suggests something more robust. But the way people have thought about equity in the
United States at least is largely in terms of disparities and scarcity. Which actually turns
out to be a breaking practice. Because what you do is you say, “There’s some dominant
group, we need to close the gap. So let’s close the gap between whites and blacks in
education. Let’s close the gaps between Latinos and whites in health.” And that’s not a
bad thing. Except it normalises what whites have and basically says Latino issues are
white issues. So in Dayton, Ohio sometime ago, they had a goal of closing the gap between
whites and people of colour. After 10 years that gap had largely disappeared. But it wasn’t
because blacks were doing better; it was because whites were doing worse. When you
say that, people say, “Well that’s not what I really meant.” So what did you mean? “Well,
I was hoping to get what whites have, or more appropriately I was looking for some goal
that’s a positive goal.” And targeting worseism, that’s what targeting worseism says, it
says, “Let’s say what that goal is. That’s the universal.” But we’re not all situated the same
in relationship to structures and stories and culture in terms of achieving that universal.
If you just say universal you could easily slip back into, “Let’s treat everybody the same.”
So targeting universalism says, “No, what’s needed for blacks, Latinos and these different
communities is different. It’s targeting based on who they are. Not because they’re black,
not because they’re Native American, not because they’re white, but because of where they
are in relationship to these universal goals and those structures.” It’s a small thing but it’s
a big thing because sometimes people can get confused. Like, “Why are we focusing on
black boys? Why not white girls? Why not white boys?” And oftentimes that’s a rhetorical
question meant to stop the program. But there’s an answer to that if we think about it.
It’s not because of their blackness, it’s not because of any essential quality. It’s because of
how they’re situated within our society. And it calls upon us to actually pay attention to
that. The goal is to get everybody to that universal goal. And if you bring people in, people
contribute to belonging, the resources available to you are expansive. So it’s not a scarcity
model. A talent that you have, if we do something together, it’s more than twice of what
I’ve done by myself.Sure. Yeah. I’ll give that example. But also I just remind people
that structures are not neutral. A lot of times people will say,
“Let’s remove the barriers.” The language of removing the
barriers suggests getting back to a neutral place. We’re not
neutral. Structures are not neutral. So I give the example of
the escalator. Escalator’s not neutral, it’s actually doing a
function. And it doesn’t work with a person in a wheelchair. It’s not because that person
is in a wheelchair. That person’s not the problem. The problem is we designed the system
for people who are ambulatory. We could design a system for people in a wheelchair.
Elevators. And so oftentimes what I do just to bring home a point, I’ll put some writing
up on a PowerPoint and I’ll say, “All right, take off your glasses.” And any large meeting of
adults, a body of people have glasses on. I say, “Now read what’s on the PowerPoint.” And
of course they’re squinting and they can’t read it. Then I say, “Great, okay, now take your
glasses and give them to your neighbour.” And then they put the glasses on. The goal is for
everyone to be able to read. What’s necessary to get there is different. Some people need
glasses. Some people need strong glasses, some people need weak glasses. Some people
don’t need glasses at all. It’s nothing special or problematic about people needing glasses.
It’s saying, “How do we support you getting there so everybody can read?” And it’s a simple
example. People like it. They play with it, they laugh. In the United States we’ve spent so
much time saying some people are not fully human—that’s the seeds of Nazism which a lotI’ve listened to you speak on targeted
universalism and you used an example,
I’m asking if you could share it now, about
asking the audience to take off their
glasses. And what happened after that.108
JOHN A. POWELL
DUMBO FEATHER