For four years “Shark Tank” has taken a bite out of small businesses in the best way possible. The non-scripted reality show created by Mark Burnett gives entrepreneurs a chance to pitch their business in front of a group of potential investors—sharks—in hopes that a shark will invest in them. The “Tank” has found a home in many households, but has experienced particular success with African-American and female viewers. Given this, Burnett and his team sought to respond to their diverse viewership by paying attention to the demographics of the entrepreneurs on the show and this is where our bishop comes in.
Bishop Rodney Sampson, a consecrated bishop in the Old Holy Catholic Church in intercommunion with the International Bishop’s conference, is the Executive-in-Charge of Diversity and Inclusivity for Shark Tank as well as several other Burnett shows. As such he is responsible for ensuring that what we see Friday after Friday is a reflection of the world we live in. In a talk with UrbanFaith, Sampson stated that he took the position because he saw it as an opportunity to influence culture and where else could one best do that but with Mark Burnett, one of the top producers of non-scripted reality shows. Sampson is particularly good fit because he has a history of entrepreneurial victories. He was co-founder of Streaming Faith—the earliest online video platform that made a way for YouTube—as well as co-founder of Intellect, Intellect Inspire and the Legacy Opportunity Fund. His experience as an entrepreneur lead him to write the bestselling book “Kingonomics” which is inspired by the economic ideals of Martin Luther King, Jr and will be the focal point of Friday night’s Shark Tank. But lest anyone think that Sampson’s work is just a new-fangled prosperity gospel, he is ready to debunk it and clarify what he’s about. Education, empowerment, creativity, dreaming big…This is what Sampson is about and through his book and the Kingonomics program he wants to train up a legion of leaders who are ready not to make a dollar but affect real change. This is what people will see on Friday night as Sampson gives the world a look at the Kingonomics conference that coincided with the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. We will see Sampson, Cuban, and others cutting through the rhetoric that stymies conversations about job creation and discussing real ways that people can participate in changing the economic tide of our country.
Be sure to tune in to ABC on Friday at 9PM Eastern standard time to learn more about Kingonomics and see Bishop Rodney Sampson and the sharks in action.
Yesterday morning news broke in Orlando about Vanessa VanDyke, a 12-year-old student at Faith Christian Academy who is in danger of being expelled because of her hair. VanDyke has a head full of natural hair that she has worn in a large blown-out ‘fro style for the last year, but recently, because she complained of children teasing and bullying her, her hair has become a problem. Like many private schools, FCA has a fairly stringent dress code policy that includes restrictions on hair. According to the policy, “Hair must be a natural color and must not be a distraction to include but not be limited to: mohawks, shaved designs, rat tails, etc.” VanDyke’s hair is a distraction by way of its size and shape and the school administration is threatening to expel her if she doesn’t cut and shape her hair. The 12-year-old now has one week to decide whether to cut her hair of risk expulsion from the school. So who should change in this situation, FCA or VanDyke? Or is there a fair compromise that can be reached?
As an institution established on Christian principles Faith Christian Academy has a particular responsibility to encourage their students toward faithful behavior which includes embracing diversity. In this day and age diversity goes beyond the color of someone’s skin and reaches down to the particular cultural practices of the person, which, as we have witnessed in the last few years, includes the different hairstyles that evolve from the culture. Significant to this understanding is teaching young boys and girls that most black children don’t come into this world with straight hair and their hair, in its natural state, ranges from being straight to being tightly curled. Unfortunately all some children know is the so-called normativity of straight hair without knowing that there is usually a high price that little black girls pay to get that straight hair like her white female counterparts. The decision of a young black girl to wear her hair in its natural state isn’t one that should be held against her, not by a playground bullies or school administration. But in order for this to become the new normative—sad to say this—it must be taught to children at an early age that the world around them isn’t going to be full of people with straight hair. Maybe teachers should take a page from Jane Elliot’s Blue Eye/Brown Eye exercise except instead of dividing the classes into a blue eyed, black eyed group they are separated into Straight Hair/Natural Black Hair groups to allow children to experience what it feels like when someone bases their discrimination and disdain for you on external characteristics. But beyond trying to teach bullies a lesson through social experiments, the children need to be taught that making fun of a little black girl because of her hair is to make fun of the wondrous way in which God created her. This should be Faith Christian Academy’s concern, that the children who are making fun of and bullying VanDyke are making fun of God’s design. The school’s handling of this situation positions them as bullies on a number of counts–according to their bullying policy:
“Bullying can be direct or indirect, blatant or subtle, and it involves an imbalance of power, repeated actions, and intentional behavior.
