Rutgers President Dr. Robert Barchi officially announced Pernetti’s resignation—and apologized for the scandal on behalf of himself and Rutgers leadership—today at a press conference, when he called the incidents that led to Rice’s suspension a “failure of process.” Barchi noted that assistant basketball Coach Jimmy Martelli also resigned, and that Interim General Counsel John Wolf resigned his position.

Barchi reaffirmed that he had not seen the video until this week, and that Rice’s actions were more “abusive and pervasive” than he had understood them to be. The Board of Governors says it supports him; however, many are calling for Barchi to also step down.

Pernetti wrote in his resignation letter:

My continued tenure as Athletic Director is no longer sustainable for the University which I attended and where a piece of me will always remain. In connection with the incidents involving former basketball Coach Mike Rice, as was the case with all other matters which I handled on behalf of the University, I always tried my best to do what is right. I have spent a great deal of time reflecting on the events which led to today. As you know, my first instinct when I saw the videotape of Coach Rice’s behavior was to fire him immediately. However, Rutgers decided to follow a process involving university lawyers, human resources professionals, and outside counsel. Following review of the independent investigative report, the consensus was that university policy would not justify dismissal. I have admitted my role in, and regret for, that decision, and wish that I had the opportunity to go back and override it for the sake of everyone involved.

Fallout continued to spread on Monday.

• In his first press conference since the scandal erupted, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie called Rice “an animal” but defended Barchi. “The university would be hurt drastically by the departure of Dr. Barchi, that’s why I don’t support it,” Christie said. “Also, I don’t think his conduct necessitates it.”
• Rutgers announced that it is commissioning an independent review of the way the university responded to the Rice video, and Barchi said at a town hall meeting on Rutgers’ Newark campus that the school is reviewing practice video of all sports to see if any other coaches have engaged in similar behavior.
• The FBI is also getting involved, The New York Times reports. A university official told the paper that an FBI agent met with Pernetti and made other stops on the New Brunswick campus to investigate whether former Director of Basketball Operations Eric Murdock tried to extort the university.
• Meanwhile, Rice’s previous employer, Robert Morris University, wrapped up an internal investigation into Murdock’s claims that he was told that “there were five coaches-versus-player brawls in practice.” Robert Morris Athletic Director Craig Coleman said that the investigation uncovered no evidence of the fights, but that one former player told school officials that Rice used a homophobic slur and threw a basketball at a player “once or twice” while he was at the Pennsylvania school.

DiversityInc CEO Luke Visconti, a member of the Rutgers Board of Trustees and of the Rutgers Board of Governors Standing Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics, said he was never informed about Rice’s anti-gay slurs or the fact that the video existed. Visconti says he had been told there was a disciplinary issue, which was addressed with the suspension.

The post Rutgers Scandal Update: Pernetti Resigns; President Apologizes for ‘Failure of Process’ appeared first on DiversityInc.

Here’s what they’re saying:

Rutgers coach and sports’ bully culture
The first former NBA player to be openly gay, John Amaechi, responds to the underlying issue of bullying in sports, saying that “medieval coaches” like Rice are a “detriment to society.” Amaechi spoke at DiversityInc’s event about his personal experiences with “coming out.”

Mike Rice firing reaction: Rick Pitino, Gregg Marshall chime in
Louisville coach Rick Pitino and Wichita State coach Gregg Marshall, both known for their emotionally charged coaching styles, say Rice overstepped his boundaries.

Parallels worth noting: ex-Rutgers coach Mike Rice and Jerry Sandusky
From former Penn State football coach Sandusky to Rutgers’ Rice, college scandals reveal a need for better regulation and more accountability from higher-education administrations for sports teams.

Brennan: Administrators fail Rutgers University
Rutgers’ Athletic Director needs to be fired, too, says national sports columnist Christine Brennan.

Firing of Rutgers coach Mike Rice ‘far too late,’ says Lupica
New York Daily News columnist says Rutgers isn’t doing enough—and he calls for Athletic Director Tim Pernetti to be fired as well.

