http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Stop-the-hype-San-Francisco-needs-equity-in-6333896.php

Support equity in public funding for the arts

By Supervisors Eric Mar and London Breed

San Francisco’s image is of a center of culture, diversity, arts and justice. But when it comes to funding arts, we have fallen short. We all play a part in the cultural life of our great city, and all of us should care about public investment in under-served communities.
Two city departments are dedicated to public investment in the arts: San Francisco Grants for the Arts and the San Francisco Arts Commission. The commission has been lauded for its Cultural Equity Grants program: indeed, it has been a national model. The grants program, however, has long been of concern to us and other members of the Board of Supervisors. We have questioned its performance in cultural equity and in keeping the city competitive and attractive to visitors as demographics shift. Along with artists and arts organizations, we’ve been concerned that the program is not meeting the goal of providing equitable resources to cultural and arts organizations in under-served communities.

In 2013, the board asked for an analysis of the grants program’s funding practices. The findings validated our concerns: “Over the 25-year period, organizations representing people of color received on average 23 percent of GFTA funds,” wrote the legislative analyst.

People of color make up nearly 60 percent of San Francisco’s population but the grants program devotes more than three-quarters of its funds to arts organizations whose leadership, programs and audiences do not reflect the lives and experiences of this demographic. This flies in the face of our stated ethos of fairness and equity.

At an April hearing, the grants program’s staff acknowledged that its funding formula would create inequity, but made the dubious claim that California’s Proposition 209 prevents the city from redressing this publicly funded racial inequity. Prop. 209 has nothing to do with the guidelines for arts funding and should never be used as an excuse for inequitable service. No law prevents the city from launching programs that ensure broad diversity and fairness for communities served by small- and medium-sized arts groups and neighborhood arts organizations.

We must fight to create the culture that connects and sustains us. For years, artists and organizations in under-served communities have made sacrifices to support the wealthiest institutions. It’s time for us all to work for equity.

We thank Mayor Ed Lee, who made equity a budget priority by allocating $2 million over the next two years — a 50 percent increase — to the commission’s Cultural Equity Grants Program. This is the largest raise this underfunded program has ever seen.

It is time for our arts funding to reflect our commitment to cultural equity and our strategic interest in being a cultural magnet for visitors. We should put our money where our art is: in the neighborhoods and communities that generate so much of our cultural vitality.

Eric Mar and London Breed are members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Tell your supervisor and the mayor that equity in the arts must be a priority for San Francisco. http://www.sfbos.org / and mayoredwinlee@sfgov.org

Over the last few days there has been a couple of emails that have ‘apologized’ for ‘divisive’ comments, particularly calling people of color advocating for equity as ‘fringe members’.  First from Theater Bay Area and Brad Erickson:

——————-

An Apology and an Update

June 23, 2014

Dear Friends,
 
Last Friday, I asked that an email action alert, received from a prominent San Francisco arts advocacy group, be forwarded from Theatre Bay Area, under my name, seeking action and support from Theatre Bay Area’s San Francisco members. 
 
That letter contained some unfortunate—and untrue—language about “fringe members” of the arts community. I am deeply sorry for not noticing this language in the original template and for forwarding this assertion to our San Francisco members.
 
Not an excuse, but an explanation: I was out of town most of last week attending the TCG theatre conference in San Diego—and on the first day I was in Tijuana with a contingency exploring ways to encourage cross-cultural exchange and greater awareness about the horrific issues along the border and around immigration. I absolutely admit, and deeply regret, not reading closely enough the template letter forwarded to the arts community. Because I read the action alert too quickly, I missed the “fringe members” language, a phrase which is itself demeaning and divisive.
 
Since Friday I have been greatly relieved to learn that there is no current move to take funds away from either Grants for the Arts or the Arts Commission and its Cultural Equity Grants. Indeed, there is redoubled effort on behalf of the field to win more support for both. I also want to gratefully acknowledge Supervisor Eric Mar’s leadership on this issue—and his commitment to this city and the arts. 
 
This is a moment when our city is experiencing another economic boom. Some are reaping tremendous benefits, but many others are not and are in fact being squeezed out of what they have struggled hard to achieve. It is a time of scarcity, yes, but also abundance. We must take this opportunity to tap that abundance for all.
 