Bullying is cutting someone off from essential relationships.
Bullying includes isolating the victim by making them feel rejected by his/her community.”
There is an imbalance of power at play with FCA currently threatening VanDyke with expulsion unless she cuts and shapes her hair–they have the upper hand and she has nothing to do but be subordinate. FCA is cutting VanDyke off from the essential relationships with friends she’s had she since starting at FCA in third grade. FCA is isolating her by threatening expulsion and making her feel rejected by both the school administration and students all because of her hair. It seems clear that the school is not practicing what it preaches to its student about the “Golden Rule,” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Because surely if the school was practicing what it preaches and really being concerned about “avoiding practices which cause the loss of sensitivity to the spiritual needs of the world and which have an adverse effect on the physical, mental, and spiritual well being of Christian students” VanDyke could not and should not be moved. FCA has made Vanessa VanDyke’s hair a distraction and now they are trying to force her to change it—read conform her hair to their standards. But maybe VanDyke has a particular responsibility in this situation.
Do we protest too much when a situation such as this could be remedied with a ponytail, a bun, a French braid, etc? VanDyke’s hair is beautiful and she should be free to wear it as she pleases, but in exercising freedom to wear her hair as she pleases, is she still accountable to others? Yes, the other kids making fun of her need to be sat down and taught a lesson. And she shouldn’t be penalized by the administration for the way she way she wears her hair. But is there some particular course of action she must take beyond fighting to wear her hair as she pleases? The one thing that I can’t shake is the possible vanity of this situation. What does it mean to fight for the right to wear your hair is big as you please at the expense of other things? Maybe there are other ways that her hair could be worn. I know that many would argue that this is conceding to the politics of respectability, but we should question what it is we do with the freedom of expression we have. In this case, it is one little girl’s freedom to wear her hair as she pleases but should that trump everything else? FCA bears the brunt of this situation and the school administration must understand what it means to categorize a child’s hair as a distraction over say bullying, but I don’t want to miss an opportunity to discuss what a fight for individual freedom of expression costs and whether that cost is always worth it.
Not many people outside of the diaspora understand how connected black people are to their hair, even when we’d rather not be connected to it. We struggle with our hair but for many—present company included—the moment we go natural we discover what a great gift God has given us in this hair. One head of natural hair presents many possibilities for a little black girl or an adult black woman. It can be worn in a big blown-out ‘fro, a teeny-weeny ‘fro, a twist out, a braid out, in braids or in twists, wavy, or pressed straight. That isn’t even a comprehensive list of the possibilities that reveal themselves for natural girls and women. Suffice to say that to go natural is to be faithful stewards of what God has given us as God has given it to us. But I’m also fearful of what it means when that hair begins to eclipse other parts of our lives. When we become obsessed about our hair to the detriment of other parts of our lives and we are willing to sacrifice things for it. VanDyke’s hair is glorious but at what point does the fight for it become vainglorious? To be clear (again), FCA is losing this battle because all eyes are on them as the umpteenth school to use a child’s hair as grounds from suspension or expulsion. But as we continue to see more and more cases of children being sent home for wearing their natural hair in a particular way, what can we do about it? What is the executive decision that parents must make about their children’s hair? How do we negotiate full self-expression in the midst of the dominant culture that remains disinterested in it, without sacrificing things that are significant—in VanDyke’s case it is access to quality education at a private institution? As you can see, there is no simple answer to this. VanDyke will be damned if she does change her hair because many will think she sold out and she will be damned if she doesn’t change it because she might be expelled. To conclude this and say we must learn to pick our battles may show a sign of defeat, but maybe, just maybe, we have to sacrifice some things for a short time just to get where we need to be. For FCA this means stepping off of their “hair as a distraction” soapbox in order to allow a little girl to continue to grow and thrive and for VanDyke it may be that every now and then, she pulls that beautiful hair back into a still beautiful bun or ponytail or alternatively beautiful style.
