, but that it requires us to care for each other in ways that most of us have never been taught.

    This is cumulative grief. As J.S. Park, former atheist turned Christian turned hospital chaplain and writer describes it in his book, As Long as You Need: Permission to Grieve: “[cumulative] grief is accumulated secondhand, causing chemical changes in the body, building up like toxins, wearing down the soul. Many of us are here. Many of us have been here for a long time, absorbing catastrophe daily.”

    It is worth naming what we are actually sitting inside of right now. Federal funding is being gutted. Organizations are scrubbing language from grant applications to avoid triggering clawbacks. DEI commitments that took years to build are being quietly walked back under legal pressure. People are being disappeared off streets. Fascism is not a future threat we are organizing against but a present condition we are fundraising inside of. And we are still making stewardship calls. Still building sponsorship decks. Still trying to hit year-end targets.

    I understand that mobilizing resources is critical work. I believe that. It’s why despite my relentless critiques about our sector and practices, I remain here, committed to mobilizing resources to missions and organizations every day.

    And still, there are days when I feel like I do nothing but participate in and benefit from an industrial complex that is perpetuating the very harms we say we are trying to eradicate. I feel overwhelmed. I feel horrified. I wonder if any of it is enough.

    And I say this not to seek sympathy but to remind myself—and others—that this discomfort, this guilt, this tension, is calling for us. This is the grief doing its job and keeping us honest about the gap between what is and what should be.

    And it shows up. Depending on the day, it can feel like my hope for this sector is simply gone and that I have resigned myself to perpetuating harm. Cumulative grief has the potential to transmute sadness into despair, to quietly shrink what we believe is possible. It can make the imagination go quiet. Inward.

    But the consequences go far beyond me. Cumulative grief shows up in how organizations make decisions. It shows up as risk aversion with boards and executive directors making smaller, safer bets because they are exhausted and cannot afford to lose. It shows up as shrinking vision, as the slow erosion of the bold thinking that brought most of us into this work in the first place. 

    We talk about burnout as a staffing problem, a retention problem, a self-care problem. We rarely talk about it as a strategic problem or one that is quietly limiting what our organizations are willing to imagine and attempt. We rarely talk about how this risk aversion moves the needle, slowly but surely, until we have drifted so far from our values, we don’t remember why we chose to do this work in the first place. Or what is actually possible.

    It also needs to be said that cumulative grief is not distributed equally. BIPOC staff, program staff working closest to community, people who carry lived experience of the very issues their organization addresses—we absorb more. Read this fantastic piece about fear and immigration policy by Shama Shams on the CCF Hub.

    We bring more of ourselves to this work, and we are often offered the least protection from its weight. Leadership tends to have more buffers: more distance from direct service, more agency over their time, more access to the resources that cushion the hardest moments.

    For a sector that talks constantly about equity, we have been remarkably quiet about this particular inequity.

    The sector’s primary answer to cumulative grief has been individual: therapy stipends, mental health days, wellness programming, resilience workshops. These things are not worthless. But they are insufficient because they place the burden of recovery on the person rather than on the conditions causing the harm. They treat a collective wound as a personal failure to cope.

    You cannot wellness your way out of structural grief.

    As a sector, we have also made grief a private experience. We carry it quietly. We perform fine in meetings and fall apart on the commute home. We assume the weight is ours alone to manage.

    For a sector that talks about community, solidarity, and shared power, I have to ask, why is grief the thing we keep to ourselves?

    Cumulative grief does not resolve through individual effort. It becomes more bearable in community. When we can name it together, sit with it together, and refuse to let it harden into cynicism together.  

    This is arguably the most important infrastructure we are not building.

    What would it look like to acknowledge grief as part of how we open a meeting? To check in with each other not just about capacity but about what we are carrying? To talk publicly about the gap between the world our work imagines and the world we are actually living in?

    Grief is not the villain in this story. It is a reminder of our humanity. A signal that we are still paying attention, still refusing to normalize what should not be normalized. The grief means something is still alive in us.

    But I want to ask directly: what are you protecting yourself from by keeping this grief private? What agreements have you made with your organization, your colleagues, yourself to stay quiet about the cost of this work?

    And what becomes possible if we stop?

    Arundhati Roy wrote “another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”

    Grief is what helps us hear her. 

    Esther Saehyun Lee

    Esther Saehyun Lee

    Esther Saehyun Lee, MA (she/her) is the founder of Elevate Philanthropy Consulting, a fundraising and strategy practice that works with small and mid-sized nonprofits across Canada and the United States. She is a Trauma of Money™ certified fundraiser, storyteller, and advocate whose work centres on mobilizing resources to communities that have been deliberately divested from.

    She partners with nonprofit leaders to build fundraising capacity and ground their organizations in equity-aligned practice. Her approach is shaped by Community-Centric Fundraising values and a belief that how we raise money is as important as how much we raise.

    She brings this commitment into the broader sector through her roles as a CCF Emeritus Council member and co-lead of the Asian Fundraisers in Canada Collective, where she works to create space for fundraisers of colour and challenge the structures that concentrate power in the sector. Outside of her consulting work, Esther is an amateur banjo player and a devoted cat mom.

    If this resonated, join me on May 20 for The Scarcity Vow — a free webinar on what the nonprofit sector does to our relationship with money, and what it costs us. Register here.