Brad Erickson
Executive Director 
Theatre Bay Area

——————-

While it was good to see Supervisor Mar’s name cleared of the lies leveled against him  there was never any attempt made to move any money from San Francisco’s Cultural Equity Grants so why even bring it up?  More on that later….  But who is the prominent San Francisco arts advocacy group“?

The answer came from another apologetic email this time from San Francisco Arts Town Hall:

——————-

 Dear Friends,
 
Thank you for your support over the last few weeks to help advocate for increased funding for the arts on the state and city levels.  Your active participation has been invaluable, resulting in a $5 million increase in funding for the California Arts Council and strong efforts to increase local arts funding
 
Recent emails sent to this list have raised a few questions and concerns, so we wanted to provide clarification.  We also want to apologize for any miscommunication or confusion.
 
First, last week an email was circulated to this list in an effort to communicate about a budget proposal to cut funding from Grants for the Arts in an effort to increase funding for cultural equity grants from the Arts Commission.  That email was sent by a consulting firm that the San Francisco Arts Alliance works with to help us organize and communicate with the City called BMWL & Partners.  That email mistakenly referred to the supporters of that proposal as “fringe” – and for that BMWL is deeply apologetic.  That language was inappropriate and divisive and it does not reflect the viewpoint of the San Francisco Arts Alliance.  Instead, we believe – along with BMWL – that we should all be working together to find ways to address inequity in the City and to support increased funding as one way to accomplish that goal.  
 
Second, we want to explain who the Arts Alliance is and what the Arts Town Hall is, and their relationship to these emails.
 
The Arts Town Hall is an event that has been occurring since 2011 and focuses on bringing together arts and cultural organizations in San Francisco to educate policymakers about the role of the arts and to advocate for our common goals.  Candidates for San Francisco Supervisor are invited to participate in these discussions to ensure they are thinking about the arts, our impact on the community, and ways to work together to help support arts organizations and artists.  The goal is to advance policy to lift everyone up – through increased funding for all arts organizations, creative policies to protect housing for artists and space for arts organizations, investing in arts education and more.
 
The Town Hall is planned by a volunteer organizing committee of about 10 people that varies year by year, representing a wide variety of arts organizations. These people dedicate their time to help planning a successful event, and have not been directly involved in recent communications regarding City funding.  The event itself is funded by a combination of donations from arts organizations and direct financial contributions from the San Francisco Arts Alliance.  The logistics of this event are supported by BMWL in their capacity as the consultant to the San Francisco Arts Alliance.
 
The San Francisco Arts Alliance is a coalition of the 15 largest budget arts organizations that has been in existence for many years.  It was founded to create an opportunity for the leaders of these organizations to share best practices and mutual concerns.  In response to significant budget cuts made to arts funding over the last ten years, the organizations decided to also work together to advocate for increased funding for the arts community from the City.  We have always advocated for more funding for all arts groups no matter where their funding comes from – the goal is to raise the bar for all arts funding in San Francisco.  Supporting the Arts Town Hall is an example of the Arts Alliance’s commitment to bring the arts community together to advance strong policy.
 
As we move ahead as an arts community, we hope we can work together to solve the important issues facing all artists and arts organizations.  These are incredibly tough times, as we face the devastating impacts of the affordability crisis after years of state and city underfunding.  By standing together, we can turn the tides in San Francisco and protect the arts.
 
Sincerely,
 
The San Francisco Arts Alliance

——————-

What does the second apology letter tell us: First, it reveals that the prominent San Francisco advocacy group, referenced in Theater Bay Area’s apology was Arts Town Hall.  Second, it reveals that Arts Town Hall, SF Arts Alliance and BMWL can be considered one in the same.  Why else would a letter written in the first person by the Alliance be distributed on Arts Town Hall letterhead referring to Arts Town Hall in the third person?

It points to the fact that Arts Town Hall’s messaging and email systems are controlled by BMWL and Partners, the lobbying firm retained by the Arts Alliance. This would explain why the Arts Alliance was first distancing itself from – then re-aligning itself with BMWL all within the same email.

Though referenced as a “consultant” in the Arts Alliance apology, BMWL is in fact a lobbying firm that makes regular filings with the San Francisco Ethics Commission with one of their main clients being: The San Francisco Arts Alliance.

