The Bronzer Saga Continues?

On February 17th, the AFSC “Leadership Team” (LT) asserted that Raquel Saraswati’s job as DEI Director was safe, that they “firmly believe” in her “Loyalty to AFSC’s mission,” despite accusations about her being an impostor and  fake.

But only 5 days later, it announced that Saraswati was out.

The word came in an email to Friends Journal, which posted it on their website. Spokesperson Mark Graham said Saraswati “has informed us [Pesky Pronoun Alert: “Us” = who? The LT? The Board? Lawyers? The General Secretary?] of her intention to separate from the organization.”

Graham explicated the pronoun as a corporate equivalent of the “Royal We”: “AFSC supports her in this difficult decision.” [Emphasis added.]

Saraswati declined comment for FJ, but said she might make a “future statement.”

So is that it?

Maybe. Or maybe not.

Why the sudden turnaround?

There was no explanation, of course, so we can speculate.    One is, they had a clearness committee: everybody cried,  hugged, sang “Kumbaya,” and then brought a tofu hot dish for the farewell potluck.

Maybe. But my antennae point toward lawyers. There are a number of options here: one is, more information. Many lawyers know good investigators; maybe one working for AFSC filled in the long stretch of blank years in Saraswati’s job history and found even more troubling information (e.g., “outside entities”), and her backers folded.

Or maybe money: she got a lawyer, who jousted with AFSC’s counsel til they sweetened a severance package. If so, a settlement would likely include an NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement). In which case the curious could be waiting a long time for that “future statement.”

Or maybe the house lawyers read the riot act to the LT, about the extent of additional reputational damage which could result if Saraswati stayed and somebody from the OL surfaced and sued. (Not to mention legal fees.)

Reputational damage was clearly on the LT’s minds when they sent the Friday memo to all staff, demanding that everyone shut the heck up and quit talking to the media. (On Feb. 21, The Intercept story was picked up by The Daily Beast. So how did that mandate work out?)

Again, all speculation. But one more: wherever the pressure on the LT came from, it must have been heavy.

Now back to Graham/AFSC statement:

“We [Another pluralis majestatis?] acknowledge that the public allegations against Raquel have brought to the surface many critical issues that warrant further discussion and this situation has been difficult and distressing for many AFSC staff and community members.” [Emphasis added.]

I’d like to see a list of these “many critical issues,” but am not holding my breath. Here are two that ought to be on it:

A. Will there be a serious inquiry into the total fiasco of a hiring process that brought Seidel/Saraswati on board?  Yes, she’s the one who, er, “mischaracterized” so much of her past. But the search committee also completely blew it on their side.  One of the committee, Oscar Castro, former AFSC staff member, told The Intercept that

he had been impressed by Saraswati’s credentials and charm and that he thought she would be a good fit for the diversity and inclusion role because “it seemed that there was an element of lived experience and understanding because of the lived experience, not just the academic and extra training that come with being in a position where you are an equity and inclusion practitioner.

Castro added,

“In my mind it was, ‘Great, a person of color, a queer person of color, who happens to be a Muslim, it’s a woman, all these things, and someone who seemed to get it. I definitely feel conned. … I feel deceived.”

As well Castro should. I’ve reported on several substantial con schemes, including two that stole millions from Quakers. It’s clear: the better con artists (spies too!) are usually charming, very charming to their marks. They’re expert schmoozers. Those are two of the main tools of their trade. They’re also good at covering their tracks, and erasing inconvenient history and data.

Competent HR professionals and CEOs know this; or they better get ready to deal with “difficult and distressing” situations. Like this one. And their fallout.

But there’s more.

B. Another, broader “critical issue” for the list that’s  been “brought to the surface” was pointed out by Sana Saeed, an Al Jazeera reporter, to The Intercept. Saeed noted that

“There’s long been a critique that companies & organizations use DEI as a shield against criticism of structural issues that continue . . . ; the people often hired in these positions are not qualified and will usually hurt, more than help, in redressing problems around inequities and exclusion. For the AFSC — known for its progressive values and history — to have hired such an individual is also a damning indictment of how superficial and detrimental, to safe and inclusive workplaces, DEI can often be.”

