[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 215 (Tuesday, December 14, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9157-S9159]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            MORNING BUSINESS

                                 ______
                                 

   RECOGNIZING THE 2021 KEYNOTE ADDRESS AT THE 24TH VERMONT WOMEN'S 
                    ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY CONFERENCE

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would like to take a moment to 
recognize Xusana Davis, who delivered the keynote address for Vermont's 
24th Annual Women's Economic Opportunity Conference earlier this year. 
Each year, Marcelle and I host this conference to bring together 
Vermonters to learn how to navigate, grow, and succeed in today's 
workplace. While public health concerns led to an online conference 
this year, the dedication of the women who participated shone through. 
I hope the participants were as inspired by Ms. Davis's words as I was.
  Xusana Davis is Vermont's first Executive Director of Racial Equity 
and was appointed in 2019 by Vermont Governor Phil Scott. In her 
position as the Director of Racial Equity, she works with Vermont 
agencies and communities to address systemic racial disparities, 
ensures the State's operations meet its equity goals and objectives, 
and guides policy on equity issues. She offered an insightful view of 
how we can all advance equity in our communities and offered her 
remarks with grace and eloquence.
  Ms. Davis's leadership comes at a time when we continue to see great 
need for equity in the workplace. The pandemic has worsened preexisting 
disparities that have effected women, especially those who identify 
with historically marginalized communities. As Ms. Davis emphasizes in 
her speech, we must all work to promote equity as we collectively 
participate in our Nation's economic recovery. I would like to share 
her inspiring words by submitting them for inclusion in the 
Congressional Record in the hopes that we may all take her message to 
heart.
  I ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            [Oct. 23, 2021]

                 ``Opportunity Is Not a Fungible Good''

                           (By Xusana Davis)

       Thank you, Senator Leahy, for inviting me to join you 
     today.

[[Page S9158]]