But what do you think? Doth the school protest too much about her hair or doth she protest too much about her hair? This is what her and her family will be deliberating on this Thanksgiving. We give thanks for hair, but do we give up things for it too? Weigh in with your thoughts.
The civil rights veteran started his social justice work in the 1940s, nonviolently protesting segregated lunch counters in Peoria, Ill., well before the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. started his. He became part of King’s executive staff at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in Atlanta in the 1960s.
Now, as one of the last surviving members of a generation of civil rights icons, he has returned as SCLC president amid other projects, from chairing a bank to mentoring youth.
On Wednesday (Nov. 20), he joined 15 others — including former President Bill Clinton and media mogul Oprah Winfrey — in being awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor bestowed by the president.
“The Rev. C.T. Vivian was a stalwart activist on the march toward racial equality. Whether at a lunch counter, on a Freedom Ride, or behind the bars of a prison cell, he was unafraid to take bold action in the face of fierce resistance,” according to the White House citation read before President Obama draped the red, white and blue medal around the neck of Cordy Tindell ‘C.T.’ Vivian.
In an interview, Vivian said he has collected “stacks” of awards over the years, but he hopes this one will help draw attention to the causes to which he has devoted his life.
“People will listen that wouldn’t otherwise listen and that’s what’s important,” he said. “If it doesn’t help you help somebody, then it might as well not be there.”
After the White House ceremony, he added: “It’s like the laying on of hands … when the nation says that you have served well.”
From his first “direct nonviolent action” in 1947, Vivian has been dedicated to nonviolence. “We hardly talk about it anymore,” he said, “but until we talk about it we can’t change the world.”
In Nashville, Tenn., Vivian worked closely with the Rev. James Lawson, a Methodist minister who trained him and others to resist people who opposed their desegregation efforts. Their work eventually led to the removal of “colored” and “white” signs above public drinking fountains.
“It was because of the effectiveness of our movement, and C.T. was one of our key pastors and key people,” said Lawson, who now lives in Los Angeles.
Vivian, then a pastor and editor for a Baptist Sunday School publisher, also was one of the first Freedom Riders to travel by bus in 1961 to Jackson, Miss., where he was arrested and beaten.
The incident that brought him international news coverage came in 1965 during a confrontation in front of a Selma, Ala., courthouse when Sheriff Jim Clark blocked civil rights activists’ attempts to register to vote. Vivian, who was struck and bloodied, did not back down, telling Clark: “If we’re wrong, why don’t you arrest us?”
“Many people did not have that kind of courage,” said the Rev. Gerald Durley, pastor emeritus of Providence Missionary Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Vivian worships. “There were many with courage, but not the kind of courage that C.T Vivian demonstrated.”
Vivian now serves as the director of the Urban Theological Institute at Atlanta’s Interdenominational Theological Center, a consortium of African-American seminaries, and as board chairman of Capitol City Bank, a minority-owned bank with branches in eight locations in Georgia. Through his C.T. Vivian Leadership Institute, he fosters innovative leadership and career development for at-risk youth and college graduates.
“Dr. Vivian on numerous occasions has stated that he wants to have a ministry that deals with people where they are now versus dealing with the pie in the sky,” said George Andrews, the bank’s founder and former president.
But Vivian, who served for more than two decades on the staff of his Atlanta church, also has a reputation as a great preacher.
Joshua DuBois, the former special assistant to Obama, recalled being on the campaign trial in 2007 when Obama noticed Vivian sitting in the audience at Brown Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Selma.
“He pointed him out and said, ‘Oh my goodness, there’s C.T. Vivian,’” DuBois said of Obama. “’That’s the man that Dr. King called the greatest preacher that ever lived.”
In February, Vivian and Durley are scheduled to visit a multicultural school outside Los Angeles, to discuss leadership development, the same skills he uses to mentor teenage boys in Atlanta every Saturday.
“I think that there are very few people who are 89 who are still out there moving at the speed of C.T. Vivian,” Durley said.
President Obama agreed Wednesday: “At 89 years old, Reverend Vivian is still out there, still in the action, pushing us closer to our founding ideals.”
