On March 7, 1967, a group of 600 people set out on a massive march from Selma to Alabama’s capital, Montgomery. This was a 54 mile demonstration organized by Martin Luther King Jr., one of the most prominent leaders in the civil rights movement, along with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (History.com). While this event was triggered by the death of an innocent young African American protester, it was rooted in the fight for African American voting rights. While all men had been given the right to vote in 1870, African Americans faced voter suppression through violent intimidation and selective laws in many states. As the marchers continued forward with their heads held high they soon came face to face with state troopers while attempting to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge. At that moment the group of activists were attacked by the troopers who wielded whips, nightsticks and tear gas. The group was violently beaten back to Selma and that day became infamously known as “Bloody Sunday”. The Selma to Montgomery marches serve as a reminder of the oppression perpetrated by the U.S. government during the civil rights movement. “Bloody Sunday” underscored the systematic racism and violence that governmental institutions can possess. Thus, the U.S. government has created an organizational environment filled with fear and oppression through institutional racism.
Confrontation on the Bridge
The pivotal moments of the Selma to Montgomery marches were captured in the painting, “Confrontation on the Bride (1975)” by Jacob Lawrence. This scene depicts the fear embedded in African American marchers as they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge. This stimulus source utilized facial expression to capture the emotions of these peaceful protestors in the moments before they are attacked by U.S. law enforcement. The U.S. government's response to these peaceful protests highlights the lengths to which institutions would go to maintain control and suppress the voices of certain communities. The very institution responsible for upholding justice and equality was denying African Americans of voting rights. This historical context resonated with the present-day oppression that minorities face on a daily basis. One example of oppression in our present day society is the judicial system. Minorities face impartial treatment, unjust sentences, and disparities when it comes to legal representation. According to Health Affairs, a peer-reviewed healthcare journal, “Although people of color represent 39 percent of the US population, they make up over 60 percent of incarcerated people” (Braveman et al.). This highlights the impact of an unfair criminal justice system on people of color, indicating the systemic bias and discrimination within the government. Past oppression during the civil rights movement continued into marginalized communities facing obstacles such as overrepresentation in the criminal justice system. Additionally, as a result of discriminatory practices, minorities have been financially disadvantaged in society. Due to historic limitation of rights as in the context of “Confrontation on the Bridge”, African Americans have been left severely disadvantaged, with a large percent facing financial instability. According to Angela Hanks from the Center for American Progress, in 2016, the median wealth of white families was about $171,000 while the median wealth of black families was as little as $17,600 (Hanks et al.). This highlights how difficult it is for minorities, especially African Americans, to succeed in a system that has limited their freedom for centuries and continues to indirectly disadvantage them. Both examples illustrate the ways in which the U.S. government has oppressed the rights and voices of minorities in the past and and continues to indirectly disadvantage them today.
Moral Courage
The very institution responsible for upholding justice and equality was politically disempowering African Americans by suppressing their voting rights. However, the painting portrays forward movement which demonstrates that these protestors are continuing to fight for their rights despite facing oppression and racism from their own government. The protestors exhibit extreme fear of the supposed risks they may face but despite this keep their heads held high and march forward across the bridge. In the stimulus source, “Moral Courage and Intelligent Disobedience”, Ted Thomas and Ira Chaleff emphasize the difficulty of ethical decision-making. They define moral courage as the willingness to stand up for one’s beliefs even in the face of opposition. As a result, one may face shame or consequences. Thomas and Chaleff detail the story of Edward Snowden, a former contractor for the National Security Agency who made the bold decision to leak classified government information to the public. He uncovered a massive amount of internet and phone surveillance that was being collected by the U.S. government. This was extremely concerning as the privacy of U.S. citizens was being compromised. This connects to the “Confrontation on the Bridge” by revealing a common theme of confronting injustice. Thomas and Chaleff believe that Snowden displayed moral courage as, “he took actions he thought were correct and did so in isolation at the expense of the disapproval of his fellows, the censure of his colleagues, the wrath of his society, and incurring the legal machinery of his government” (Thomas and Chaleff). Snowden was aware of the numerous legal concerns and backlash he would face if he revealed government information, however he knew that it was morally right and was a key step in fighting injustice. He was fighting for the privacy of U.S. citizens and their basic rights. Similarly, the painting depicts a blind man who is leading the protestors. This figure represents the leaders of the civil rights movement and the courage they possessed. These leaders understood the risks of their march, as represented by the dog-like creature, but turned a blind-eye to the possible harsh consequences to continue forward. They believed that it was essential to fight back against oppression and speak up for equal voting rights. Both the Selma to Montgomery marches and Edward Snowden's story demonstrate the ways that the U.S. government, both past and present, has created environments where its people fear speaking out. The U.S. government has created a foundation where challenging the authority of the government leads to harsh legal and societal consequences.