Rutgers student reactions to Mike Rice firing
Not all students are shocked to hear about Rice’s abusive actions, and they agree that the University is correct in firing him. But there are those who feel Pernetti should not share the blame.

Mike Rice’s firing leads to calls for others to resign
“Rutgers should be policing themselves. It shouldn’t require the media to do it,” says Brennan.

The post What’s Everyone Saying About Rutgers’ Rice Crisis? appeared first on DiversityInc.

Barchi and Pernetti

Rutgers faculty, government officials, members of the public (and DiversityInc readers) are demanding answers to the Rutgers University basketball scandal involving physical abuse and homophobic slurs—and some are asking for the resignation of Athletic Director Tim Pernetti and Rutgers President Dr. Robert Barchi.

Basketball Coach Mike Rice was fired yesterday after video of his actions surfaced. But when Pernetti first saw the video in November, he gave Rice a slap on the wrist and allowed him to continue coaching the men’s basketball team. Because he was not fired at the time and completed the season, Rice will be paid a $100,000 bonus.

The controversy surfaced Tuesday night after ESPN aired video that showcased Rice in a rage, kicking and shoving students, throwing basketballs at their heads from close range, and using hateful, homophobic slurs like “f—-t” to degrade them. Pernetti admittedly saw the video, and similar clips, in November, as did internal and external counsel. Some reports said Barchi also had seen any video, but a Rutgers statement yesterday implied he was aware of Rice’s actions but never saw the video until Tuesday. In November, Rice was suspended for three games, fined $50,000 and required to receive anger-management counseling.

DiversityInc CEO Luke Visconti, a member of the Rutgers Board of Trustees and of the Rutgers Board of Governors Standing Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics, said he was never informed about Rice’s anti-gay slurs or the fact that the video existed. Visconti says he had been told there was a disciplinary issue, which was addressed with the suspension.

Where’s the Accountability for Leadership?

“I am responsible for the decision to attempt a rehabilitation of Coach Rice,” said Pernetti. “Dismissal and corrective action were debated in December, and I thought it was in the best interest of everyone to rehabilitate, but I was wrong. Moving forward, I will work to regain the trust of the Rutgers community.”

Although Dr. Barchi said he did not see the video until this week, he is under scrutiny for not taking a more proactive role when Pernetti approached him about the need for disciplinary action against Rice. According to the New Jersey Star-Ledger:

Barchi never asked to see the video. … It wasn’t until late Tuesday that Barchi finally watched a DVD of the excerpts with Pernetti on the Piscataway campus. Amid growing outrage and calls from the governor to fire the embattled coach, the university president finally changed his mind about Rice, according to interviews with Rutgers officials.

Many are calling for the resignation of Pernetti, including DiversityInc readers, who responded to our initial coverage in “Why Did Rutgers Wait to Fire Coach After Anti-Gay and Abusive Actions?” For example:

• Due to their failures, university President Dr. Robert Barchi and Athletic Director Tim Pernetti should now be fired—especially Pernetti.

• Pernetti stating “Moving forward, I will work to regain the trust of the Rutgers community” is insufficient. He should not be given that opportunity to work to rebuild trust—he failed in his insufficient response to the long term misbehavior of his subordinate.

• I would guess that if Barchi and Pernetti had heard the coach use the n-word or the c-word to demean the school’s student players instead of antigay f-word pejorative the coach actually used, likely a fine, a three-day suspension, and an anger management class wouldn’t have even been considered adequate at all. I don’t see the difference between using a racist pejoratives, sexist pejorative, and anti-gay pejoratives: all pejoratives demean not only those who the terms are used against, but also demean known minority populations. Use of pejoratives by people drawing salary from the university shouldn’t be tolerated at all by the university’s management.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said he was “deeply disturbed” by Rice’s actions and expects Rutgers’ administration to provide a full explanation “as to why Mr. Rice was not dismissed sooner and how exactly that decision was made. If answers aren’t forthcoming, we are prepared to do what’s needed to get them for the people of New Jersey.”

The post Should Rutgers President and Athletic Director Resign After Coach Rice Scandal? appeared first on DiversityInc.

