Civil rights leader and congressman John Lewis, who died last month after a battle with cancer, was often referred to as the “conscience of Congress.” Even to the very end he encouraged us all to get into “good trouble, necessary trouble.” Former U.S. President Barack Obama eulogized John Lewis’ life as an example of what Martin Luther King Jr. once described as someone who lived with the “fierce urgency of now.”
I, too, write today with the “fierce urgency of now.” As Martin Luther King Jr. further stated, “We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today.” That was 50 years ago. So what “today” do I speak about with “urgency”? I speak about the need for the IAPP to have a constructive dialogue about race and systemic racism. My prose may not share the grace of these giants, but I share their dreams.
Is it now time to talk about change in the IAPP? Jane Stanford, in a 1904 address to the Stanford Board of Trustees, said, “Let us not be afraid to outgrow old thoughts and ways, and dare to think on new lines as to the future of the work under our care.” I would make that same challenge to the IAPP, though it is not alone in being challenged to self-reflect. This includes other organizations like Emergency Medicine and The New York Times as illustrated in the respective articles, “Addressing the Elephant in the Room: Microaggressions in Medicine,” and “A Reckoning of Objectivity, Led by Black Journalists.” Addressing the underlying issues of systemic racism requires moral clarity and truth. That means all organizations must truly listen, not just now, but on an ongoing basis, to the issues of systemic racism.
Does the messenger matter? I am Latino. Does it automatically make me a less credible voice? Does it make a difference that I work for a state human services agency instead of a “power” company? Do those initial status markers cause this dialogue to be dismissed before it even begins? I mention this because it is a routine microaggression I experience to be casually dismissed in discussions until I mention my association with Stanford or my certifications. It does seem many times that race matters.
A recent Atlantic Monthly article reported that black workers receive more scrutiny; meaning small mistakes have a disproportionate impact on their jobs. As a Latino, I have experienced this additional unreasonable scrutiny. I also have had my expertise questioned more than my white colleagues. It gets a bit tiresome to constantly have to prove yourself.
For my part, I have started discussions with IAPP leadership about the intersection of race with privacy and the IAPP. Part of the discussion has been whether it provides the same platform for minority issues or whether a blind spot exists. I think blind spots are there, a flaw articulated in a quote from D.H. Lawrence, “"What the eye doesn't see and the mind doesn't know, doesn't exist." And while the IAPP and the greater community of privacy professionals may not have realized it, this blind spot to race makes me feel apart from, rather than a part of, the privacy community. I am sure others like me feel the same.
Why is it important for the IAPP to address race? It goes to the IAPP’s core mission of data protection and the related issues of data and technology. And in this area my message is: Technology and data are not neutral. IAPP Market Research Specialist Christelle Kamaliza speaks to this in her article, “