Some facts about the Arts Alliance relationship with BMWL from about two minutes of internet research and exactly one google search:

This is from the San Francisco Ethics Commission’s website

San Francisco Arts Alliance

San Francisco Arts Alliance

From: http://www.citireport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/rpt2012Payments_ToLobbyists-2.pdf
In 2009
Lobbyist Total Payments
2012 Payments to San Francisco Lobbyists
Based on data extracted from data.sfgov.org on 2/19/2013
Lauter, Samuel
San Francisco Arts Alliance $90,000

If you do a google search for: “San Francisco Arts Alliance” – use the quotes – you’ll find no public website, and of the first 10 results 6 are about the San Francisco Arts Alliance specifically; and of those, 4 are related to lobbyists or lobbying efforts.

Summary so far:

• The San Francisco Arts Alliance, as stated in its email, is comprised of San Francisco’s 15 largest budget non-profit arts organizations;
• The Arts Alliance has hired the lobbying firm BMWL to work to protect its members’ own narrowly defined interests;
• BMWL has communication control over The Arts Town Hall;

At this point readers should draw their own conclusions but here are a few things to ponder:

If you receive messages from SF Arts Town Hall and consider them to be accurate, consider the following from BMWL’s website:

• BMWL declares it “possess(es) all of the tactical competencies and capacities needed to meet most of any challenge.”
• The “firm has unmatched expertise on both sides of the keyboard, microphone and lens that we put to work anticipating, preparing for and responding to media attention and publicity.”
• It “master(s) the art of telling stories and shaping debates via earned and paid techniques – conceived and carried out by award winning former journalists and creative talent.”

If these are the qualities that BMWL prizes itself on then one must trust that its representatives knew what they were doing when accusing fringe elements of divisive behavior. They were attacking those disenfranchised communities whose interest in cultural equity is contrary to those of BMWL’s clients the Arts Alliance, as “fringe.”

Miscommunication and confusion in this instance sounds a lot like “master(ing) the art of telling stories and shaping debates” and completely misjudging the environment in which an entity is operating

Apologies in the political arena of the kind issued by the Arts Alliance only come when those caught perpetrating them are so off base that they are easily called out because of it.

The REAL issue that has always been at the forefront is the inequity in Grants for the Arts funding allocations as laid out by the City’s Budget Analyst Report.  The findings in the report have NEVER been addressed by Arts Town Hall, the Arts Alliance or BMWL.

Any change to the status quo will effect the narrowly defined self-interests of the largest budget organizations. In that regard the Alliance membership sees their interests to GFTA funding as directly opposite to the interests of the rest of the arts community, particularly those calling for cultural equity.

If cultural equity is SO important to the Arts Alliance then why not drop the lip service (“cultural equity is important”, “no current move to take money away from GFTA or Arts Commission and it’s Cultural Equity Grants”, and “specifically fund Cultural Equity Grants”) and get on the side of of the disenfranchised.  Equity in the arts is not something that came up yesterday.  These large institutions could have been working alongside the rest of the arts community all along, but they have never seen it as in their interest to do so. As revealed in the Budget Analyst’s report this has been the state of affairs for over 25 years..

Why are people upset?  Every year during budget season the arts community is told not to make waves, that equity will be talked about later. But every year nothing happens.  And as the years go by the inequity deepens and communities of color are pushed further and further down the equity ladder.  These communities don’t have lobbyists, all they have is their voice, their pain, and their human and civil rights to demand justice.  Restorative Justice. This year with the great leadership on the Board of Supervisors including Supervisor Mar, Supervisor Breed, Supervisor Avalos, Supervisor Chiu, Supervisor Campos, Supervisor Kim, Supervisor Yee; and the other supervisors who have not have a chance to speak on the issue; there is a chance for change – not just lip service.

from: http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2014/06/23/sf-arts-funding-prioritizes-symphony-other-stuff-white-people

SF arts funding prioritizes symphony, other stuff white people like | SF Politics.

06.23.14 – 10:29 am | Jasper Scherer |

Michael Tilson Thomas directs the San Francisco Symphony. Are arts grants skewed towards art white people favor, like orchestras?

Courtesy of the San Francisco Symphony

 

Disadvantaged artists might be getting the short end of the paintbrush in favor of the city’s more affluent art community in Mayor Ed Lee’s proposed 2014-16 city budget.