Instead, they suspended him for three games, fined him $50,000 and sent him to anger-management classes. They only fired him after ESPN aired the video, which went viral and prompted demands for Rice’s firing from everyone from New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin to basketball star LeBron James.

DiversityInc CEO Luke Visconti, a member of the Rutgers Board of Trustees and of the Rutgers Board of Governors Standing Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics, said he was never informed about Rice’s anti-gay slurs or the fact that the video existed. He said he had been told there was a disciplinary issue, which was addressed with the suspension. DiversityInc General Counsel and Senior Vice President, Transformation Practices Lora Fong also is a member of the Rutgers Board of Trustees and also was uninformed about Rice’s specific transgressions.

“Had I known what he said and did, I would have urged Rutgers to fire him on the spot,” Visconti said.

One of the clips was broadcast on ESPN’s Outside the Lines last night. It was part of a series of clips compiled by retired NBA player Eric Murdock during practices from 2010–2012. Murdock was Rice’s Director of Player Development. All of the video, demonstrating prolonged verbal and physical abuse of players and frequent use of the anti-gay slur “f - - - - t,” were shown to Pernetti in November.

In a statement issued today, Barchi took responsibility for not initially firing Rice:

Coach Rice’s abusive language and actions are deeply offensive and egregiously violate the university’s core values.

When video excerpts of basketball practices were reviewed last fall by Athletic Director Tim Pernetti, he immediately notified me and sought the advice of internal and outside counsel. The university hired an independent investigator to look into this matter thoroughly. Based on the external investigator’s findings and recommendations, Tim and I agreed that Coach Rice should be suspended, penalized $75,000 in fines and lost salary, ordered to undergo anger management counseling, and put on notice that his behavior would be closely monitored. Tim Pernetti also made it clear to Coach Rice that there would be zero tolerance for additional infractions. Tim kept me fully apprised and I supported his actions.

Yesterday, I personally reviewed the video evidence, which shows a chronic and pervasive pattern of disturbing behavior. I have now reached the conclusion that Coach Rice cannot continue to serve effectively in a position that demands the highest levels of leadership, responsibility and public accountability. He cannot continue to coach at Rutgers University. Therefore, Tim Pernetti and I have jointly decided to terminate Mike Rice’s employment at Rutgers.

Pernetti separately issued a statement:

I am responsible for the decision to attempt a rehabilitation of Coach Rice. Dismissal and corrective action were debated in December and I thought it was in the best interest of everyone to rehabilitate, but I was wrong. Moving forward, I will work to regain the trust of the Rutgers community.

Public Values

The issue of being inclusive is critical to Rutgers’ public image, especially after the very public September 2010 suicide of gay student Tyler Clementi and the subsequent trial and publicity about bullying and invasion of privacy.

As Visconti has stated in his Ask the White Guy column, “Credibility received for your professed values is dependent on your decisive execution of actions based on your values. This does not preclude empathy and forgiveness for mistakes, but values cannot be parsed without exposure to repercussions.” He also notes that in this age of transparency, an organization cannot EVER think it can hide offensive actions.

The post Why Did Rutgers Wait to Fire Coach After Anti-Gay and Abusive Actions? appeared first on DiversityInc.

Racism & Colorism in the Black Community

The University of Pennsylvania held a “hair-itage” symposium on the challenging politics of Black hair, led by Associate Professor of Religious Studies Anthea Butler, to demystify the versatility of Black hair and encourage Black women to embrace the beauty of their natural Blackness and appearance.

The issue of whether mostly white corporate America allows Black women—and others from underrepresented groups—to be their “whole selves” while succeeding is relevant to the recent debate over R&B singer India.Arie, who is defending the cover art for her new single, “Cocoa Butter.”

While various news outlets say that the singer’s drastically lightened skin color—and rumors of skin bleaching—are “absolutely ridiculous” and simply an effect of intense lighting, Twitter users were quick to slam Arie for her creative choice to not color-correct the photo.

“It’s not the lights, even if it’s make up! Why India Arie!? This isn’t You! Please tweet her and ask her why…” said hip-hop artist Rhymefest.