The Rev. Bernard Lafayette, chairman of the SCLC, was Vivian’s cellmate when they were jailed during the Freedom Rides. They stayed up “half the night” encouraging each other by sharing puns.
“The most important thing that I learned from C.T. Vivian and Jim Lawson is that you can do something about the problem rather than just talk about how bad it was,” said Lafayette, who was schooled in the art of preaching by Vivian in the late ‘60s.
Lawson called Wednesday’s White House honor “a good step,” following on the heels of fellow civil rights activist Joseph Lowery receiving the same medal in 2009, the erection of the King Memorial on the National Mall and the placement of Rosa Parks’ statue in the U.S. Capitol.
“I think that the country makes a mistake in primarily medaling soldiers and not medaling citizens who reflect the best of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution,” Lawson said. “And C.T., I think, happens to be one of the finest.”
(RNS) Americans are opening their wallets and providing financial relief to the typhoon-battered Philippines at a pace that may be the third-highest ever for an overseas disaster, but still not enough to satisfy needs.
As Philippine officials try to get aid to desperate Typhoon Haiyan victims, relief organizations from the Salvation Army to Mercy Corps are reporting strong initial donations from individual donors. Corporate donations and government aid have also been robust.
“International disasters like this where the scenes we’re seeing on the news are so overwhelming, people want to reach out and help,” says Salvation Army spokesman Ron Busroe. Donations accelerated from $300,000 Monday to about $1 million by Tuesday, Busroe says.
Patrick Rooney, associate dean at Indiana University’s Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, expects individual donations to relief agencies to top out at about $1 billion, exceeded only by the $1.5 billion donated after the 2010 Haitian earthquake and the $1.8 billion following the 2004 tsunami that devastated Indonesia. The international relief donations trail the $4.2 billion given following 2005′s Hurricane Katrina and $2.6 billion following the Sept. 11 terror attacks. (All numbers are adjusted for inflation).
Despite the outpouring of generosity, organizations such as the Philippine Nurses Association of America are scrambling to set up donor pages online. UNICEF has sent out an appeal for $34 million to help 4 million children impacted by the typhoon, saying funding is urgently needed for food, medicine, clean water and sanitation. UNICEF has taken in $4.6 million in donations the past three days, vs. $12.3 million it received from donors in the same period following the Haiti quake and $5.4 million it received within three days of the 2004 tsunami.
Save The Children, which issued an appeal for $30 million, has raised over $1 million so far. The organization is sending 12,000 blankets, 2,500 kitchen sets, four mobile clinics and other items, says spokeswoman Francine Uenuma.
Typically, 75 percent of donations come within three to six months of a disaster.
“One of the drivers is how much attention the media provides and if the attention is sustained,” Rooney says. “To the extent that it looks like there’s a need for help, people donate.”
While technology makes it easier to donate, text donations tend to be limited to $10 — well below the $50 median households give, Rooney says. “It increases the number of people who give, but decreases the amount given.”
Boston-based OxFam America has received about $1.5 million from over 10,200 donors, says spokeswoman Helen DaSilva. “We’ve seen a huge spike in people taking action,” she says. “People respond and care about what’s going on in the world.”
Oxfam, which raised about $29 million from U.S. donors for Haitian relief, hopes to provide fresh water and basics such as soap to about 500,000 Filipinos. Tuesday, an Oxfam team assessed devastated Daanbantayan, a town on the northern tip of Cebu.
“The scene is one of utter devastation,” said Oxfam team member Tata Abella-Bolo. “The immediate need is water, both for drinking and both for cleaning.”
Mercy Corps has raised more than $500,000 over the past two days. Despite a series of natural disasters overseas and in the U.S., Mercy Corps chief development officer Jeremy Barnicle says there’s no donor fatigue. Destruction and death, particularly in poverty stricken regions, spur donors, Barnicle says.
Handicap International has taken in $60,000. Elizabeth MacNairn, executive director of the organization’s U.S. operations, says 74 Philippine staffers are prioritizing efforts in the hardest-hit areas. The elderly and children with disabilities are often overlooked and cannot get to normal relief distribution points.The organization provides wheelchairs and crutches, much of it from pre-stocked sites in France and Dubai.