That’s what a seemingly endless line of advocates expressed in a hearing in front of the San Francisco Budget and Finance Committee Friday [6/20] when given the opportunity to suggest ways to better apportion funding in the budget. According to a recent report from the Budget and Legislative Analyst’s Office, the dissenters might be onto something.

The report details the allocation of funding from Grants for the Arts, revealing that 76 percent of GFTA’s grant money will go to art organizations with primarily white audiences. This figure is right in line with the funding priorities from 1961, when the city’s population was 82 percent white.

Today, people of color make up 58 percent of the city’s population, while the white population has been nearly cut in half over the course of the five decades since 1961. But that hasn’t stopped GFTA from devoting more than three-quarters of its funds for art organizations whose audiences are predominantly white, the report found.

GFTA’s self-proclaimed goal is to “promote and support the widest possible variety of arts and culture activities in the City,” although it’s hard to imagine it had that in mind when devising the budget plan for the upcoming fiscal year.

This isn’t the first time GFTA has snubbed underprivileged artists. According to the Budget Analyst’s report, GFTA actually reduced its percentages of funding to arts organizations of color from 2006-07 to 2012-13, and the agency’s funding for those organizations has not improved over the last 25 years, despite the city’s radically shifting demographics and the lip service regularly given to diversity at City Hall. GFTA has no plans to improve its grant money allocation, according to the report. Officials at the agency declined to comment when contacted for this story.

Arts spending proposed in the mayor’s preliminary budget.

When the Budget and Finance Committee heard public comment today about the mayor’s proposed budget, a great deal of the discussion centered on cultural equity and providing increased funding for disadvantaged citizens in the arts.

Numerous speakers cited the city’s changing demographics and the reality that the city isn’t made up of an enormous majority of white residents anymore, calling for more art funding for people of color, despite the budget’s lopsided allocation of funds to the white demographic.

In particular, the budget proposal allocates 19 percent of the 2014-15 budget to the San Francisco Symphony, which was enough for one speaker to state that “a lion’s share is going to the traditional organizations.” The message to the committee, simply put, was to “consider how you invest the money you’re spending,” as another speaker said, and that “public funding for the arts is not supposed to disempower by taking away the voice of the underrepresented.”

Allocating more funding for the Cultural Equity Grants was an oft-mentioned method for better supporting disadvantaged artists, with the project-based grant system receiving 25 percent of the commission’s budget in the 2014-15 fiscal year. The number of grants awarded each year has remained relatively stagnant in recent years, with 94 grants awarded in 2012-13, a projected 100 to be given out in 2013-14, and a target of 100 in both 2014-15 and 2015-16.

The number of street artists supporting themselves by selling their work isn’t progressing much either. The city issued 176 new licenses for such artists in 2012-13, but is projected to dole out only 122 in the current fiscal year. The new proposal targets similar numbers to those from 2012-13 (179 and 183 licenses in 2014-15 and 2015-16, respectively), further affirmation of the sluggish advancement of the mission to ensure that all cultures of the city are represented.

But disadvantaged residents in the arts aren’t the only ones who stand to be affected by the proposed budget, a fact that wasn’t lost on many concerned advocates. Lee calls for a budget of $13.9 million for the Arts Commission in 2014-15, a relatively minor 2 percent decrease from the 2013-14 budget of $14.2 million. The real drop-off occurs in 2015-16, however, when the Arts Commission budget decreases by a full 8.4 percent from the previous fiscal year. The Mayor’s Office declined to respond when contacted for this story.

Needless to say, members of the art community as a whole weren’t thrilled about Lee’s sharply declining emphasis on the arts, and they voiced their concern toward the Committee on Friday. The city’s lack of aid for the general art community, in addition to simply underprivileged artists, had many speakers understandably up in arms.

Below we’ve embedded Harvey Rose’s report on skewed arts grants funding.

“Arts inequity”: San Francisco Budget and Legislative Analyst Report by Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez

A Potential Deep Divide in the Arts Sector is Brewing

from http://arlenegoldbard.com/2014/06/23/here-we-go-again-cultural-equity-in-san-francisco/

An enduring pattern has been inscribed on the struggle for cultural equity in this country. Those who get the biggest share of funding—them that’s got, as Billie Holiday put it—pay lip-service to fairness for those who get crumbs—them that’s not. But lip-service is generally the only currency they are willing to shell out. The haves counsel patience: Show up as members of the team, they say. Be part of the united front at budget hearings, go along with our program, and you’ll get your reward by and by.

