# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We are Amnesty International UK. We are ordinary people from across the world standing up for humanity and human rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This resource contains seven lesson plans for ages 11-18, which use innovative ways to explore human rights. They can be stand-alone lessons or used in planning themed or dropdown days across the school.

This pack contains all the resources you need to make a Human Rights Day or just one lesson engaging and memorable.

This pack is in English. It is also available in Welsh.

Lessons

1. Understanding Human Rights

2. Human Rights in the UK

3. Mia Dia, Y Los Derechos (Spanish)

4. Freedom of Expression

5. Refugees and Asylum

6. Is it a crime to be gay in Boldovia?

7. Taking Action

Films from the resource

This resource was previously known as 'Everyone Everywhere'.

Downloads

Human Rights in the Secondary School Lesson Plans and Worksheets

Lesson 1 Powerpoint

Lesson 2 Powerpoint

Lesson 4 Powerpoint

Lesson 5 Powerpoint

Lesson 7 Powerpoint

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Human Rights in Secondary School resource pack

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This resource contains seven lesson plans for ages 11-18, which use innovative ways to explore human rights. They can be stand-alone lessons or used in planning themed or dropdown days across the school. This pack contains all the resources you need to make a Human Rights Day or just one lesson engaging and memorable.

# data[].attributes.headline
Equaliteach Universal Values lesson plans FS-KS4

# data[].attributes.subject
Equaliteach Universal Values lesson plans FS-KS4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our use of cookies

We use necessary cookies to make our site work. We'd also like to set optional analytics to help us improve it. We won't set optional cookies unless you enable them. Using this tool will set a cookie on your device to remember your preferences.

For more detailed information about the cookies we use, see our Cookies page

Necessary cookies

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Analytics cookies

We'd like to set non-essential cookies, such as Google Analytics, to help us to improve our website by collecting and reporting information on how you use it. The cookies collect information in a way that does not directly identify anyone. For more information on how these cookies work, please see our Cookies page. If you are 16 or under, please ask a parent or carer for consent before accepting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Diversifying the curriculum to increase representation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We use necessary cookies to make our site work. We'd also like to set optional analytics to help us improve it. We won't set optional cookies unless you enable them. Using this tool will set a cookie on your device to remember your preferences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Anti-racism and mental health in schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Podcasts, e-learning and resources about racism, its impact on young people’s mental health, and what schools can do to address it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Equaliteach educating young people on islamophobia

# data[].attributes.subject
Equaliteach educating young people on islamophobia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our guide will give you confidence to talk to children and young people about race and racism and develop their understanding and awareness.

This resource helps teachers and parents to create a safe space for children and young people to ask questions and discuss race and racism. Through our resources we aim to help learners become more empathetic and resilient through kindness and mutual respect.

It provides information to help educators prepare for a conversation and introduce the topic to learners. It also includes several activities and analogies to help children and young people explore and discuss the topic. There are separate documents for children (ages 3 to 11) and young people (ages 11 to 18).

Our Black Lives Matter resource for young people helps learners reflect on movement with a focus on how people might experience racism and how it might feel.

Learning objectives
Learners will:

discuss racism in an open and safe environment and ask questions

use techniques like active listening to help develop understanding

explore what a stereotype is and start to challenge assumptions we hear and see in the media

celebrate others' differences and similarities

be empowered to create an anti-racist environment.

Resource overview

This provides an overview of what to expect from the resource. There are differentiated activities for primary and secondary learners.

1. Guidance: preparation

Advice for teachers and parents on how to prepare for and approach the subject. Have the confidence to talk to children and young people, how to raise the topic, create a safe space for discussion and respond to questions.

2. Creating an anti-racist environment: taking action

Explore ways in which children and young people can be an active ally with friends and family. Consider how it would feel to be supported.

3. Active listening: listening activity

Use this activity to set out an environment of active listening where people can share safely, and others listen and reflect on what is said.

4. Challenging stereotypes: discussion activity

Provide an opportunity to discuss what we mean by stereotypes and challenge some thoughts learners might have.

5. In my community: debate activity

Encourage learners to think about discrimination and equality in their local community and environment with this walking debate.

6. Video activity

Video activities for different ages exploring race and racism. For children, discover the importance of loving your skin. For young people, think about discrimination against key workers.

7. Celebrating similarities and differences: discussion activity

Explore the traits that make us who we are, what do we have in common with others? Discuss a series of statements about similarities and differences.

8. Reflection

Make a plan of action with your children and young people and work on it together.

This resource was created in June 2020 by the British Red Cross.

Help communities cope in a crisis

So far in 2021, we've educated over 850,000 children, young people and adults. Your donation will help us reach those who need it most through our free digital resources and workshops building live-saving first aid and wellbeing skills.
Support Community Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Talking with children and young people about race and racism | British Red Cross

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our guide will give you confidence to talk to children and young people about race and racism and develop their understanding and awareness. This resource helps teachers and parents to create a safe space for children and young people to ask questions and discuss race and racism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Listen to Mo's story about why he bullies people as part of CBBC's Anti-bullying week. This story is based on real-life bullying experiences, but some details have been changed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Anti-bullying resources and lesson plans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to content

Resources

Lesson plans, quick activities, a quiz and teaching guide designed to explore problematic online sexual behaviour with 9-12 year olds.

Educators of all children aged 9-12 years old.

Three lesson plans

Quick activities

An interactive quiz

Teaching Guide

This toolkit explores problematic online sexual behaviour, with a focus on online sexual harassment e.g. bullying or harmful behaviour online based on gender or sexual orientation stereotypes, body-shaming, nudity and sexually explicit content.

In resources that are used or seen by children,we use the term 'cyberbullying' and refer to the specific type - cyberbullying that uses gender stereotypes, body shaming or nude images. This is because we know the words 'sexual' and 'harassment' may not be understood, used or appropriate for 9-12 year olds.

To support educators in delivering high quality PSHE/PSE and relationships education lessons.

To give children a safe space to discuss, explore and challenge peer to peer online sexual harassment e.g. bullying or harmful behaviour online based on gender or sexual orientation stereotypes, body-shaming, nudity and sexually explicit content.

To discuss with children how they can be good friends online.

To raise awareness of this issue to prevent it from becoming normalised.

To give children the confidence to report unacceptable online behaviour.

This toolkit for 9-12 year olds follows on from the creation of the 'Step Up, Speak Up!' toolkit for 13-17 year olds. Feedback on these resources showed the need and desire for a toolkit to address this topic with a younger age group; this is where the beginnings of online sexual harassment were being noticed, and a need to challenge it early was identified.

Find more information about the project and its beginnings here.

This toolkit focuses on peer-to-peer online sexual harassment (taking place between children who know, or know of, each other).

This is not a resource about online grooming. For further advice and resources to address adult sexual behaviour towards children online, or to report this issue or any other concerns around online grooming, please visit ceop.police.uk.

