Joe Gerstandt | keynote speaker, freedom fighter, freak-flag flier

What kind of community will we choose?

I am not a native of Omaha, but it is my home. I have now been here for close to fifteen years and am no going anywhere. I met my soul mate here, found my calling here, started my business here and am raising a family here. I like Omaha a lot; I love the people and the potential here.

As good as it is, Omaha still has work to do. While there has been a large and bold investment in the physical identity of Omaha over the past decade with a new riverfront, a new convention center, developments in midtown and elsewhere, Omaha is still taking a more passive approach toward its culture.

I have been involved in a great many conversations in Omaha around racial, ethnic, gender, orientation and other kinds of difference over the past decade, and I think that there is a great deal of dissonance here. Omaha takes great pride in being known as a community of “good people.” For good reason: we are a very charitable community, we are known for having a good work ethic and being a great place for families and raising children — there is quality of life here.

This does not dovetail well with the idea that Omaha might have a problem with diversity. One of the indicators that Omaha has a problem with diversity is that it seems to scoff at the idea that diversity is even a valid issue.

In 2010 there was an ordinance considered by the Omaha City Council that would have provided LGBT employees with some legal protection from discrimination. It did not pass. Not only did the ordinance not pass, the conversation around it was pretty ugly.

Though Omaha is a very business-centric community, most business leaders sat the issue out. They were silent even though many of them understand the business value of initiatives such as these as they have supported them inside their business.

Instead the city council oversaw an amazing parade of judgment as one after another of the folks against the ordinance took to the podium, stated how non-judgmental, loving and compassionate they were and then went on to speak to the many problems, sins and defects associated with gay, lesbian, and transgender folks.

It was painful to watch. There was almost no conversation about discrimination or the protection of minority rights, and a great deal of conversation about all the wild and crazy behavior of people that identity as GLBT — probably more conversation about underwear, port-a-potties and showers than any other city council meeting.

The hearing itself was actually all the proof needed that Omaha desperately needs this kind of ordinance. After a few hours of this, the city council even applauded itself for providing a space for balanced dialogue; but, alas, there was almost no actual inquiry into the ordinance and its impact. It was largely a one-sided referendum on “gaydom.”

The majority defining the experience, value and the validity of the minority is a powerful and violent thing, but certainly nothing new.  

Now, a new ordinance has been introduced, and this topic will be returning to the Omaha city council soon. It will be interesting to see if the conversation is handled any differently and if there will be any other voices involved. I, for one, will not be watching from home this time.

Good intentions, which I believe are absolutely present in Omaha, are not enough. Just as faith without works is dead, intentions toward being an inclusive community without action are simply cosmetic.

I do diversity and inclusion work; that is how I make my living. I am often told that the whole thing is overblown and that there is no need for an ordinance like this. Discrimination is simply bad business, they’ll say; employers do not care what color an employee’s skin is, what their gender is, or who they kiss in their bedroom.

I think that it is increasingly true that employers do not intentionally discriminate against people. That is good news. But discrimination is still not very hard to find. Just because it has not been a part of your experience does not mean the same is true for others. Let us not confuse our experience as universal.

Unfortunately, inclusion has been inaccurately framed as a binary thing, as a struggle between “good” and “bad.” Unjust outcomes do not require any hatred or malice; they simply require the majority population to take their experience and perspective as the whole truth. The weight of that alone is enough to produce skewed and unjust outcomes, hatred, ignorance and fear simply amplify it.

The problem with Omaha is that Omaha is convinced that it does not have a problem. Omaha is focused on its intentions and not its outcomes. Omaha is focused on the promises that it makes not where it falls short on delivering on those promises. Outcomes for minority groups — and the attention you pay to those outcomes — tells you a lot more about the character of a community than the aggregate.

You cannot change what you do not acknowledge. It is very hard to get better without checking your blind spots, your opportunities for improvement. The work of being a special community does not lie with the opinion of the majority…any place can do that, it happens on its own. One of the things that make this country special and unique is that it has deliberately taken steps to protect the rights of the minority.

You do not get to be a loving, open and inclusive community by saying that you are a loving, open and inclusive community. You have to do stuff. You have to deliberately and proactively and intentionally invite difference into your community and your organization, and you have to deliberately and proactively and intentionally protect that difference.

Community is not built from simply sharing zip codes and it does not come from simply advocating on behalf of yourself. Community is a product of advocating on behalf of the other.

When something is a priority, you invest in it. You put yourself out there. You sacrifice for it.

Be good to each other.