       Hola, buenos dias, everyone. As you might have heard, the 
     Executive Director of Racial Equity is a relatively new 
     position for Vermont state government. While it got its share 
     of fanfare in the summer of 2019 when I was first appointed, 
     I'd like to share with you a little bit of the work we've 
     been doing since then. We've worked hard with our sister 
     agencies across state government on internal and external-
     facing policy. Things like the Fair and Impartial Policing 
     policy, stimulus funds to get communities through tough times 
     at the outset of the pandemic, and how we provide health 
     services to people by treating the whole person. We've been 
     poking our noses into conversations all over the state to 
     help people at the local level figure out how to grow--or at 
     least retain--their town populations. And of course, we've 
     been a sounding board for leaders of all kinds who want to 
     take bold action to be and do better on matters of equity.
       But you probably knew all that. What you may not have known 
     is that all of this work is bigger than race and ethnicity. 
     It always has been. This work is essential in all corners of 
     the state and in every sector, because there's a collective 
     benefit to equity, and a collective harm to inequity. But 
     before we jump into that, let's back up a bit . . .
       First, let's talk about ``opportunity.'' Do you ever notice 
     that we talk about ``opportunity'' like it's a fungible good? 
     Like it's some sort of coupon that we can pass to the person 
     behind us in the checkout line. We talk about ``giving'' 
     opportunities. Or ``seizing'' them--maybe you're a bit more 
     aggressive, and that's okay! Or we talk about ``creating'' 
     opportunities, as if they can just materialize.
       But out of all the verbs we choose to deploy on these 
     opportunities, there's always the implication that there's a 
     transfer. That there's a person who holds or creates 
     opportunities, and that the rest of us are just trying to get 
     a piece. That's our first mistake--thinking that an 
     opportunity is something that must be given or surrendered to 
     us, something that we must wrestle from someone's firm grip. 
     And there are a few reasons for this thinking: After all, 
     there's a lot of money to be made from commodifying ``girl 
     power.'' We can produce highly dramatized films about long-
     ignored women historical figures. Or sell a self-help book 
     about how to be the next successful businesswoman who ``can 
     have it all.'' But for a lot of us, the barriers to 
     opportunity are not something we can unlock with three easy 
     payments of $39.99 but wait, there's more. No, many of the 
     barriers to opportunity are systemic. They are structural. 
     They are bigger than any of us as individuals, but they 
     absolutely impact all of us as individuals.
       That's what I meant when I said racial equity is bigger 
     than race. You see, when we think of women's economic 
     opportunity, many people incorrectly assume that these 
     opportunities are only for the benefit of women. They are 
     not. Women are 51 % of the U.S. population--we're not a 
     ``special interest.'' We are the interest. Something that 
     impacts the numerical majority is inevitably something that 
     impacts the whole. Think about it: Childcare. Reproductive 
     justice. You think these are only women's issues? Well, have 
     you ever been a child? Or cared about a child? Then childcare 
     and child development should matter to you. I'm reminded of 
     the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who for years 
     was, well, rather indignant about parental leave and 
     childcare issues. He didn't get it and he didn't want to get 
     it . . . until his daughter had children and struggled to 
     balance her parental duties with her professional life. Then 
     suddenly Grandpa Scalia was dropping off children here and 
     there, and babysitting, and you know what? He changed his 
     stance. He suddenly realized that the burden did not simply 
     fall on his adult daughter--and that even if it did, it 
     shouldn't have. And that's the point: there are ripple 
     effects to the ways in which we treat people in society. And 
     when we talk about women's economic opportunity like it's a 
     hobby or a solo mission, like it's something that can be 
     bartered or restricted to only during nap time, then we're 
     ignoring the network of people surrounding us who will be 
     impacted by those choices and resources.
       This is true in the racial equity space, too. In workshops 
     and trainings, I often ask people to consider the benefits 
     and rights they enjoy today that were fought and won by 
     people of color. For example, Ernesto Miranda. Do you know 
     him? You do . . . You just may not know you do. Ernesto 
     Miranda is a Latino man who is the reason that you get read 
     your Miranda rights if you get arrested. Sylvia Mendez. Ring 
     a bell? You know her--sure you do! She was on a postal stamp! 
     Mendez v. Westminster. 1946. That's the court case that gave 
     us Brown v. Board. And Brown v. Board is the case that gave 
     every child--including your child--the right to a free and 
     fair basic education. Truth is, in the United States, every 
     gain accomplished by members of dominant groups always 
     benefits members of dominant groups, and only sometimes 
     benefits members of historically marginalized or oppressed 
     groups. But every gain accomplished by historically oppressed 
     groups always benefits members of dominant groups. 
     Affirmative action. Do you know what is the number one 
     beneficiary group of affirmative action policies in 
     education and employment in the U.S.? That's right, White 
     women.
       So when we think about equity and reducing structural, 
     systemic barriers, there is always a collective benefit to 
     equity. And that's why Senator Leahy has been doing this 
     conference since 1996--you think he likes making people wake 
     up early on a Saturday? No! Well, maybe . . . But really, 
     it's because he knows what's been right in front of us all 
     along--that when we stop disempowering people, we all move 
     forward. We all win. And you know why? Because life isn't 
     zero-sum. And your winning does not equate my losing.
       And we know this now, but people didn't always recognize 
     this truth. Let's think back to the women's suffrage 
     movement. Susan B. Anthony was pretty racist. That's why 
     people like Sojourner Truth and, later, bell hooks had to ask 
     the question ``Ain't I A Woman?'' This is reflective of a 
     bigger concept--a concept you've likely heard of--called 
     Intersectionality. Intersectionality is what makes us dynamic 
     and multi-faceted. It's what multiplies our strength as a 
     movement and as a community. Because I'm not just a woman. 
     I'm also a person of color. I'm also a Millennial. I'm right-
     handed. These are only some of my many identities, and not 
     even the more important ones. And when we allow ourselves to 
     represent all of our selves, without letting it come between 
     us, that's when we will have used intersectionality for good.
       Of course, intersectionality sometimes has its thorns. Two 
     days ago was Latina Women's Equal Pay Day in the U.S. I'll 
     explain what that means: You see, we already know that in the 
     U.S., women statistically make less money for the same work 
     than men do. And separately, we also know that people of 
     color statistically make less money for the same work than 
     White people do. So statistically speaking, my intersecting 
     identities as a woman and as a person of color make me more 
     likely to earn less than my male counterparts of all 
     ethnicities, and less than my women-identified peers who are 
     White. So what is Women's Equal Pay Day? Well, it's the 
     symbolic date that represents how much more a woman has to 
     work in order to match the earnings of a man in a given 
     calendar year. In 2021, Women's Equal Pay Day was March 24th 
     So that means if a woman and a man started working on Jan 1, 
     2020, then it would take the woman until March 24 of this 
     year to catch up to the earning of a man by Dec 31 of 2020. 
     But that's not the full story: for most women of color, Equal 
     Pay Day comes much later. For example, Equal Pay Day for 
     Asian American and Pacific Islander women was March 9th. But 
     for Black American women, it was August 3rd. For Indigenous 
     women in the U.S., Equal Pay Day was Sept 8th of this year. 
     And for Latina women--that's the bucket where you'll find 
     me--it was Oct 21st. So in other words, statistically 
     speaking, I would have needed to work all of calendar year 
     2020, plus an additional 9 months and 3 weeks to earn the 
     same that a White man earned in calendar year 2020. And 
     remember intersectionality? Well, it goes beyond just race. 
     There are different Equal Pay Days for mothers and for 
     members of the LGBTQIA+ community. And I need to make an 
     important point, one that my best friend frequently raises: 
     the goal is not to look at what White men are doing and 
     saying ``Yeah, we want the right to do that . . .'' That's 
     not the standard. It's not about making the same money for 
     the same work if that work is only fueling oppression and 
     ecological harm.
       All of this is to say that it's not enough to lump us all 
     into one large bucket and think we're doing enough. That's 
     not true equity. Equity means recognizing that within our 
     communities there are certainly different challenges, but 
     also different skill sets for finding solutions to those 
     challenges. Trust each other more. Trust one another's 
     experience more.
       And on the topic of trust, and speaking of solutions, let's 
     think about how we can we turn this dialogue towards action. 
     First things first: action by whom? Who gets to do the thing? 
     And who gets to decide what the thing is? If your rights and 
     liberties are restricted and determined by someone else, then 
     your power is contingent upon them giving you permission to 
     exercise it. Like asking men who can vote to vote on whether 
     you can vote. As Upton Sinclair said, ``It is difficult to 
     get a man to understand something when his salary depends on 
     his not understanding.'' Or holding hearings on reproductive 
     justice without any women present--don't ever forget: 
     ``nothing about us without us.''
       So we're through asking for permission. For those who want 
     to join us in advancing justice, what we need is genuine and 
     sincere support. And support is different from permission--it 
     is not about asking to be ``given'' opportunities, and it is 
     not about having to ``seize'' them either. It's about the 
     recognition that opportunity just exists--it always has. And 
     the question is not whether or how to grant it, but rather, 
     how to stop blocking it. This is an important point: People 
     often see equity work as some kind of handout, as if people 
     who have been oppressed are asking to be given something. 
     Incorrect. What's needed is that we stop actively blocking 
     and suppressing people's ability to move and thrive and grow 
     and exist. That's the key.
       So how do we stop blocking? Well, first we must make 
     meaningful investments of time, effort, and finances--not 
     token gestures. It means when we talk about mentorship, we 
     don't just shuttle women into the same paths where they still 
     wind up working for rich men to make those men richer. It 
     means when your staff tell you they want you to revise 
     workplace policies because they unjustly prejudice your 
     women-identified