For

Topics

Type

Donate

Even a small donation can support the development of our online safety resources and help our Education Team to connect with more children and young people.
Donate

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking "Accept All", you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Skip to content Resources Lesson plans, quick activities, a quiz and teaching guide designed to explore problematic online sexual behaviour with 9-12 year olds. Educators of all children aged 9-12 years old. Three lesson plans Quick activities An interactive quiz Teaching Guide This toolkit explores problematic online sexual behaviour, with a focus on online sexual harassment e.g.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abrahamic Commentary to support the teaching of RSE - RE:ONLINE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To continue our theme of 'ways of knowing' we bring you something new this month- an Abrahamic Commentary to support the teaching of RSE (Relationships and Sex Education). Aliya Azam has kindly shared this commentary for RSE teachers, or anyone who would find it useful in the classroom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Premier League Primary Stars | No Room for Racism - Allyship

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pupils will learn about allyship and how to become an ally.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Evolution of Rap: From Oral Traditions to NWA by Black History Bites

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Have you heard of the Griots? Listen to find more about the history of oral traditions in Africa and how it has influenced modern rap.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
top 5: black history month with oti mabuse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Horrible Histories - Top 5: Black History Month with Oti Mabuse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Oti Mabuse brings you a selection of Horrible Histories sketches and songs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Equaliteach disability teaching pack primary

# data[].attributes.subject
Equaliteach disability teaching pack primary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Looking for a great book on a theme? Our booklists can help you discover some brilliant children's books that your little one will love.

Our booklists cover a large range of subjects, from everyday issues to genre, disability, diversity, sporty books, funny books, and more. Can't find what you're looking for? Email us and we'll do our best to help.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Looking for a great children's book on a theme? Our booklists cover a large range of subjects, from everyday issues to genre, disability, diversity, sporty books, funny books and more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A collection of the best resources on migration, immigration, emigration, multiculturalism and cultural diversity in the UK.

# data[].attributes.headline
Inspecting teaching of the Protected Characteristics - Ofsted

# data[].attributes.subject
Inspecting teaching of the Protected Characteristics - Ofsted

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Background

No matter what type of school they attend, it is important that all children gain an understanding of the world they are growing up in, and learn how to live alongside, and show respect for, a diverse range of people. When we inspect schools, we assess how well they equip children to do this.

Some schools have raised questions about what they should teach in relation to the 'protected characteristics' in the Equality Act 2010 and the Department for Education ( DfE)'s statutory guidance on relationships education, relationships and sex education and health education ('the DfE 's statutory guidance'), particularly the sexual orientation and gender reassignment characteristics.

This guidance explains Ofsted's approach on inspection to evaluating how schools support pupils' personal development and meet their duties in relation to teaching pupils about the protected characteristics, including the DfE's statutory guidance. It applies to all types of academy, maintained, non-maintained special and non-association independent schools. (All references to the independent school standards ( ISS) are only relevant to non-association independent schools.)

The Public Sector Equality Duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 requires Ofsted, when exercising all our functions, to have due regard to the need to:

eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Equality Act 2010

advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it

foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it

We have taken this into account in this guidance; see the equality and diversity impact assessment.

How we inspect teaching of the protected characteristics in schools

Inspectors will gather evidence on how schools promote equality and pupils' understanding of the protected characteristics. They will use this evidence as part of evaluating and coming to judgements on 3 main areas:

the personal development of pupils

the effectiveness of leadership and management

for non-association independent schools, whether the school meets the independent school standards ( ISS); this also informs the judgement about the effectiveness of its leadership and management (see the 'independent school standards') section.

If inspectors identify at inspection that a school is not teaching about all the protected characteristics, they will always report on this and will explain how (if at all) it has affected the school's inspection judgements.

Personal development

The education inspection framework ( EIF) and the school inspection handbook and independent school inspection handbook explain that pupils' understanding of the protected characteristics and how equality and diversity are promoted form part of the evidence that inspectors use to evaluate the school's personal development of pupils.

All primary and secondary schools, whether state-funded or independent, should be able to demonstrate that no form of discrimination is tolerated and that pupils show respect for those who share the protected characteristics. Schools will not be able to demonstrate this by pointing to a general policy of encouraging respect for all people.

If a school does not promote pupils' awareness and understanding of all the protected characteristics effectively, this may result in a requires improvement judgement for personal development. This is especially likely if inspectors identify one or more other weaknesses in the school's promotion of and provision for pupils' personal development. For state-funded schools, this only applies to graded (section 5) inspections. For independent schools, this only applies to standard inspections. This is regardless of any consultation that the school may have carried out to meet the requirements in the DfE 's statutory guidance.

Personal development and the DfE's statutory guidance

The DfE's statutory guidance outlines what schools must teach at certain points in the curriculum. It states that schools are not required to teach about all the protected characteristics in every year group; that is a matter for the school to decide, and how it plans its curriculum. However, the curriculum should be planned and delivered so that children develop age-appropriate knowledge and understanding during their time at the school. In secondary schools, this includes age-appropriate knowledge of the protected characteristics of sexual orientation and gender reassignment.

There are a range of ways schools can choose to teach about these issues in an age-appropriate way. Primary schools could, for example, teach pupils about the different types of family groups that exist within society. Secondary schools could, for example, teach pupils in more detail about sexuality and gender identity as well as the legal rights afforded to LGBT people. As stated in the DfE's statutory guidance, teaching on these matters should be integrated appropriately into the curriculum, rather than addressed separately or in one-off lessons.

Inspections where there is no personal development judgement

On an ungraded (section 8) inspection of a state-funded school, inspectors do not give any judgements, including for personal development. If they find evidence that the school does not promote pupils' awareness and understanding of all the protected characteristics effectively, they may recommend that the school's next inspection be a graded (section 5) inspection.

On an additional inspection of a non-association independent school, inspectors also do not give a judgement for personal development. When it is in scope of the DfE's commission for that inspection and inspectors find evidence that the school does not promote pupils' awareness and understanding of all the protected characteristics effectively, they will take account of this in their judgements about whether the ISS are met. When it is out of scope of the DfE's commission, inspectors will follow the guidance set out in the handbook on checking standards beyond the scope of the DfE 's commission.

Leadership and management

The EIF, the school inspection handbook and the independent school inspection handbook explain that how a school fulfils its statutory duties, for example under the Equality Act 2010, forms part of the evidence that inspectors use to evaluate the school's leadership and management. When inspectors consider whether leaders and managers are fulfilling their statutory responsibilities, they are not expected to construct or review a list of duties.

Leadership and management and the DfE's statutory guidance

Relationships education is compulsory for all primary school pupils and relationships and sex education ( RSE) is compulsory for all secondary school pupils.

The DfE's statutory guidance contains information on what schools should do and sets out the requirements they must comply with when teaching relationships education, RSE and health education. If schools do not follow parts of the DfE 's statutory guidance that state they should (or should not) do something, they will need to have good reasons for this.

Where appropriate, inspectors will consider how a school meets the expectations of the DfE 's statutory guidance. This may contribute to the leadership and management judgement.