Arie has been a vocal advocate for Black beauty with songs like “I Am Not My Hair” and “Brown Skin” and also spoke out regarding the controversial casting of Zoe Saldana, a biracial actress, as the lead in the upcoming Nina Simone biopic, which many in the Black community consider “whitewashing.”

Watch this Huffington Post Panel discuss “The Color Complex.”

Corporate America: Racism, Biases Toward Black Hair & Skin Color

The larger issue—rather, #skinversation, as Arie calls it—is racism and colorism in the Black community, which ultimately carries over into the workplace.

In his popular Ask the White Guy column “Do Blacks Need to Relax Their Natural Hair to Get Promoted?” DiversityInc CEO Luke Visconti writes:

There’s no doubt in my mind that Black people have been overlooked for promotions because of natural hair or darker skin color. Psychological tests show that people most trust people who look like them. Since white men run most corporations in this country, straightened hair and/or lighter skin is going to be an advantage (disturbing, but let’s keep it real).

Visconti also notes that these types of biases and stereotypes, if left unchecked, can negatively affect your business by reducing a company’s competitive advantage, ability to recruit/retain top talent and its potential for innovation. Allowing employees to bring their whole selves to work (whether that means your appearance, your orientation or your background), and not fear that they will be judged by stereotypes and biases, is key to driving an inclusive corporate culture.

How do you get that? It starts at the top with clearly stated values of inclusion from the CEO and senior executives and is supported by cultural-competence education, which occurs through having active resource groups spreading the word, role models from underrepresented groups in your succession plan, and formal, cross-cultural mentoring relationships that teach high-potentials how to succeed in corporate environments without sacrificing their identities.

The post Should Black Women Straighten Their Hair or Lighten Their Skin? appeared first on DiversityInc.

During a recent interview with KRBD radio, Young “accidentally” used a racial slur when referring to the Latinos who used to work on his family’s farm.

“My father had a ranch. We used to hire 50 or 60 wetbacks … to pick tomatoes. You know, it takes two people to pick the same tomatoes now. It’s all done by machine,” said Young.

Young immediately was slammed by both the media and his fellow GOP members for the racist comment, but it wasn’t until Speaker of the House John A. Boehner demanded that Young apologize that any sign of remorse was issued. A full three days later, Young finally said: “I apologize for the insensitive term I used. …There was no malice in my heart or intent to offend; it was a poor choice of words.” Young noted it was a term used back when he was growing up and, as such, he did not consider the term’s present-day connotations.

It’s an excuse—not a heartfelt apology that conveys a sense of sincerity or mindfulness, which the GOP needs to convey.

Diversity and cultural competence have become key differentiators in political success. During the 2012 presidential race, 71 percent of Latinos voted for President Obama, and Latinos comprised 10 percent of the total electorate for the first time.

Is the GOP for Whites Only? Young’s gaffe is a classic example of yet another “we don’t get it moment,” says Mike Allen, Chief White House Correspondent for Politico. Last year, gaffes by Republican candidates such as Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, along with racist voter laws, negatively impacted voter opinions. And Young’s slur “gives critics and people who are skeptical of the party a new reason to say it hasn’t changed.”

What will it take for a turnaround in the Republican Party? Jason Johnson, who debated the issue on a CNN panel, had this to say in his column on Politic365.com:

One of the problems that the Republican Party has about race issues is that the party is full of non-repentant bigots who want to treat racism like it’s an outlier and exceptional instead of the basic thought process of many, many (all too many) Americans. Earlier today I was on CNN with Amy Holmes from the Blaze (Glenn Beck TV) and she responded with the typical talking points of the GOP: “Joe Biden says racist things too,” “Other Democrats have said racist things,” etc., etc. Trying to place blame on all sides does not solve the GOP’s major electoral and reputational problem. All Republicans, white people, conservatives and Southerners are not racists. In fact, the majority of these groups are not necessarily racist. However, the GOP refuses to take responsibility for its own bad press and would rather say that the media is blowing things out of proportion, unfairly targeting its members (instead of Democrats) or that Blacks and Latinos are too sensitive. All of these outfits and fashion flips rather than cleaning up their act.