Still, given the large area of destruction and lack of access to hard-hit areas, the organization welcomes what it can get. “Sudden onset disasters tend to elicit a quick donor response, but needs are often massive and require a long-term response,” MacNairn says.
The Mennonite Central Committee, which raised more than $5 million in the U.S. for relief aid following the Haitian earthquake, has already received $120,000 in online donations for the Philippines, says MCC disaster response director Bruce Guenther. About $50,000 has been earmarked for food, basic hygiene items and support for assessment teams.
“Donations started quite slow, but driven by media coverage, it’s really picked up,” Guenther says. Additional funding will be provided to a 10-member team that heads to hard hit Leyte island Wednesday.
Ben Smilowitz, executive director of the Disaster Accountability Project, a watchdog organization which tracks relief efforts, notes that donor contributions for specific disasters may be earmarked elsewhere by relief organizations. Those who want donations intended for the Philippines may want to find a Philippine-based organization and donate directly via pay services such as PayPal, he says.
(Gary Strauss writes for USA Today.)
Copyright 2013 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.
Takes initiative. Confidence. Competence. Visionary. These are all characteristics that come to mind when we think of strong leadership—particularly male leadership. Unfortunately, even today, some of those same characteristics are viewed as negative traits when applied to women. Instead of being a go-getter, thinker, strategic planner, or capable team member, she is viewed as bossy, strong-willed, or rigid.
Without a doubt women are leading in more ways than ever before. And yet from Sheryl Sandberg’s national best seller, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, it appears that many women are still leading blindly. Sandberg encourages more women to sit at the table, jump in, grab opportunities, and keep their hands up. After all, “it is hard to visualize someone as a leader if she is always waiting to be told what to do.” As leaders, women must get comfortable taking the initiative.
In addition to taking the initiative, women need to become avid learners. Padmasree Warrior, Cisco’s chief technology officer, reports, “The ability to learn is the most important quality a leader can have.” For competent leaders, it is fairly easy to learn the business of our companies and organizations and our job descriptions. Women rarely fail because of what is written on paper. Women often fall behind professionally because of unmet expectations and unspoken rules and that is where many of us need more education.
A few months ago I read a book titled, The Silent Language of Leaders: How Body Language Can Help—or Hurt—How You Lead, by Carol Kinsey Goman. While I do not agree with some of the scientific information shared in the book, I was blown away when I read the chapter, He Leads, She Leads. I would guess that most of us don’t intentionally think about our body language. When we discuss “body” in connection with “professional women,” the conversation quickly turns to determine whether or not we are dressing modestly enough for the workplace. We don’t want to show too much cleavage, we don’t want our skirts too short, or our pants too tight. We don’t want our colors to be too flashy (after all, we do want to be taken seriously and not to look like a party girl). Never be too sexual or suggestive (that’s not the way that a competent leader wants to climb the ladder). We don’t want to dress too old, but want to appear young (but not too young) and fresh. We don’t want to look out of shape or lazy because we want others to know that we can get the job done. But as women leaders, do we really think about our body language?
We need to learn our own body language, its signals, and discern the body language of others if we want to lead effectively. Goman shares that research “offers insight into why corporations have relatively few females in senior leadership positions. It has everything to do with body language—but not in the way you might anticipate.” Goman shares thirteen gender-based differences in nonverbal communication. Perhaps the most important difference is that women are better at reading body language and should therefore use this skill to our advantage. Be attentive to the nonverbal messages in the room.
Both men and women also have strengths and weakness concerning their methods of communication. In addition to reading body language, women are generally better listeners and are more compassionate towards others. Since men are generally “overly blunt and direct, insensitive to emotional reactions, and too confident in [their] own opinions,” women who understand their communication strengths actually have the power to shape conversations.
Be careful because, “communication strengths turn into weaknesses when overdone.” Women leaders do not want to become “overly emotional, indecisive, or lacking in authoritative body language signals.” However, they should be mindful that followers are looking for warmth and authority in their leaders. If you are a woman who is educated, professional, have a title, or work experience, you already have authority. Own it! At the same time, be you. People want leaders who have personalities. When people are drawn by your presence and your professionalism, you win as a leader.