Requirements and expectations in the DfE's statutory guidance

The DfE 's statutory guidance requires that all schools must:

have an up-to-date policy, which is made available to parents and others and consult parents in developing and reviewing that policy in all cases

take into account the age and religious background of all pupils and ensure that their teaching is appropriate to their age and religious background, to ensure that the topics outlined in the statutory guidance are appropriately handled

comply with the relevant provisions of the Equality Act 2010, including that they:

must not unlawfully discriminate against pupils by treating them less favourably because they have one or more of the protected characteristics

must make reasonable adjustments to alleviate disadvantage, for example by taking positive action to deal with particular disadvantages affecting a group because of a protected characteristic. The statutory guidance gives the example of taking positive action to support girls if there is evidence that they are being subjected to sexual harassment

make relationships education and/or RSE accessible for all pupils, including those with special educational needs and disabilities

ensure that teaching reflects the law (including the Equality Act 2010) as it applies to relationships, so that young people clearly understand what the law allows and does not allow, and the wider implications of decisions they may make

ensure that the materials used to support teaching are appropriate for the age and maturity of pupils and sensitive to their needs

ensure that the needs of all pupils are appropriately met, and all pupils understand the importance of equality and respect

ensure that teaching is sensitive and age-appropriate in approach and content

work closely with parents in all cases when planning and delivering the subjects, ensuring that parents know what will be taught and when, and clearly communicate the fact that parents have the right to request that the child be withdrawn from some or all of sex education delivered as part of statutory RSE

The DfE expects secondary schools, state-funded or independent, to teach awareness of and respect towards LGBT people and encourages primary schools to do so.

How this applies to inspection

On an ungraded (section 8) inspection of a state-funded school, inspectors do not give any judgements, including for leadership and management.

Primary schools

If a primary school does not teach awareness of and respect towards LGBT people, this will not have an impact on the leadership and management judgement as long as the school can satisfy inspectors that it has still fulfilled the requirements of the DfE's statutory guidance. If it cannot do this, for example if it has failed to consult with parents, inspectors will consider this when making the leadership and management judgement. For state-funded schools, this only applies to graded (section 5) inspections. For independent schools, this only applies to standard inspections. The school will not ordinarily receive a judgement for leadership and management better than requires improvement.

Secondary schools

If a secondary school does not teach awareness of and respect towards LGBT people, it will not be meeting the expectations of the DfE's statutory guidance. Inspectors will consider this when making the leadership and management judgement. Similarly, if a secondary school has not fulfilled the requirements of the DfE 's statutory guidance, for example, if it has failed to consult with parents, inspectors will also consider this when making the leadership and management judgement. For state-funded schools, this only applies to graded (section 5) inspections. For independent schools, this only applies to standard inspections. The school will not ordinarily receive a judgement for this better than requires improvement.

Additional inspections

On an additional inspection of an independent school, if it is in scope of the DfE's commission for the inspection, and inspectors find evidence that a school is not meeting the requirements of the DfE's statutory guidance, they will take this into account in their judgements about whether the ISS are met. If it is out of scope of the commission, inspectors will follow the guidance set out in the handbook on checking standards beyond the scope of the DfE 's commission.

Independent school standards

This section is only relevant to non-association independent schools.

There are 2 paragraphs in the ISS that expressly require independent schools to encourage respect for the protected characteristics:

Paragraph 2(2)(d)(ii) requires proprietors to provide a: 'personal, social, health and economic education which... encourages respect for other people, paying particular regard to the protected characteristics set out in the 2010 [Equality] Act'

Paragraph 5(b)(vi) requires proprietors to 'ensure that principles are actively promoted which... encourage respect for other people, paying particular regard to the protected characteristics set out in the 2010 [Equality] Act'

The DfE's non-statutory guidance on the ISS contains further information for schools on meeting the requirements in paragraphs 2(2)(d)(ii) and 5(b)(vi) of the standards. It sets out that schools must make pupils aware of the protected characteristics to the extent that it is considered age-appropriate to do so.

If an independent secondary school does not teach awareness of and respect towards LGBT people, it will fail to meet the ISS listed above. This failure means the school will not ordinarily receive a leadership and management judgement better than requires improvement.

If an independent primary school does not teach awareness of and respect towards LGBT people, it will not automatically be judged to fail the ISS listed above, provided that it can satisfy inspectors that it has still fulfilled the requirements of the DfE's statutory guidance. If it cannot do this, for example, if it has failed to consult with parents, inspectors will normally judge that the school has failed to meet the ISS above. Under the EIF, this non-compliance means it will not ordinarily receive a leadership and management judgement better than requires improvement.

Faith teachings on protected characteristics

Schools can choose to teach the tenets of any faith on the protected characteristics. For example, they may explain that same-sex relationships and gender reassignment are not permitted by a particular religion. However, if they do so, they must also explain the legal rights LGBT people have under UK law, and that this and LGBT people must be respected.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inspecting teaching of the protected characteristics in schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No matter what type of school they attend, it is important that all children gain an understanding of the world they are growing up in, and learn how to live alongside, and show respect for, a diverse range of people. When we inspect schools, we assess how well they equip children to do this.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Hate crime, England and Wales, 2021 to 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Frequency of release: Annual

Forthcoming release: Home Office statistics release calendar

Home Office responsible statistician: John Flatley

Press enquires: pressoffice@homeoffice.gov.uk, Telephone: 0300 123 3535

Public enquires: crimeandpolicestats@homeoffice.gov.uk

This release contains statistics about hate crime offences recorded by the police in England and Wales.

Key results

in year ending March 2022, there were 155,841 hate crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales, a 26 per cent increase compared with the previous year

this was the biggest percentage increase in hate crimes since year ending March 2017, when there was a 29 per cent rise

due to significant improvements in police recorded crime made in recent years, it is uncertain to what degree the increase in police recorded hate crime is a genuine rise, or due to continued recording improvements and more victims having the confidence to report these crimes to the police

as in previous years, the majority of hate crimes were racially motivated, accounting for over two-thirds of such offences (70%; 109,843 offences); these types of hate crime increased by 19 per cent between year ending March 2021 and year ending March 2022

1. Introduction

1.1 Overview

This statistical bulletin provides information on the number of hate crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales in year ending March 2022.
Police forces have made significant improvements in how they record crime since 2014. They have also improved their identification of what constitutes a hate crime. Because of these changes, police recorded crime figures do not currently provide reliable trends in hate crime. The figures do, however, provide a good measure of the hate crime-related demand on the police. For more information, see Section 3: Police recorded hate crime data sources and quality.
1.2 Hate crimes recorded by the police

Hate crime is defined as 'any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.' This common definition was agreed in 2007 by the police, Crown Prosecution Service, Prison Service (now the National Offender Management Service) and other agencies that make up the criminal justice system. There are five centrally monitored strands of hate crime:

race or ethnicity

religion or beliefs

sexual orientation

disability, and

transgender identity

In the process of recording a crime, the police can flag an offence as being motivated by one or more of these five monitored strands (for example, an offence can be motivated by hostility towards the victim's race and religion). For more information, see Section 4 - Hate Crime data sources and quality. Hate crime figures in this bulletin are therefore dependent on a flag being correctly applied to an offence that is identified as a hate crime.

The College of Policing (CoP) published updated guidance on how the police should respond to hate crime in October 2020. The Authorised Professional Practice guidance on hate crime includes information on what can be covered by hate crime. The guidance states:

A hate crime is any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on:

a person's race or perceived race, or any racial group or ethnic background including countries within the UK and Gypsy and Traveller groups; this includes asylum seekers and migrants

a person's religion or perceived religion, or any religious group including those who have no faith

a person's sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation, or any person's sexual orientation

a person's disability or perceived disability, or any disability including physical disability, learning disability and mental health or developmental disorders

a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender, including people who are transsexual, transgender, cross dressers and those who hold a Gender Recognition Certificate under the Gender Recognition Act 2004

The inclusion of migrants within the first category listed above means that offences with a xenophobic element (such as graffiti targeting certain nationalities) can be recorded as race hate crimes by the police.