In San Francisco, people are tired of waiting. In March, the Budget Analyst’s Office released a study on allocations by Grants for the Arts (funded from San Francisco’s hotel tax revenues) to diverse arts organizations—those serving primarily people of color, ethnic minorities, women, and LGBTQ people. The findings show that the proportion of funding to these groups has remained steady for 25 years. For example, an average of 23 percent of the pie has gone to people of color (who now make up 58 percent of the city’s population, a figure that has been rising steadily since Grants for the Arts was first created), and 77 percent to largely white organizations.

The city has been promising to address this situation for a long time, but the numbers make it clear that they were more interested in paying lip-service than dollars. Now, advocates for cultural equity have urged the city’s Board of Supervisors to add a million dollars to the Arts Commission’s Cultural Equity Grants funding pool, created to channel support to the same communities repeatedly short-shrifted by Grants for the Arts. If overall funding won’t increase by that much, some say, shift it from Grants to the Arts, which has consistently failed to rise to equity.

In the larger economic scheme of things, those who benefit from the current division of resources typically denounce any critique or counter-proposal as “class warfare,” as hi-tech mogul Tom Perkins has been doing in his recent outcries of “war on the one percent,” sometimes equating it to the Nazis’ persecution of Jews. (Listen to a slightly toned-down Commonwealth Club version.)

Here, too, breaking ranks with the privileged was perceived as a huge violation of The Tacit Agreement (just play nice, go along with the way things are and—honestly, we promise—things will get better down the road), triggering an outraged response from the beneficiaries of the status quo via an advocacy group called Arts Town Hall. “Pitting arts organizations and City agencies against each other won’t help solve our bigger problems,” they wrote. “We need to work together to find more resources for cultural equity grants—not cut funding for the arts to fund them.” They were so outraged, apparently, that they never considered how offensive it would be to refer to these advocates of color, ethnic minorities, and LGBTQ artists as members of a “fringe”:

We write to strongly urge you to increase funding for the arts, specifically cultural equity programs. We do not support a divisive and damaging proposal being advanced by fringe members of the arts community that would cut funds from the arts in order to fund the arts.

At the end of 2011, I wrote about an attempt to cut Cultural Equity Grants (“Utterly Clueless: Cultural Policy San Francisco-Style”), contextualizing it with many of these same cultural policy issues, which despite San Francisco’s self-proclamation of diversity and progressive values, seem never to be seriously addressed. I’d like to say that things have greatly improved so that what I said two and a half years ago had become obsolete, but sadly, I cannot.

What I can offer is a practical suggestion. If it sounds far-out, I suggest you stop a moment to consider how much you may have internalized the view of the doable promoted by status-quo beneficiaries, a view that exists precisely to reinforce their right to say what can and should be done. (It might help to read Maria X Martinez’s elegant post called “Grants for the Restaurants” at the Cultural Equity Matters blog site, which site also features much of the relevant material.)

A Practical Suggestion: Pay Your Debts. Arts advocates who receive the most municipal funding and lead mainstream advocacy efforts have been talking about cultural equity forever, all the while urging the communities that benefit least from the status quo to keep showing up without much to show for it. Now’s the time to pay off. If the pie isn’t going to get bigger right now, voluntarily surrender part of your slice for Cultural Equity Grants. Go personally to your contacts on red-carpet organizations’ boards and get them to meet with Supervisors and stake their political capital on a significant increase earmarked to support cultural equity. Team up with other beneficiaries for the status quo and send a major delegation to both the Supervisors and Grants for the Arts, demanding equity even at a cost to your own funding.

If you don’t like pitting arts organizations against each other, stop doing it: line up on the side of right.

You will find links to and summaries of much of the pertinent material at Barry Hessenius’s recent blog covering this story. He predicts this scenario:

Demand for equity by the multicultural communities will inevitably grow and put pressure on all funders—and a more equitable distribution of funds will likely mean less funding for the current recipients (it will have to come from somewhere). I think the days when multicultural arts support is its own “special” category are numbered, and the former majority cultural community—at least in certain urban areas, if not everywhere—will find its preferred status over. And as costs of doing business for arts organizations escalate, income decreases and shifts (funding, foundations, other philanthropic support and audiences), we are likely to see more closures and failures by organizations who will become economically nonviable. And all the improvement in our business skills won’t likely be enough to “market” our way out of this reality without substantial government support—and that seem problematic at best. This is the tip of the iceberg.

