[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.
____________________