An offence may also be motivated by hatred towards a characteristic (strand) that is not currently centrally monitored and therefore does not form part of the data collection presented in this statistical bulletin (age or gender for example).

Hate crimes are taken to mean any crime where the perpetrator's hostility or prejudice against an identifiable group of people is a factor in determining who is victimised. While a crime may be recorded as a 'hate crime', it may only be prosecuted as such if evidence of hostility is submitted as part of the case file.

Terrorist offences may or may not be considered a hate crime depending on the circumstances. A terrorist attack may be targeted against general British or Western values rather than one of the five specific strands. Attacks of this nature are therefore not covered by this statistical bulletin, although they will clearly be motivated by hate. However, other terrorist attacks are motivated by a hatred towards one of the centrally monitored hate crime strands covered by this statistical bulletin. For example, the Finsbury Park Mosque attack in June 2017 has been classified as a hate crime because the victims were thought to be targeted because of their religious affiliation.

The Law Commission published recommendations in December 2021 to reform hate crime laws to remove the disparity in the way hate crime laws treat each protected characteristic - race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity. These recommendations by the Law Commission may lead to future changes in the future coverage of the monitored strands. The report can be found here: Hate crime laws: Final report - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

1.3 Hate crimes and racially or religiously aggravated offences

There are some offences in the main police recorded crime collection which have specific racially or religiously motivated elements defined by statute. These constitute a set of offences which are distinct from their non-racially or religiously aggravated equivalents (the full list of these is shown in Table 1.1). These racially or religiously aggravated offences are, by definition, hate crimes. Half (49%) of hate crime offences were recorded as one of these racially or religiously aggravated offences.

Table 1.1 The five racially or religiously aggravated offences and their non-aggravated equivalents

Racially or religiously aggravated offences

Non-aggravated equivalent offences

8P

Racially or religiously aggravated assault with injury

8N

Assault with injury

105B

Racially or religiously aggravated assault without injury

105A

Assault without Injury

8M

Racially or religiously aggravated harassment

8L

Harassment

9B

Racially or religiously aggravated public fear, alarm or distress

9A

Public fear, alarm or distress

58J

Racially or religiously aggravated criminal damage

Criminal damage to a dwelling
Criminal damage to a building other than a dwelling
Criminal damage to a vehicle
Other criminal damage

Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office

1.4 Crime survey for England and Wales (CSEW)

The CSEW is a face-to-face victimisation survey and also provides information on hate crimes experienced by people resident in England and Wales. However, the size of the CSEW sample means the number of hate crime incidents and victims estimated in a single survey year is too unreliable to report on. Therefore, three annual datasets are combined to provide a larger sample which can be used to produce robust estimates for hate crime. Estimates from the survey were last published in ' Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2019 to 2020'. The next publication of figures from the CSEW would have been due in 2023, but this will be delayed because the face-to-face survey was suspended due to public health restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Police recorded hate crime

Key results

in year ending March 2022, there were 155,841 hate crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales, an increase of 26% from year ending March 2021 (124,104 offences)

there were 109,843 race hate crimes, 8,730 religious hate crimes, 26,152 sexual orientation hate crimes, 14,242 disability hate crimes and 4,355 transgender hate crimes in year ending March 2022

there were annual increases in all five strands of hate crime, ranging from 19% for race hate crimes to 56% for transgender hate crimes

the upward trend in hate crime seen in recent years is likely to have been mainly driven by improvements in crime recording by the police; there have been spikes in hate crime following certain events such as the EU Referendum and the terrorist attacks in 2017

it is uncertain the extent to which the increases seen this year continue the pattern of improvements in police recording or represent a real increase in hate crime; the rise seen in the latest year may also have been affected by the lower levels of crime recorded in year ending March 2021 due to the COVID 19 pandemic restrictions; trends may also differ by strand as some crime types have been more affected by improvements in recording practices than others

as in previous years, the majority of hate crimes were racially motivated, accounting for over two-thirds of all such offences (70%; 109,843 offences); racially motivated hate crimes increased by 19 per cent between year ending March 2021 and year ending March 2022

religious hate crimes increased by 37 per cent (to 8,730 offences), up from 6,383 in the previous year; this was the highest number of religious hate crimes recorded since the time series began in year ending March 2012

sexual orientation hate crimes increased by 41% (to 26,152), disability hate crimes by 43% (to 14,242) and transgender identity hate crimes by 56% (to 4,355); these percentage increases were much higher than seen in recent years

over half (51%) of the hate crimes recorded by the police were for public order offences and a 41% were for violence against the person offences; five per cent were recorded as criminal damage and arson offences

2.1 Prevalence and trends

Hate crimes are a subset of notifiable offences recorded by the police. In year ending March 2022, three per cent of such offences recorded by the police were identified as being hate crimes. This proportion has gradually increased from one per cent in year ending March 2013, as the police have improved their identification of what constitutes a hate crime, especially across public order and violence against the person offences which account for 92 per cent of hate crime offences collectively.

There were 155,841 hate crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales in year ending March 2022, an increase of 26 per cent compared with year ending March 2021 (124,104 offences; see Table 2.1). All five strands were standing at their highest annual totals since the data were first collected by the Home Office in year ending March 2012.
Table 2.1: Hate crimes recorded by the police by monitored strand, year ending March 2018 to year ending March 2022[footnote 2]
Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office.
Notes:

1. Total number of offences in year ending March 2020 includes estimated figures for GMP as they were unable to supply data for year ending March 2020 following the implementation of a new IT system in July 2019.

2. See Bulletin Table 2 for detailed footnotes.

It is possible for a crime to have more than one motivating factor (for example an offence may be motivated by hostility towards both the victim's race and religion). Thus, as well as recording the overall number of hate crimes, the police also collect data on the number of motivating factors by strand as shown in Table 2.1. For this reason, the sum of the five motivating factors in the above exceeds the 155,841 overall hate crime offences recorded by the police. Five per cent of hate crime offences in year ending March 2022 were estimated to have involved more than one motivating factor.

As in previous years, race hate crimes accounted for a majority of police recorded hate crimes (70%; 109,843 offences). These offences increased by 19% compared with the previous year (92,063).

Religious hate crimes increased by 37 per cent between year ending March 2021 and year ending March 2022 (from 6,383 to 8,730). This increase follows two years where the number of these offences had fallen.

Sexual orientation hate crimes rose by 41 per cent (from 18,596 to 26,152 offences). This was the largest percentage annual increase in these offences since the time series began in year ending March 2012.

Disability hate crimes increased by 43 per cent (from 9,945 to 14,242) over the last year, the largest percentage annual increase seen since year ending March 2017 (53%).

Transgender identity hate crimes rose by 56 per cent (from 2,799 to 4,355) over the same period, the largest percentage annual increase in these offences since the series began. Transgender issues have been heavily discussed on social media over the last year, which may have led to an increase in related hate crimes.