The biggest issue for Johnson? The level of comfort with which Young said “wetback,” he writes, is representative of the “casual simple ‘it’s a fact’ bigotry that is churned out every day in the halls of power, where denying someone a job, acceptance into a college or a promotion is not the result of some large diabolical plot, it’s just how large portions of white people have done things in America for years and continue to do.”

The post Racism & Bigotry: Will ‘Wetback’ Slur Derail GOP’s Rebranding Efforts? appeared first on DiversityInc.

Separate But Equal? ‘Full & Skim-Milk Marriages’

The Supreme Court’s stance on DOMA leaned favorably toward marriage equality after almost two hours of oral arguments on March 27. A majority of the justices voiced concerns for the constitutionality of a federally mandated definition of marriage, which currently is defined and recognized as being between a man and a woman only. As such, only heterosexual married couples are eligible to receive benefits like Social Security and tax breaks, while married same-gender couples, in states that have approved such unions, still are not recognized by the federal government.

Having two kinds of marriages, according to Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, is likened to having “separate but equal” tiers, inferring a direct parallel to the faulted rationality the government once upheld in Jim-Crow-era laws. Ginsberg said:

They’re not–they’re not a question of additional benefits. I mean, they touch every aspect of life. Your partner is sick. Social Security. I mean, it’s pervasive. It’s not as though, well, there’s this little Federal sphere and it’s only a tax question. It’s — it’s — as Justice Kennedy said, 1100 statutes, and it affects every area of life. And so he was really diminishing what the State has said is marriage. You’re saying, no, State said two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage.

Additionally, questions surrounding the original motives behind DOMA arose: “Well, is what happened in 1996–and I’m going to quote from the House Report here–is that “Congress decided to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.” Is that what happened in 1996?” asked Justice Elena Kagan.

Comparisons between same-gender-marriage bans and racism have become an increasing argument for the supporters of LGBT-rights. For example, pro-LGBT group Every1Against1 previously used Jim-Crow imagery in its campaign in support of marriage equality, and Howard University School of Law’s Civil Rights Clinic recently filed an amicus brief that compared both Prop 8 and DOMA, and similar same-gender-marriage bans with Jim-Crow era laws that prohibited interracial marriage and reinforced continuing discrimination against Blacks.

“Without acknowledging the racial provenance of these discredited arguments, opponents of marriage equality have attacked same-sex couples as a threat to American society, American families and heterosexual marriage, as an affront to the laws of God and nature, and as a menace to their children,” read the brief.

The Supreme Court is expected to make a decision on DOMA and Prop 8 sometime this summer.

The post ‘Separate But Equal?’ Same-Gender Marriage Parallels Racist Jim Crow Laws appeared first on DiversityInc.

“Red symbolizes love. That’s what marriage is all about,” says Charlie Joughin, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, the LGBT-rights advocacy group that started the campaign by turning its equal-sign logo red. The HRC also is offering free equality stickers as a thanks to anyone willing to show their support.

What started as a simple color swap has evolved into massive public promotion, with online users—as true to our meme-hungry society—putting their own spin on the equality symbol. How will you show your support? Take a look at our selection of these powerful images, then visit the Human Rights Campaign flickr page for more.

Same-Gender Equality Lady Liberty & Justice

Same-Gender Equality Wedding Rings

Same-Gender Marriage Equality Painted Hand

Same-Gender Marriage Equality Words of Marriage

Same-Gender Equality Les Miserables

Same-Gender Marriage Equality Collage

Same-Gender Marriage Equality: We Are the 58 Percent

Same-Gender Marriage Equality Comes Out

Same-Gender Marriage Equality Zombies

Same-Gender Marriage Equality Grumpy Cat

The post Red for Equality: What Are the 10 Most Powerful Memes for Same-Gender Marriage? appeared first on DiversityInc.

Legal and political experts say that the Supreme Court’s hesitation stems from the idea of creating monumental changes to societal practices in one fell swoop. “There was a genuine concern about going too far, too fast,” says Charles Fried, a Harvard Law School professor and former President Ronald Reagan’s solicitor general. “I sensed a genuine regret that the court had this case before it now.”