Psychological Safety
The oppression of minorities in the U.S. is a result of the government silencing the voices of their people and enforcing consequences for speaking out against them. In order to create an environment that gives all people the opportunity to voice their opinions, the government must implement change in its structure. Renowned Professor for the Harvard Business School, Dr. Amy Edmondson, speaks out on this idea in her peer-reviewed journal, “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams”. Edmondson defines psychological safety as, “a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking” (Edmondson). Edmondson is advocating for environments where those involved feel comfortable speaking up and can take risks without fear of judgment or consequences. Introducing psychological safety into the government would require citizens to be able to comfortably display moral courage. As previously stated, moral courage is defined as, the willingness to stand up for one’s beliefs even in the face of opposition (Thomas and Chaleff). In order for citizens to be willing to stand up for what they believe is ethical, they must view their government as an ally rather than opposition. This would require a shared understanding between the government as well as its citizens. Establishing psychological safety would require an extreme level of commitment from leaders in all levels of the government. Dr. Amy Edmondson conducted a study where she surveyed 427 team members from 51 different teams. Edmondson measured team traits to determine psychological safety and its effects on performance. While there was no direct correlation between the two, Dr. Edmondson found that psychological safety was associated with “learning behavior”. She used the term “learning behavior” to represent learning outcomes. Dr. Edmondson stated that examples of traits she found in teams that showed this were, “seeking feedback, sharing information, asking for help, talking about errors, and experimenting” (Edmondson). This stresses that utilizing these techniques of encouraging “learning behavior” in teams will lead to confidence in the team members to speak up without fear. To establish “learning behavior” in the U.S. government, its leaders must be open ended when sharing information, set ground rules and abolish policies that punish its citizens for voicing their opinions. There must also be a feedback system and citizens must be encouraged to speak up if they believe they are being unfairly represented. There are numerous benefits to implementing Dr. Edmondson’s theory including, the productivity of the government and the satisfaction of its citizens. When the people of a government speak up against immoral policies, the entire administration will also be able to make more sound decisions. This is because only those who experience the impact of a law being passed will be able to provide their thoughts on its fairness. Additionally, psychological safety would lead to accountability in decision-making and more diverse perspectives. As a result of citizens providing input, they will also feel more satisfied with their government as their voices are being heard and considered. By creating an environment of psychological safety, the U.S. government can work towards a more inclusive and sustainable society.
Counter-Argument and Rebuttal
While advocating for the implementation of psychological safety into the U.S. government, it is essential to address a potential counter-argument. Some people may argue that the changing of presidency and administration every 4 years may bring new ideals and prevent psychological safety from developing within the government. Since psychological safety would require tons of dedication and commitment from each administration, some believe that the change in presidency would severely hinder these ideals from being continued on. In most cases, such concerns are effectively eliminated due to the tremendous stress put on the transition period between presidencies. There are thousands of decisions that will have to be made from the very moment that the next president takes office. Daniel I. Weiner and Tim Lau from the Brennan Center for Justice speak on this subject and describe the key aspects of this process that have contributed to smooth transitions in the past. Weiner and Lau describe the Presidential Transition Act that was passed in 1963 that sets forth processes and requirements for a smooth transition in power. This process is managed by the General Services Administration (GSA) which facilitates the transfer of operational responsibilities, institutional knowledge, and inner workings from the previous administration to the next. A GSA administrator unlocks access to resources, federal agencies and important national security briefings to the new administration as soon as election results are known (Weiner and Lau). This means that as soon as a president is decided, they are able to review information from the former administration and be briefed on past decisions. These resources are provided and information is made accessible, but it is up to the new administration to actively engage with the beliefs and ideologies of the past administration to influence their decision making. They must seek to learn from the choices and beliefs of the previous president. If administrations keep an open-mind and value past decisions then they may choose to cultivate the idea of psychological safety within the government and continue its development through their time in power. Through these efforts the U.S. can allow psychological safety to continue flourishing within the government.
Conclusion
The U.S. government has created an organizational environment filled with fear and oppression through institutional racism. The Selma to Montgomery marches stand as a testament to the struggles endured by marginalized communities in their fight for equality and justice. “Bloody Sunday” serves as a cruel reminder of the oppression perpetrated by the U.S. government during the civil rights movement. This is just one of many events that highlight the systemic racism and violence ingrained within government institutions. Lawrence’s painting, “Confrontation on the Bridge” shows the lengths to which government institutions would go to prevent their people from voicing their opinions as well as the courage that leaders had to possess in order to stand up against injustice. In the face of adversity, individuals like Edward Snowden exhibited moral courage by bravely challenging injustice in the government. This demonstrates the power of utilizing moral courage when acting out, but on the other hand highlights the ways in which the U.S. government oppressed its citizens by preventing them from standing up against unfair policies. The government must urgently choose to foster an environment of psychological safety to satisfy its citizens and promote better decision-making. Moving forward, the U.S. government should incrementally take steps towards achieving this by being open-minded and encouraging feedback from its citizens. Although achieving a nurturing environment at a scale as large as the U.S. government would require lots of time and dedication, if every level of the government works together with its citizens, reform can be made. It is never too late to seek change and abolish the outdated standards that have led to oppression of minorities. We must act now and work together so that every individual is empowered to voice their opinions.
Sources:
Braveman, Paula, et al. “Systemic and Structural Racism: Definitions, Examples, Health Damages, and Approaches to Dismantling.” Health Affairs, vol. 171–178, no. 2, 1 Feb. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2021.01394.
Edmondson, Amy. “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.” Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 44, no. 2, June 1999, pp. 350–83. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2666999.
Hanks, Solomon, & Weller. (2023, October 20). Systematic Inequality. Center for American Progress. Retrieved April 18, 2024, from https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systematic-inequality/.
History.com. (2024, April 16). Selma to Montgomery March - MLK, Purpose & Distance | HISTORY. HISTORY. Retrieved April 18, 2024, from https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/selma-montgomery-march.
Lawrence, J. (n.d.). Confrontation on the Bridge. The Jacob and Gwendolyn Knight Lawrence Foundation, Seattle, United States of America.
Thomas, Ted, and Ira Chaleff. “Moral Courage and Intelligent Disobedience.” InterAgency Journal, vol. 8, no. 1, 2017.
Weiner, Daniel, and Tim Lau. “Why The Presidential Transition Process Matters.” Brennan Center for Justice, 13 Nov. 2020, www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/why-presidential-transition-process-matters.
Schapiro, Steve. Photos: MLK by Steve Schapiro. Rolling Stone, 17 Jan. 2022, https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-pictures/photos-mlk-steve-schapiro-1286128/
Comments
Post a Comment