The recent annual increases seen in hate crime in recent years were thought to have been driven by improvements in crime recording by the police following a review by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) in 2014 and the removal of the designation of police recorded crime as National Statistics. It also thought that growing awareness of hate crime is likely to have led to improved identification of such offences. It is difficult to assess whether the increase in the last year is a continuation of this trend, or whether the rise in hate crime is, in at least part, genuine.

The annual percentage changes seen over the last year across the five strands were partly due to the lower levels of crime recorded by the police in the year ending March 2021 comparison year due to the suppressant effect of the public health restrictions in place during the COVID 19 pandemic, as highlighted in the Crime in England and Wales Statistical bulletins published by the Office for National Statistics.

Section 2.2 shows that 92 per cent of hate crimes in year ending March 2022 were for either public order or violence against the person offences, continuing the pattern seen in previous years. These are two offence groups thought to have been previously subject to relatively high levels of under-recording and thus improvements in crime recording are likely to have had a larger impact on these groups than other offences. Figure 2.1 shows the indexed trend in overall violent and public order offences since year ending 2013 compared with all hate crime offences over the same period. As can be seen, there is a strong correlation between the increase in overall public order and violence against the person offences and hate crime. This trend has continued in year ending March 2022, suggesting that overall hate crime has increased broadly in-line with non-hate crime offences.
Figure 2.1: Indexed trends in the number of police recorded violence against the person and public order and hate crime offences, year ending March 2013 to year ending March 2022 (year ending March 2013 = 100)

Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office.
Notes:
There have also been short-term genuine rises in hate crime following certain trigger events in recent years. Increases in hate crime were seen around the EU Referendum in June 2016 and the terrorist attacks in 2017. There was also an increase in public order hate crimes during the summer of 2020 following the widespread Black Lives Matter protests and far-right counter-protests.

Hate crime data by Police Force Area from year ending March 2012 to year ending March 2022 can be found in the Home Office Open Data tables.

Religious hate crimes

In April 2016, the Home Office began collecting information from the police on the perceived religion of victims of religious hate crime. By perceived, we mean the religion targeted by the offender. While in the majority of offences the perceived and actual religion of the victim will be the same, in some cases they will differ. For example, if anti-Muslim graffiti is sprayed on a religious temple of another faith, this would still be recorded as an offence of racially or religiously aggravated criminal damage and identified by the respective police force as a religious hate crime against Muslims.

There are nine different perceived religion flags in this collection, which match those reported upon in the 2021 Census:

Of the 8,730 religious hate crimes recorded by the police in year ending March 2022, information on the targeted religion was provided in 8,307 of the offences (95%).

In some cases, more than one perceived religion had been tagged on one offence (for example, a piece of graffiti may have targeted more than one religion). All police forces sent data on the perceived religion of the victims of religious hate crimes. Across all forces, in 17% of offences, the targeted religion was not known but for some forces the number of offences recorded with 'unknown religion' was relatively high.

In year ending March 2022, where the perceived religion of the victim was recorded, two in five (42%) of religious hate crime offences were targeted against Muslims (3,459 offences). The next most commonly targeted group were Jewish people, who were targeted in just under one in four (23%) of religious hate crimes (1,919 offences). Information on the other targeted religions for year ending March 2022 can be found in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Number and proportion of religious hate crimes recorded by the police¹, by the perceived targeted religion, year ending March 2022
Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office.
Notes:

1. In some offences more than one religion has been recorded as being targeted, therefore the sum of the proportions do not add to 100%.

2. See Bulletin Table 3 for detailed footnotes.

Racial or religiously aggravated offences

The data the Home Office receives in the main police recorded crime return for racially or religiously aggravated offences are available on a monthly basis. This allows analysis of in-year trends in these offences. An indexed chart of these offences and their non-aggravated equivalent offence are shown in (Figure 2.2).

There are four clear spikes in these aggravated offences which were not seen in the non-aggravated offences: July 2016, following the EU Referendum; July 2017, following the terrorist attacks seen in this year; and in Summer 2020, following the Black Lives Matter protests and far-right counter-protests following the death of George Floyd on 25th May in the United States of America. The fourth spike in the summer of 2021 was largely due to an increase of racially or religiously aggravated public fear, alarm or distress offences.

There were also spikes in July 2018 and 2019, but these follow the same trend as for the non-aggravated offences.
Figure 2.2: Indexed number of racially or religiously aggravated offences recorded by the police by month, April 2015 to March 2022

Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office.

2.2 Hate crimes by type of offence

Just over half (51%) of the hate crimes recorded by the police in year ending March 2022 were for public order offences and over a third (41%) were for violence against the person offences (Figure 2.3; Appendix Table 6). Together, these offence categories accounted for just over nine in ten (92%) of all hate crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales.
Figure 2.3: Distribution of offences flagged as hate crimes, year ending March 2022

Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office.

The distribution of hate crime offences differs markedly from overall police recorded crime. Theft offences accounted for just under a third (28%) of all recorded crime in year ending March 2022 (data not shown); these offences are unlikely to involve a motivating factor against a monitored strand. In contrast, public order offences accounted for just eleven per cent of all notifiable offences compared with 51 per cent of hate crime offences (Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4: Breakdown of hate crimes and overall recorded crime by selected offence types, year ending March 2022

Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office.

Figure 2.5 shows what type of offences were recorded for each monitored strand. As in previous years, public order offences were the most common offence to be recorded for all strands except for disability-targeted hate crime. Stalking and harassment offences were the most commonly recorded for disability-targeted hate crime offences.
Figure 2.5: Breakdown of hate crime by selected offence types and monitored strand, year ending March 2022

Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office.

2.3 Hate crime outcomes

The Home Office collects information on the investigative outcomes of police recorded offences, including those that are identified as hate crimes. For further information on outcomes see Crime Outcomes in England and Wales: Year ending March 2022.

This section covers how the police have dealt with hate crimes recorded in the year ending March 2022. This analysis is based on the outcomes assigned to crimes recorded in year ending March 2022 at the time the data were extracted (June 2022) for analysis. Some offences will not have been assigned an outcome at this time and therefore these figures are subject to change.

Racially or religiously aggravated offence outcomes

Data presented in this section are for racially or religiously aggravated offences. These data were available for all police forces. Data on outcomes for all hate crime offences, which were available for 26 of the 44 police forces, are presented in the next section.

At the time these data were extracted, 82 per cent of racially or religiously aggravated offences had been assigned an outcome compared with 90 per cent of their non-aggravated counterparts (data not shown).

Figure 2.6 shows that racially or religiously aggravated public order and assault offences were more likely to be dealt with by a charge/summons than their non-aggravated counterparts, reflecting the more serious nature of racially or religiously aggravated offences. For example, three times the proportion of racially or religiously aggravated public fear, alarm and distress offences had been dealt with by charge/summons than the non-aggravated equivalent offences (9% and 3% respectively). In contrast, this trend was reversed for criminal damage, where non-aggravated offences were more likely to result in a charge or summons than aggravated offences (4% and 2% respectively). However, this picture may change when all investigations are complete as around fifteen per cent of criminal damage cases remained open when the analysis presented here was undertaken (data not shown).
Figure 2.6: Percentage of racially or religiously aggravated offences and their non-aggravated equivalents recorded in year ending March 2022 resulting in charge/summons, by offence type

Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office.