The Supreme Court’s oral arguments this week on Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) mark a historic event—it’s the first time in history the justices will hear arguments for cases advocating same-gender marriage. Their decisions could have sweeping impacts on the definition of marriage in the United States: a positive ruling could finally grant same-gender couples the right to wed nationally, affording same-gender couples equitable financial and tax benefits as heterosexual couples.

But is America really not ready for same-gender marriage to be recognized nationally? Reactions to the Supreme Court’s debate indicate that the public may feel the judges are just too old to “get it”: “Supreme Court Justices have entirely too much power. And some of them are too old to make decisions about a changing world,” tweeted Black American Author Terry McMillan, voicing similar sentiments expressed by Major League Baseball Player José Canseco Capas, Jr., and other social-media users.

Supreme Court Justices have entirely too much power.And some of them are too old to make decisions about a changing world.

— Terry McMillan (@MsTerryMcMillan) March 27, 2013

The rising support for same-gender marriage, however, is not simply a generational issue—it’s reflective of shifting American views of LGBT rights. Fifty-three percent of Americans in 2012 (up 32.5 percent from 2009) agree that same-gender couples should receive the same federal benefits as their heterosexual counterparts, according to a USA Today poll.

Opinions on same-gender marriage show increasingly positive long-term trends at an accelerated rate, according to PollingReport.com data cited by The New York Times.

But will increased public support have any affect on the high court’s decision?

Obama, Corporations Lean on Supreme Court

Increasing pressure and advocacy for same-gender marriage from high-profile politicians—including President Obama’s administration and more than 100 GOP leaders—corporations, and new legislation—such as the Pentagon’s decision to issue same-gender couple benefits—had many legal experts anticipating a victory for LGBT-rights supporters.

Amicus “friend of the court” briefs were filed to the Supreme Court, petitioning the justices to strike down Prop 8 and DOMA. Among corporations included on the brief were DiversityInc Top 50 companies Aetna, Ernst & Young, Johnson & Johnson, Marriott International, as well as Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Exelon, MassMutual, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Microsoft, New York Life, The Ogilvy Group, Pfizer, State Street Corporation, The Walt Disney Company and Xerox.

Additionally, the Howard University School of Law’s Civil Rights Clinic filed its own amicus brief, which compared Prop 8, DOMA and similar anti-same-gender-marriage bans with Jim-Crow era laws that prohibited interracial marriage and reinforced continuing discrimination against Blacks.

Developing Same-Gender-Marriage Arguments: Prop 8 & DOMA

With hearings underway, the nine Supreme Court justices reportedly have been wrestling with Prop 8, first arguing over the case’s legal standing in court and also tackling LGBT-related issues including  the definition of marriage, political consensus behind the movement, the consequences of raising children in a same-gender-couple home and the historical legalities of LGBT relationships.

“The problem with the case is that you’re really asking, particularly because of the sociological evidence you cite, for us to go into uncharted waters … it is a cliff,” Justice Anthony Kennedy, the anticipated swing vote, said. “You’re doing so in a case where the opinion is very narrow. Basically that once the state goes halfway, it has to go all the way or 70 percent of the way … I just wonder if the case was properly granted.”

“Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years,” said Justice Samuel Alito, indicating arguments to uphold bans against same-gender marriage. “Same-sex marriage is very new … And it may turn out to be a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing, as the supporters of Proposition 8 apparently believe.”

The comments from the judges fall true-to-form with The New York Times’ Adam Liptak’s predictions: “The decisions will almost certainly be closely divided. Even justices who agree about the right outcome may disagree about rationales … The only remotely plausible unanimous decision is dismissal on standing grounds in the Proposition 8 case.”

Despite the seemingly negative stance of several of the Supreme Court justices, Liptak indicates that there is still hope for the same-gender-marriage movement. “Be that as it may, practitioners and justices say it is the rare oral argument that wins or loses a case,” he wrote.