[[Page S9159]]

     workers, you listen. And don't just listen for the sake of 
     saying ``Okay, we listened and we're still going to keep 
     doing things the same way we've always done them because 
     that's how we've always done them . . .'' it means listening 
     for the purpose of action. Take a broad view: if you don't 
     provide parental leave to a male employee, you know who 
     suffers? A new mother who might have to delay her re-entry 
     into the workforce--perhaps permanently--because her partner 
     can't participate in childrearing duties. That's a 
     withholding of a women's economic opportunity. And you need 
     to turn your thermostats up in the office. I'm serious--this 
     has ``Patriarchy'' written all over it. You see, the so-
     called ideal office temperature is based on a formula that 
     calculated the average of workers' resting metabolic rates, 
     but the workers in question were all men, an average of 40 
     old, and an average of 154 pounds. Oh, and they were wearing 
     suits and ties. Today's workforce doesn't look the same. 
     There are women in the workforce--and remember, the rigid 
     gender binary has created the expectation that women wear 
     things like skirts and sandals in warmer months, so the 
     clothing differences already create more exposure for us. We 
     also have seniors working longer before retirement, so the 
     workforce also has an aging population that may be more 
     thermosensitive.
       That's what we mean when we say inequity is ``systemic''--
     the formulas are actually built in to our lives through 
     infrastructure, fashion, and employment practices. So anyway, 
     when half the office is shivering and stepping into the 
     service stairwell every couple hours to thaw out, you need to 
     bump up the temperature.
       So as I bring my remarks to a close, I want to share with 
     you a quote from James Joyce's Ulysses, in which the speaker 
     says ``We feel in England that we have treated you rather 
     unfairly. It seems history is to blame.'' And I really enjoy 
     that line because it speaks to how we distance ourselves from 
     the oppression of others. You see, by stating that 
     ``history'' is to blame, it implies [a] that there was 
     nothing we could have done about it, and [b] that we're not 
     responsible for fixing things. But of course, that isn't 
     true. We are absolutely in control of how we invest, how we 
     govern, how we vote, and how we envision ``opportunity.'' As 
     you engage with workshops, panels, and networking settings 
     throughout today's event, keep these things in mind: who is 
     at the table, who is missing, which intersecting identities 
     are at play here, and who shapes the agenda for action. 
     Remember what Senator Leahy said: ``a stronger and more 
     equitable economy.'' We can get there, but it must include 
     all of us . . . whatever your career might be, equity is 
     still your job. Thank you for your time.

                          ____________________