The overall proportion of racially or religiously aggravated offences resulting in a charge and or summons was, at 8%, lower than the figure for year ending March 2021 at the time of publication last year (12%). This was driven by a 3.4 percentage point decrease in the proportion of racially or religiously aggravated public fear, alarm or distress offences being assigned a charge / summons outcome, down from 12.6% to 9.2%. This decrease has continued a previous downward trend seen since the introduction of the Outcomes Framework in year ending March 2015, when, for example, 30% of racially or religiously aggravated public fear, alarm or distress offences were resolved by a charge and or summons, in line with non-aggravated offences. As explained in the 'Crime outcomes, England and Wales, 2021 to 2022' statistical bulletin, the volumes of charges had been falling in recent years at the same time as volume of crimes recorded by the police has risen (with the exception of the year affected by the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions). This pattern was also observed in racially or religiously aggravated offences. There is evidence to suggest that a higher proportion of recorded crimes in recent years were for offence types which can be more challenging to investigate. This means that the investigative caseload has both grown and become more complex.

Flagged hate crime offences - Home Office Data Hub

The Home Office have implemented an improved data collection system called the Home Office Data Hub which is designed to streamline the process by which forces submit data. The Data Hub replaces the old aggregated data collection by capturing record-level crime data via direct extracts from forces' own crime recording systems. This allows the police to provide more detailed information to the Home Office enabling a greater range of analyses to be carried out.

Using the Data Hub, it is possible to see how offences flagged as being motivated by one or more of the five monitored strands have been dealt with by the police. The analyses presented are based on data from 26 of the 44 police forces in England and Wales that supplied adequate data to the Data Hub; these forces data accounted for over half (54%) of all police recorded hate crime in year ending March 2022.

In total, 84 per cent of hate crime flagged offences recorded in year ending March 2022 had been assigned an outcome at the time the data were extracted from the Data Hub[footnote 10]. The remaining sixteen per cent were still under investigation. In comparison, 86 per cent of non-hate crime offences had been assigned an outcome at the time of data extraction (data not shown).

Appendix Table 4 shows that nine per cent of all hate crime flagged offences had been dealt with by a charge or summons, slightly below the published figure of ten per cent in year ending 2021. As with racially or religiously aggravated offences, the proportion of offences dealt with by charge or summons had been falling since the introduction of the Outcomes Framework.

The distribution of offences recorded by the police that constituted hate crimes were very different to overall crime. Therefore, to provide more meaningful comparisons charge/summons rates are shown below for certain offence groups.

Figure 2.4. shows that violence against the person, public order offences and criminal damage and arson offences comprised 97 per cent of hate crime flagged offences. This proportion was the same for the 26 forces included in this analysis, suggesting that these forces may be broadly representative of all.

The proportions of outcomes assigned varied by offence type ( Appendix Table 5; Figure 2.7):

seven per cent of violence against the person hate crime flagged offences, and five per cent of criminal damage and arson hate crime flagged offences, were dealt with by a charge or summons, similar proportions to non-flagged offences (6% and 4% respectively)

a greater proportion (10%) of hate crime flagged public order offences had been dealt with by a charge or summons compared with non-hate crime flagged public order offences (6%)

Figure 2.7: Percentage of selected offences dealt with by a charge/summons, offences recorded in year ending March 2022, 26 forces

Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office Data Hub.

The most frequent outcome recorded for violent offences was "evidential difficulties as the victim does not support action"; this was the outcome for 30 per cent of hate crime flagged violence against the person offences compared with 41 per cent of non-hate crime flagged offences ( Appendix Table 5).

Figure 2.8 shows the proportion of hate crimes that were dealt with by charge or summons for each of the five hate crime strands for three offence groups. While the proportions for race, religious and sexual orientation hate crimes tended to be higher than for non-hate crimes, the figures for disability and transgender hate crime were lower.
Figure 2.8: Percentage of selected offences resulting in charge/summons, by hate crime strand, offences recorded in year ending March 2022, 26 forces

Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office Data Hub.

Figure 2.9 shows the median number of days taken to assign an outcome, from the date the crime was recorded, for selected hate crime and non-hate crime offences. Hate crime offences, on average, took longer to be assigned a final outcome than non-hate crime offences. For example, the median number of days taken to assign an outcome to criminal damage and arson hate crime offences was 24 days, compared with five days for non-hate crime offences. Similarly, it took longer to assign an outcome to violence against the person hate crime offences (median=44 days) than to non-hate crime flagged violent offences (median=21 days). This suggests more investigative effort being devoted to hate crime offences which reflects the more serious nature of these crimes.
Figure 2.9: Median number of days taken to assign an outcome, hate crime flagged and non-hate crime flagged offences, outcomes recorded in year ending March 2022, 26 forces

Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office Data Hub.

Experimental Statistics: Ethnicity of victims in racially or religiously aggravated crimes - Home Office Data Hub

From April 2021, it became a requirement for forces to provide the Home Office with the ethnicity of victims of racially or religiously aggravated offences. As this is the first year that the collection has been mandatory, these data are published as experimental Statistics. Experimental statistics are official statistics that are in the testing phase and not yet fully developed. Users should be aware that experimental statistics will potentially have a wider degree of uncertainty. Home Office Statisticians will continue to monitor the quality of these data in the future and will work with police forces to improve data quality. Data for 38 of the 44 police forces[footnote 11], are presented in the next section. These 38 forces represented 94 per cent of racially or religiously aggravated crimes in year ending March 2022.

Of the 71,602 racially or religiously aggravated crimes recorded by the police in year ending March 2022, information on the victim ethnicity was provided in 41,441 of the offences (58%).

In year ending March 2022, where the ethnicity of the victim was known, the victim was identified by the police as being White in around a third of offences (33%). Just under a third of victims were identified as Black (30%) or Asian (also 30%; Table 2.3). Accounting for different population sizes shows that Black and Asian people had higher rates of victimisation. In year ending March 2022, based on the published population figures by ethnicity from 2011[footnote 12], Black victims had a rate of 33.8 aggravated offences per million population, compared with 16.8 per million population for Asian victims and 1.5 per million population for White victims (data not shown).

These population data by ethnicity are now several years out of date. These figures will be updated when figures from the 2021 Census are published later this year.

Data should be treated with caution due to the relatively high proportion of offences where the ethnicity of the victim has not been identified by forces. Lastly, among the White victims may be people not born in the UK who have suffered xenophobic abuse.
Table 2.3: Proportion of racially or religiously aggravated offences recorded by the police, by victim ethnicity (where known), year ending March 2022
3. Police recorded hate crime data sources and quality

3.1 Introduction

In January 2014, the UK Statistics Authority published its assessment of ONS crime statistics. It found that statistics based on police recorded crime data, having been assessed against the Code of Practice for Official Statistics (now the Code of Practice for Statistics), did not meet the required standard for designation as National Statistics.

Police forces have made significant improvements in how they record crime since 2014. They have also improved their identification of what constitutes a hate crime over this time period. Because of these changes, police recorded crime figures do not currently provide reliable trends in hate crime. The figures do, however, provide a good measure of the hate crime-related demand on the police.