5 Potential Outcomes: How Will the Supreme Court Rule?

Arguments to uphold the bans still have strong backers, in particular is Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been labeled as the “swing vote” in both cases. Kennedy previously voiced his hesitations toward backing pro-same-gender-marriage legislations, noting his belief that “a democracy should not be dependent for its major decisions on what nine unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say.”

According to CBS News, there are five possible outcomes of the cases:

1. Same-gender marriage is constitutional: Marriage for all couples would be recognized as a right and same-gender marriage finally would be recognized by the federal government. This would also override locally held bans against same-gender marriage in 39 states.
2. Same-gender marriage is not a constitutional right. This would set a large roadblock for the LGBT-rights movement, however, states would still be able to afford LGBT-couples the right to marry.
3. Marriage and civil unions are equivalent. Obama’s Administration has levied an argument that same-gender marriage should be extended to states currently recognizing civil unions and domestic partnerships, giving these couples essentially equivalent rights as heterosexual, married couples. The difference would remain in the terminology.
4. California’s same-gender marriages protected. Prop 8 would officially be ruled as unconstitutional and bans finally and permanently would be revoked.
5. Cases are dismissed. Amicus briefs have been filed by supporters of Prop 8 claiming the proponents have no standing in court—that the initial trail court case ruling was appropriate and do not have an adverse interest, or had to have been harmed in some way, to continue a lawsuit and to come before the Supreme Court.

“Even if you lose the case, and I think that’s very unlikely, you would say that the case has been a success because it’s changed public opinion so dramatically,” Richard Socarides, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton, told Politico. “It’s really unbelievable what a successful communications and litigation strategy has combined to do in such a short time.”

Legal experts anticipate decisions on Prop 8 and DOMA to come sometime this summer.

What Would You Pay to Witness the Prop 8, DOMA Strike-Down?

LGBT-rights activists and political enthusiasts lined up for front-row seats: Many have been  rallying and camping outside the courthouse since last week, hoping to be one of the 100 people admitted free access to the courtroom hearings. And news sources report that while seats in the courtroom are free-to-attend, having someone save you a place in the days-long line will cost you upwards of $6,000 a pop.

It’s a high price that many are willing to pay: There will be no TV broadcasts, media coverage or digital updates (including Twitter and social media) allowed in the room while the oral arguments are underway. Only a transcript and an audio recording will be released once the arguments have concluded.

Prop 8: Same-Gender Marriage Disputed in California

Although the Supreme Court had struck it down just months earlier, California’s Proposition 8 ban against same-gender marriage was voted into law in 2008. Thousands of same-gender couples in the state already had been legally married but others were prevented from doing so. Proposition 8 has since been struck down by two federal courts as unconstitutional. Should the Supreme Court rule against Prop 8?

What is DOMA? A Case for Discrimination Against LGBTs

The Defense of Marriage Act originally was passed by Congress and signed into law by  President Bill Clinton’s Administration in 1996: DOMA prevents the recognition of same-gender marriage by the Federal Government. The law was struck down last year by two federal appeals courts: Boston in June 2012 and New York in October, and Windsor v. United States now challenges the law’s constitutionality and claims discrimination against LGBTs.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the DOMA appeal, same-gender couples in states that recognize same-gender marriage would qualify for the same federal marriage benefits, tax breaks and Social Security survivor benefits that heterosexual married couples are entitled to under the law.

—Stacy Straczynski

The post Why the Supreme Court May Not Recognize Same-Gender Marriage appeared first on DiversityInc.

Sheryl Sandberg thinks the concept of mentorship for women is highly overrated. Sandberg’s wrong—and here’s why.

Before I take apart the argument about mentoring made by Sandberg, the Facebook COO who is on every media channel pushing her book Lean In, I have a confession: I never had a formal mentor and if I’d had one, it could have changed my life for the better.

When I started my career—30 years ago, in a very male-dominated industry—it was sink or swim. Produce results or find another job. I was smart, ambitious and willing to work harder than my peers, almost all of whom were men. I always managed well but relating to peers wasn’t so easy.