What other music could I offer for this issue? Billie Holiday singing “God Bless The Child.”

Them that’s got shall have
Them that’s not shall lose
So the Bible says and it still is news

By Maria X Martinez

Okay, so imagine a world where public funds were the primary source for creating great restaurants in San Francisco. 

For 25 years, those public funds were distributed through “Grants for the Restaurants” to create French, German, Italian, and “American” restaurants for all San Franciscans and tourists to be lifted to fine dining heights. 

Soon thereafter, the so-called minorities started to complain that these restaurants didn’t appeal to their palate, weren’t in their neighborhoods, and were too expensive. Since they paid taxes just like everyone else, well…that pissed off these people of color and their allies. Visitors and tourists also began to ask for different options.

So the next GFTR strategy was, “Let’s diversify! We’ll promote minorities to frequent our restaurants, reach out to their children with free food and introduce their palates to the finer foods of civilization so they grow up and appreciate and frequent our restaurants later on. And if we must, we’ll invite minorities to sit on our marketing committees and help us promote our strategy. Why yes, that is diversification at its best.” 

But still, people of color said that’s not enough, restaurants are economic engines for our communities. So GFTR then said, “Okay, we’ll hire some of these minorities to work for us,” and they began to hire Black bus boys, Chinese kitchen help and even a lot of Mexican cooks. 

And the people of color said, “No. We want our own restaurants, in our own neighborhoods, we want to design the menus, we want to design the food and use the ingredients. We want to hire the people who can create the finest dining alchemy in our palate, not yours. We want to attract tourists from southern, eastern, and African continents and we will welcome all! We have ideas for menus that are bursting at the seams!”

“Oh, you fringe elements, you minorities, stop complaining, where’s your solidarity for all-things-restaurants-are-most-important?” said the restaurants funded by GFTR. “We’ll get to you sooner or later.”

As the people of color grew into the majority, they calmly said to their civic leaders, “Enough. Enough. Enough.”

Recently the Arts Town Hall made the following statements (some of which were later retracted):

——————————————–

URGENT: PLEASE REACH OUT NOW!

We have heard reports from City Hall that there is a proposal to cut funding to Grants for the Arts by $1 million.  The proposal would transfer these funds to the Arts Commission to fund cultural equity grants.  Cultural equity is an extremely important issue that needs to be addressed and this isn’t the right way to do it.

A $1 million cut to Grants for the Arts (GFTA) would be devastating to arts organizations that depend on GFTA for operating funds.  Arts organization and artists need more funding during these difficult times.  Pitting arts organizations and City agencies against each other won’t help solve our bigger problems.  We need to work together to find more resources for cultural equity grants – not cut funding for the arts to fund them.

Please help stop this devastating cut by emailing the Supervisors now! They are meeting this week to discuss this budget and we need to speak up on behalf of the arts community in San Francisco.

Just cut and paste the email addresses below and use our draft as a template.

Thank you for your help!

In the email template they wrote:

We write to strongly urge you to increase funding for the arts, specifically cultural equity programs. We do not support a divisive and damaging proposal being advanced by fringe members of the arts community that would cut funds from the arts in order to fund the arts.

——————————————–

Just who are the ‘fringe’?  Those are the people who are on the outside, who don’t have access and equitable resources right?   These ‘fringe‘ communities have been historically hurting, not only during these economic times for for generations.   These ‘fringe‘  communities have not had access to Grants for the Arts – and this fact laid out by the City of San Francisco’s own Budget Analyst Office (which was not referenced in the Arts Town Hall email).    By that definition, then yes these LGBT and communities of color are fringe.  But if LGBT and communities of color population are ‘fringe’, who are the people who are casting the ‘fringe’ designation?

Pitting arts organizations and City agencies against each other – Just who is pitting?  The issue the supervisors are addressing is cultural equity and accountability.  If Cultural equity is an extremely important issue then why is this considered ‘pitting’?  Shouldn’t all stand behind these decisions because the status quo has perpetuated racist results?  Justice is only inconvenient to those who benefit from the status quo.

Do not get swayed by these arguments.