The UK Statistics Authority published a list of requirements for these statistics to regain the National Statistics accreditation. Some of the requirements of this assessment were to provide more detail on how data sources were used to produce these statistics, along with more information on the quality of the statistics. Additionally, there was a requirement to provide information on the process used by police forces to submit and revise data, and the validation processes used by the Home Office. To ensure that this publication meets the high standards required by the UK Statistics Authority, details are provided below.

In May 2022, the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) wrote to the Home Office following their compliance review into published hate crime statistics across the UK[footnote 13]. The OSR recognised the difficulties in measuring hate crime but found a range of positive features that demonstrate the value and quality of the published statistics in their review. Additionally, they recognised the difficulty in presenting data on police recorded hate crime without the CSEW estimates to provide context to the numbers, meaning "it is difficult to determine whether police recorded hate crime is increasing". They stated that they had heard from users of a 'perception problem', where "the public is likely to see police recorded crime as the main data source, despite ongoing concerns about data quality" and asked the Home Office to make clear in this publication the limitations of police recorded crime data. We have added on the uncertainty of police recorded crime trends to the bulletin in response to this recommendation.

3.2 Police recorded crime data sources and validation process

Hate crime data are supplied to the Home Office by the 43 territorial police forces of England and Wales, plus the British Transport Police. Greater Manchester Police have not been unable to supply data for year ending March 2020 following the implementation of a new IT system in July 2019.

Forces either supply the data at least monthly via the Home Office Data Hub (HODH) or on an annual basis in a manual return. For forces with data on the Data Hub, the Home Office extracts the number of offences for each force which have been flagged by forces as having been motivated by one or more of the monitored strands. Therefore, counts of hate crime via the HODH are dependent on the flag being used for each hate crime offence. It is then possible to derive the count of offences and the monitored strands covered.

In the manual return, police forces submit both the total number of hate crime offences (that is a count of the number of unique offences motivated by one or more of the five monitored strands) and the monitored strands (or motivating factors) associated with these offences. From year ending March 2016, police forces who returned data manually were required to provide an offence group breakdown for recorded hate crimes; prior to year ending March 2016 only an aggregated total of hate crimes for each of the five strands was asked for. It is possible for more than one of the monitored strands (motivating factors) to be assigned to a crime. For example, an offence could be motivated by hostility to race and religion, so would be counted under both strands but would only constitute one offence.

It is known that for some police forces, the addition of tags to crime records could be improved. For example, there may be crimes that are operationally treated as a hate crime but were not correctly identified as a hate crime on their crime recording system. In July 2018, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) published a report on how the police deal with hate crime, including how crimes are flagged. Findings included a lack of recognition in forces about how important the flagging of hate crimes is and concerns around the lack of effective audit arrangements to check flags had been applied correctly.

The full report can be found here: Understanding the difference: the initial police response to hate crime.

In July 2021 the Government announced plans to publish an updated hate crime strategy this year. The strategy will outline plans on how the Government will work with the police and other law enforcement agencies to deliver improvements in the police response to hate crime.

Further information on how the police record hate crime can be found in the College of Policing's Authorised Professional Practice guidance on hate crime publication launched in October 2020.

At the end of each financial year, the Home Office carry out a series of quality assurance checks on the hate crime data collected from the police forces (either by aggregate return or via the HODH).

These checks include:

looking for any large or unusual changes in hate crimes from the previous year

looking for outliers

checking that the number of hate crimes by strand is higher than the total number of offences; where these two figures were the same, the force was asked to confirm they were recording multiple hate crime strands

Police forces are then asked to investigate these trends and either provide an explanation or resubmit figures where the reconciliation identifies data quality issues.

The data are then tabulated by monitored strand and year and sent back to forces for them to verify. At this stage, they are asked to confirm in writing that the data they submitted are correct and if they are not, then they have the opportunity to revise their figures.

From April 2016, the Home Office began collecting information from the police on the perceived religion of victims of religious hate crimes - that the religion targeted by the offender. While in the majority of offences the perceived and actual religion of the victim will be the same, in some cases this will differ. For example, if anti-Muslim graffiti is sprayed on a religious temple of another faith, this would be recorded as an offence of racially or religiously aggravated criminal damage and flagged by the respective police force as a religious hate crime against Muslims. This collection was voluntary in year ending March 2017 and made mandatory for year ending March 2018.

From April 2021, the Home Office has begun the collecting the ethnicity of the victims of racial hate crimes recorded by the police. These were published for the first time as Experimental Statistics in this statistical bulletin.

3.3 Understanding differences between the CSEW and police recorded hate crime

Statistics on police recorded hate crime are published on an annual basis, with estimates from the CSEW published every third year. However, due to the suspension of the face-to-face CSEW due to public health restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, the next estimates from the CSEW will be delayed.

Trends in police recorded and CSEW hate crime have been notably different over recent years. Police recorded hate crime has risen, while the CSEW has shown a fall over the longer-term. The main reason for this difference will be due to the improvements to recording processes and practices made by the police since 2014. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) have conducted a range of inspections related to police forces' crime and incident recording practices in recent years. In 2014, Crime recording: making the victim count concluded that 33% of cases involving violence were not recorded by the police in England and Wales. Improvements made by the police were identified in their report State of policing: 2019 where a lower proportion (12%) of violent offences reported to the police went unrecorded.

These improvements have made substantial contributions to rises in recorded crime over recent years. This effect has been more pronounced for some crime types, such as violence against the person and public order offences. These offences account for 9 in 10 police recorded hate crimes, meaning police figures do not currently provide reliable trends in hate crime. The absence of CSEW estimates means it is harder to determine with increased in police recorded hate crime are genuine, or a continuation of recording improvements.

Additionally, there are a number of differences in the coverage of the CSEW and police recorded crime.

The CSEW is a victimisation survey which covers adults aged 16 and over resident in households in England and Wales. Police recorded crime figures includes crimes against people of all ages, against society (crimes where there is not a direct victim such as public order offences) as well as businesses and institutions. This is a key difference for hate crime offences as public order offences are not well covered by the CSEW, as many of these offences will not involve a specifically identifiable victim. Conversely, public order offences account for over a half of police recorded hate crime.

The sources cover different time periods. The most recently available CSEW data were for the combined three annual datasets - year ending March 2018, year ending March 2019 and year ending March 2020. Furthermore, as respondents are interviewed throughout the survey year for their experiences of crime in the year to interview, the three-year survey period actually relate to a near four-year period. This is required to produce more robust estimates on numbers of hate crimes per year from the survey. The CSEW will therefore only give a very broad estimate of the level of hate crime in England and Wales across these four years and will not provide any information on whether the level of hate crime has changed in this period.

Police recorded hate crime data are available on an annual basis. In addition, for racially or religiously aggravated offences, data are available for all police forces in England and Wales on a monthly basis so trends in these crimes around events such as the EU Referendum and the terrorist attacks in 2017 can be examined. However, as mentioned above it is known that police recorded crime data have been heavily affected by improvements in crime recording by the police over recent years, so data from the police are limited in assessing longer-term trends in hate crime.