Case in point, I was a newspaper reporter in a unionized shop and we weren’t supposed to work overtime, even if we were covering breaking news, like fires and murders. I ignored the union and put in as many free hours as needed to do a great job—and I never asked for overtime even though I was grossly underpaid. So my bosses loved me, and I didn’t have a whole lot of friends in the newsroom. And within a couple of years, I became their boss, which didn’t endear me to the rank and file either.

If I’d had a mentor, I might have been able to find a more collaborative and less competitive way to succeed, which would have made me a much more effective manager when I was promoted over everyone else. A mentor also could have shown me how to better balance personal time and work time so I didn’t exist in a constant state of anxiety. Most importantly, a mentor could have helped me learn how to talk to my male bosses about what wasn’t working in the organization and for me, instead of being afraid of pissing them off.

What would have been effective for me would have been both a female mentor and a male mentor. There weren’t any female role models where I worked, so that wasn’t an option. And the men who were interested in mentoring picked people who looked and sounded like them—and that sure wasn’t me.

Sandberg: Women Rely Too Much on Mentors 

Sandberg argues that the current emphasis in corporate America on women finding mentors (who coach you) and sponsors (who advocate for you politically) wastes everyone’s time. For senior women like herself, she says being asked to be a mentor “is a total mood killer” that she seems to find annoying, like a celebrity being approached for an autograph.

For the mentees, she projects her “do it yourself” mantra, saying: “We need to stop telling them, ‘Get a mentor and you will excel.’ Instead, we need to tell them, ‘Excel and you will get a mentor.’”

If Sandberg’s logic follows, there will be no change in the very status quo she wants to “revolutionize”: men (and I’ll add white men) holding on for dear life to their vastly disproportionate share of leadership positions. She admits, and I agree, that people mentor and sponsor those who have common interests and who remind them of themselves. That leaves women—and Blacks, Latinos, Asians, American Indians, LGBT people and people with disabilities—out in the cold.

If women have to “lean in” and excel before they solicit mentors and sponsors—and if women should be careful not to annoy powerful women by “bothering them” for advice—only white men are going to use mentoring and sponsoring to their advantage.

Corporate Involvement 

This is the essential reason why companies that understand they have a lot of ground to make up with women and other underrepresented groups have been jumping into cross-cultural, formalized mentoring. The formalization is critical because informal mentoring leads to propagating the status quo. If the company doesn’t emphasize the cross-cultural aspect of mentoring—and include cultural awareness training for both parties before they start the relationship—again, the reach out to women and others doesn’t happen.

Sandberg says that mentoring works best when it’s combined with other kinds of leadership development and training, and cites Deloitte’s excellent Leading to WIN Women’s Initiative. The most successful talent-development efforts (such as Deloitte’s) are indeed multipronged, but they only succeed when strong one-to-one relationships are a major part of the deal.

If you look at mentoring programs that show dramatic increases in female retention and promotions, such as Deloitte’s, Sodexo’s IMPACT program, and Target’s mentoring initiatives for managers, you will see that they are very structured, very metrics-driven, and yet enable those personal relationships to grow on an individual basis.

The Other Side 

So while I’ve never had a real mentor, I have mentored several people, most of them younger women. My first mentee was Tammy, who was assigned to me when I was a senior editor at a newspaper that had just initiated formal mentoring. Tammy and I met every week and developed a strong friendship that continued for many years. I taught her how to improve her writing and what she needed to do for her next career moves. She taught me how to slow down (a little) and listen to what people are saying (a lesson I’m still working on).

Since then, I’ve informally mentored several people (because our company is too small to have a formal mentoring program), most of them women. And what continues to surprise me is how much I learn from them.

If those who have become successful choose, like Sandberg, to ignore the requests of others to be their mentors, we do ourselves a great disservice. We aren’t holding on to power by denying them our collective wisdom—we are allowing an inequitable status quo to be perpetuated (with a few  “token” women and others at the top)—and we are denying ourselves the opportunity to grow in different ways by learning from those we teach.

The post Sheryl Sandberg’s Message on Mentoring Is Wrong—and Dangerous appeared first on DiversityInc.