My promise to myself is to keep it as real as I can with my blogs.  I’m going to share something I’ve been thinking about for a few months now.  I acknowledge this is may be viewed as a little sharp and heavy on the satire.  My hope is that this week’s blog will make you stop and think about things a little differently.

You may be familiar with the story of Rudolph.  On the surface, it’s a cute Claymation story about a misfit who becomes a hero.  If you look a little deeper, you’ll see something else.  Rudolph was born different and encouraged to hide what made him different.  He was intentionally mocked by some reindeer.  There are “neutral” characters also.  These are the ones who weren’t making fun of or actively supporting Rudolph.  Rudolph ran away, felt he needed to prove himself and goes on a dangerous adventure to save his friends.  Rudolph returned to Santa’s workshop and Santa needed him because it is so foggy outside.  As a result of his utility and his bravery, people finally accepted Rudolph.

Here is why this story is so messed up.  It makes sense to focus on praising Rudolph for being brave and overcoming adversity.  However, why do we let the other characters off the hook?  Why was the bad behavior of the reindeer that were intentionally cruel to Rudolph tolerated for so long?  Why did they have to wait for Rudolph to prove himself before accepting him?  What was their character evolution like?  Do those “neutral” characters realize that their neutrality is, or can be, destructive?  Why are they neutral?  Do they not want to get involved?  Do they not know how to get involved?  Are they oblivious to what is going on?  Why don’t we expect these “neutral” characters to do better?

Here is the connection to our work.  I feel that Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is a lesson in diversity and inclusion.  The story puts all of the pressure on Rudolph to grow as a character and glosses over how the other characters need to develop and grow.  Read the paragraph again that describes the Rudolph story and wherever it says “Rudolph” replace that with a name and an aspect of diversity:  “Bob my African American co-worker,” “Rhys my autistic nephew,” “Erica my Latino friend,” “Joe my LGBT colleague,” “Angela a working mother,” “Mike a Jewish neighbor.”  It’s the same story.  ______ (insert name) is intentionally ostracized by some people who are not inclusive, potentially unaware, or simply don’t care.  There are “neutral” people who don’t actively ostracize, but they don’t do anything to support either.  The pressure is on ______ to prove themselves and if they do, all those people who said ______ was not good says, “I guess ______ and that group of people ______ represents isn’t so bad.”

Confession:  I’ve been the “neutral” person on different occasions and continue to make that mistake sometimes.  I’ve been the one oblivious to how the frivolous use of the phrase, “That’s gay” hurt LGBT friends of mine.  I’ve been the guy who didn’t know how to talk about the social issues played out in the media and even in our workplace concerning African American community throughout the year… so my awkward silence may have told people I care about that I don’t care about them.  I’ve listened to friends without kids confess that they feel pressured to put in extra hours because they didn’t have kids to go home to, and I never did anything to help them understand their time is as valuable as any parents’.  I’ve screwed up on several occasions and know I’ll continue to make mistakes.

Here’s to doing better.  Sometimes being intentional about doing better means looking back to see what went wrong, why, and how we move forward in a different way.  Here’s to rethinking “neutral” in whatever Rudolph story we have witnessed in the past, are involved in right now, or will be part of in the future.

Have a jolly good day,

Andrew Embry