Here is Goman’s advice to women seeking leadership credibility. Lean In by:
Keeping your voice down. Claiming your space. (Compensate for men’s larger and taller statue by standing straight, broadening, [your] stance, etc. [The goal is to] take up more physical space.) Smiling selectively. Watching your hands. (As a woman particularly, you will be viewed as much less powerful if you self-pacify with girlish behaviors) Curbing your enthusiasm. Speaking Up. Straightening your head. ([Literally.] Head tilting is also a universal sign of acquiescence and submission. When you want to project authority and confidence, you should hold your head in an erect, more neutral position.) Employing a firm handshake. Keeping your eyes in the business zone. [Focus on the other person’s eyes.]
Dressing like a leader.Trying a little tenderness. (Showing emotion is not only a good thing: it is a powerful leadership strategy.)Looking at people when they speak.Stop solving problems. (Try being a sounding board rather than a problem solver.)Lightening up. [Don’t take yourself too seriously.]
Women and men need each other, even in professional working relationships. Women can become more effective leaders by understanding their strengths and weaknesses, and paying attention to those of their male counterparts. Presentation is critical when considering expectations and unspoken rules. Women need to learn the power of their nonverbal communication, while understanding that both professionalism and personality are important for leadership growth, development, and advancement.
For the past few days many have caught wind of the lack of diversity at UCLA by way of a YouTube video that has been making the rounds on social media and news outlets. Sy Stokes, the lead in the video, is a spoken-word artist in his junior year at the university. Stokes is backed by a phalanx of silent black male UCLA students as he drops statistics about UCLA’s black male student population as of the 2012-2013 school year:
660 graduate and undergraduate African-American males which is 3.3% of the 19,838 male population of the school
65% of those African-American males are athletes
2,418 is the number of entering male freshman students, 48 were African Americans
74% is the graduation rate, which translates to 35 out of the 48 black male students predicted to graduate
“Let’s not perpetuate the myth that ‘minorities’ and women cannot compete without special preferences. Let’s instead move forward returning to fundamentals or our democracy: individual achievement, equal opportunity and zero tolerance for discrimination against any individual.”
Janina Montero addresses the admissions/Proposition 209 issue in an e-mail to UCLA’s newspaper stating, “University officials agree that UCLA lacks diversity and are trying to work within the parameters of Proposition 209 to bring more students from underrepresented communities to UCLA.” Working within these parameters still present some difficulties and it appears that the holistic consideration of every applicant won’t necessarily increase the number of black male students. Therefore is there some other issue at play here.
What these statistics show us is not that UCLA lacks diversity, but that it lacks volume in certain racial and ethnic profiles. For Stokes, the low number of black male students indicates this “lack of diversity.” Given his statistics about the black male students in 2012 and looking at the profile in 2013 one could assume that the number of black female students outnumber black males but this is also nothing new to educational statistics in general. Thus there is a question of root causes that must be asked.
The issue of there being few black male students enrolled at UCLA—the majority of those few being athletes, may not be about a failure on UCLA’s part, but about low numbers of black males applying to school in the first place. Whose fault is that? Could it be equal parts UCLA and the individual black male? If it is UCLA’s fault it is because they have failed to recruit black male students in high school for anything but sports. If it is the individual black male’s fault is it because they are not interested in the school? Or do they assume that they can’t get in so they don’t apply? Knowing what percentage of the applicants are black males and how they came to apply to UCLA would help this situation along. We also have to consider the drop-off—not dropout—rates in admission. That is, the number of students who were accepted to the school but withdrew or declined their acceptance.
At this moment it is difficult to be comprehensive about the questions that the Black Bruin video poses. Suffice to say that it must put us in the position to ask better questions of both our academic institutions and ourselves. Before we get angry about being excluded and ready to be up in arms about it we have to substantiate our claims with valid evidence and figure out the root causes of possible exclusion. We must also figure out what is under our control—like the possibility of having UCLA students do independent recruiting in their high schools and not putting the onus on the university to do so. Maybe there are subversive strategies that could lead to an increase in the black male population of the school, but that won’t happen before we put a pin in the “why” of the situation. Furthermore, we may want to be careful about what we call a lack of diversity. Let’s use this Black Bruins video as a conversation starter and start asking more questions.
So what are some of the questions you have about this and what are your thoughts in general about black males in higher education?
Yesterday morning news broke in Orlando about