Dialogue

Sarah: [chair of a 20-person board of a community foundation]

The next item on our agenda is the selection of the employee to be recognized at our annual gala dinner next month. We do this as a way of showing appreciation for our staff. We highlight the contributions that one of our employees makes toward the success of the foundation. 

A committee of the executive director and the past two previously recognized employees have reviewed the nominations and forwarded two of them, from which we have to select this year’s honoree. 

The candidates are Joan Robinson, a benefits specialist in HR, and Tom Hendricks, a technician in  IT. Both of them have met the board’s basic criteria and have worked for the Community Foundation for at least three years.

You have their nominations in your agenda packets. Please take a moment to review them.

(Pause)

Are there any comments or observations anyone wants to make about either of them before we vote?

Paul: I think they are both great employees, efficient and friendly. Either would be fine with me.

Jean: I agree that both are worthy of recognition, but I’m leaning toward Joan. She’s done a great job with the change in our health care insurance provider. Our employees switched over with a minimum of confusion.

Fred:  I think it’s a close call, but I’m leaning toward Tom. I’ve been impressed with the way he has set up the technology for our remote board meetings, and he is always on hand during meetings to fix the inevitable snags. On the negative side, he is somewhat annoying. Tinkerbell Tom’s mannerisms can be over the top.

Sarah: Fred, I need to stop our discussion. Did I hear you correctly? It sounded to me like your comment about Tom can be understood as a homosexual slur. 

Fred: I do think Tom is annoying, and I guess I did call him “Tinkerbell,” but that was meant as a joke. And, after all, I do support him for the award. No harm, no foul … right?

Sarah: Fred, your idea of a joke is completely out of place here. Not only is it irrelevant to Tom’s candidacy, but it could also be hurtful to anyone in the room with friends or family members who are homosexual. And if your comment gets back to Tom, it will undermine what we are trying to accomplish with the recognition.

Fred: Sorry … I didn’t think that this was such a big deal.

Sarah: It is a big deal, Fred. But that is a discussion between you and me for another time. We need to move on with the selection. Is there anyone else who wants to comment on the candidates? 

(pause)

If not, we will go ahead and vote.

Takeaways

• Don’t let a slur go unchallenged. The time to address it is as soon as you become aware of its inappropriateness.
• Calling a slur a joke is no excuse for making it. Let Fred know that some topics are no longer joking matters.
• The chair sets the tone. If you don’t take the slur seriously, others may feel that such language will be tolerated in meetings.
• However, dealing with a slur should not take over the meeting. After you have challenged it, put off the more extensive discussion with Fred for another time. But don’t wait too long.
• React forthrightly, but don’t overreact. It would be counterproductive to put the entire board through sensitivity training or remove Fred from the board if the incident was truly a one-off. If the use of slurs is more frequent, a stronger reaction would be appropriate.
• A reminder: Use your internal filter. Not everything thought needs to be said.