Even the undisputed parts of Saraswati’s history as a DEI “practitioner” trace an educational/professional career path that’s as muddy as the Schuykill River after a storm.

That’s because, far beyond Saraswati’s personal failings, the fact is that DEI is mainly a made-up field, with few clear definitions of goals, or best practices, or meaningful measures of their effectiveness.

AFSC is not the only organization that has suffered from paralyzing internal turmoil from entanglement with it. Last summer The Intercept published a major article about this, which has been widely corroborated since.

This accumulated data and the continuing fallout from the Saraswati incident highlight the need to avoid personal vendettas and instead undertake a full-on reexamination of DEI theory and practice at AFSC (and many other Quaker groups). The impact of ongoing racism is too important to be left to such haphazard, overpriced and too often counterproductive efforts, especially now.

The AFSC’s “Royal We” message tried to be reassuring about this:

AFSC has processes for staff and volunteers to confidentially raise their concerns and share their suggestions, and we [“We”? There it is Again] are committed to listening carefully to that input, discerning, and moving forward on a path of healing for all,” Graham wrote.

We’ve heard this before. But many among the several hundred former staff who lost jobs in AFSC’s rounds of layoffs in the past decade would likely agree with many other survivors of nonprofit and church organizational strife. They know that among the most terrifying words to read or hear from their Royal We superiors (other than, “We’re going in a different direction”) are these four: “Let the healing begin.”

That soothing, patronizing phrase is all too commonly accompanied by assurances (as in the Royal We memo) that the higher-ups are always ready to listen to grievances and complaints, in confidence (which means nothing will likely come of them).

That’s plenty for the vaguely promised “further discussion” list. The cynicism long bred in such an atmosphere as AFSC has generated has been on garish public display since the “Open Letter” and its accusations appeared.

Think about it: on one side, the OL’s authors have bagged their prey. Does anybody think they aren’t now preparing to take on their next target? And on the other, the LT is wounded, but still standing. Who thinks they aren’t sharpening the knives for dealing with the OL authors as they are discovered.

What? In a Quaker organization? ( Well, Quaker-founded, a century-plus ago.) Umm, yes.

Already, rumors are rife that Saraswati’s departure will not be the end of its impact in AFSC. They’ve even reached down here into the way boondocks. It also appears that among those who draft AFSC’s statements, someone with a clue about it is very hard to find.

Blogger’s PS: An observation. In the Friends Journal report, while considerable attention was paid to the The Intercept‘s fine piece, the FJ piece completely neglected to notice that another blog first broke this story, advanced it several times, and gathered a wide readership; namely this one.

The invisibility wasn’t a surprise; just another bit of Quaker cancel culture. I recall when it started: there was criticism of my work, and the main complaint came down to, “He’s so old.”

By gosh, they were absolutely right. And they’re even more right today.

But when I’m tempted to get discouraged, I recall a quote from the amazing book Caste, by the brilliant Black writer, Isabel Wilkerson. Caste, she says, is the underpinning of racial oppression; but caste, ultimately affects everyone, thus:

“Even the most privileged of humans in the Western world,” she writes, “will join a tragically disfavored caste if they live long enough. They will belong to the last caste of the human cycle, that of old age, people who are among the most demeaned of all citizens in the Western world, where youth is worshipped to forestall thoughts of death. A caste system spares no one.”

She was right too, as Joe Biden is discovering, as they will find out before long; and as another unknown writer said, “Payback is a –rich experience.”

Plus there’s our blog motto, which is always cheering, by those ageless masters, the Traveling Wilbury’s, from their song, “The End of the Line”:

Well it’s all right, even if you’re old and gray,
‘Cause it’s all right, you still got something to say.”

Have a nice day, and walk cheerfully.