Other differences in coverage include:

respondents to the CSEW might misunderstand the survey questions; when they are asked whether they think a crime was committed because of a motivating factor, they may instead be responding based upon their perceived vulnerability; this is likely to be a reason why the estimate of disability hate crime is much higher in the CSEW than the number of these offences recorded by the police

the respondent is asked in the survey whether the hate crime incident came to the attention of the police and, not whether the police actually recorded a crime (the police may witness an incident and decide that a crime was not committed, for example)

similarly, while a respondent might say the crime did come to the attention of the police, the survey does not ask whether the respondent told the police that they thought it was motivated by one of the five hate crime strands; it is possible that some offences estimated by the survey may have been recorded by the police as a crime, but not specifically as a hate crime

in the recording of a crime, it might not become apparent that there was a motivating hate factor, meaning that police may not ask the direct question whether the victim thought that the crime was a hate crime

4. Further information

Accompanying tables

The data tables can be found here:
Hate crime, England and Wales, 2021 to 2022

Previous hate crime statistical bulletins published by the Home Office are available here:
Hate crime statistics

The Office for National Statistics publishes quarterly publications on crime in England and Wales:
Crime and justice

Information on crime outcomes can be found here:
Crime outcomes in England and Wales statistics
Police recorded crime and outcomes Open Data Tables The True Vision website contains more information about hate crime and how to report it
The Crown Prosecution Service website also carries information about hate crime, including policy and guidance and performance information, which can be found here:
CPS hate crime

The government's plan for dealing with hate crime in England and Wales can be found here:
Hate crime action plan 2016 to 2020

Hate crime statistics for Northern Ireland can be found here:
Police Service of Northern Ireland: Hate crime statistics

Hate crime statistics for Scotland for year ending March 2022 can be found here:
Hate Crime in Scotland 2021 to 2022
(Figures published by the Scottish Government are based on the number of offenders charged, rather than police recorded crime)

Feedback and enquiries

We welcome feedback on the annual statistics release. If you have any feedback or enquiries about this publication, please contact Crime and Policing Statistics via crimeandpolicestats@homeoffice.gov.uk.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hate crime, England and Wales, 2021 to 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Frequency of release: Annual Forthcoming release: Home Office statistics release calendar Home Office responsible statistician: John Flatley Press enquires: pressoffice@homeoffice.gov.uk, Telephone: 0300 123 3535 Public enquires: crimeandpolicestats@homeoffice.gov.uk This release contains statistics about hate crime offences recorded by the police in England and Wales.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ageism scenarios - designed for older people but could work for KS2/3

# data[].attributes.subject
Ageism scenarios - designed for older people but could work for KS2/3

# data[].attributes.headline
Secondary - exploring stereotypes around age

# data[].attributes.subject
Secondary - exploring stereotypes around age

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Range of free-to-use 'age-positive' icons launched to replace stereotypical symbols of ageing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The new range of icons has been designed in consultation with people in later life and aims to show the diversity of later life in a positive and realistic way. They were inspired by the eight World Health Organization (WHO) domains which make an Age-friendly Community, including transport, housing and social inclusion. They include images of cycling, gardening and doing the shopping.

The launch of the new icon range is part of a wider effort by Ageing Better to tackle ageism and use of damaging stereotypes across public life. They follow the launch of an 'age-positive' image library, which offers a wide selection of photographs that avoid negative stereotypes associated with older people and are free for public use.

The icons are published under the CC0 1.0 Universal licence, entered into the public domain. If you'd like to contact us or to download EPS versions of the icons, get in touch at [email protected] . You can also view the shortlisted entrants of our competition and find out more about previous attempts to rethink the 'Elderly road sign'.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Range of free-to-use 'age-positive' icons launched to replace stereotypical symbols of ageing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The new range of icons has been designed in consultation with people in later life and aims to show the diversity of later life in a positive and realistic way. They were inspired by the eight World Health Organization (WHO) domains which make an Age-friendly Community, including transport, housing and social inclusion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Holocaust Memorial Day (HMD) on 27 January is the day to remember the millions of people murdered in the Holocaust, under Nazi Persecution and in the genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur. Holocaust Memorial Day Trust (HMDT) is the charity which promotes and supports HMD in the UK.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking "Accept", you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stephen Lawrence Day Foundation - Primary School Resource Pack : Stephen Lawrence Day Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking "Accept", you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Discrimination Explained for Kids | Pop'n'Olly | Olly Pike

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Preparing children for life in modern Britain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LGBTQ+ inclusive books for children and young people

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to the Stonewall Book List for schools, colleges, parents, and carers. We’ve hand-selected a wide range of LGBTQ-inclusive books for children and young people to enjoy. Since we first released our book lists, there has been enormous growth in LGBTQ-inclusive children’s and young adult…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Exploring the Holocaust is a free, comprehensive and flexible cross-curricular scheme of work produced by the Holocaust Educational Trust for use at Key Stage 3 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and at S2 in Scotland, although it can be adapted for teaching of older age groups. Exploring the Holocaust is built around 15 core lessons in History, Religious Education (or Philosophy where appropriate), and Citizenship or PSHE. It is also recommended that English be incorporated: a guide to teaching the Holocaust in English can be found below, where teachers will also find further resources which can be added to the scheme of work and guidance on incorporating Drama and Art.
Download the Exploring the Holocaust teachers' guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Exploring the Holocaust is a free, comprehensive and flexible cross-curricular scheme of work produced by the Holocaust Educational Trust for use at Key Stage 3 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and at S2 in Scotland, although it can be adapted for teaching of older age groups.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The following scheme of work has been created to support the growing number of primary and middle schools which teach issues related to the Holocaust. It introduces students to age-appropriate aspects of this challenging history, focussing principally on the fate and experiences of Jewish child refugees from Nazism. The content is also suitable for the earliest years of secondary school.

Each lesson in the scheme of work comes with a full lesson plan and supporting materials, which can be accessed by clicking on the links below. The accompanying guide for teachers provides more information about the scheme of work as well as broader guidance on teaching Holocaust-related issues in primary schools, including in English.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Holocaust Educational Trust - Primary & early Key Stage 3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The following scheme of work has been created to support the growing number of primary and middle schools which teach issues related to the Holocaust. It introduces students to age-appropriate aspects of this challenging history, focussing principally on the fate and experiences of Jewish child refugees from Nazism.

# data[].attributes.headline
Free download breastfeeding lesson plans primary and secondary (Scottish but adaptable)

# data[].attributes.subject
Free download breastfeeding lesson plans primary and secondary (Scottish but adaptable)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Home / Shop / Lesson Plans / School Lesson Plans

We would like to see all children and young people learning about breastfeeding and early nutrition at school so that they have the information they need about their bodies years before they become parents. Working with school age children helps open up space to start conversations at home and help normalise breastfeeding in the wider community.

Although the plans were developed for use in Scotland and link to the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence, the National Curriculum in England includes many similar topics, for example the Science curriculum includes learning about mammals, nutrition through the life stages and puberty and the Design and Technology curriculum: cooking and nutrition topic includes learning about healthy diets and where food comes from, all of which could include mention of breastfeeding.

These lesson plans are freely available to support this work - we only ask that the resources are not used for any commercial purpose and that BfN is acknowledged as part of your work.

Further information on why education about breastfeeding is so vital for children and young people http://theconversation.com/does-breastfeeding-really-belong-on-the-school-curriculum-96740

You can find out more about the project on the QNIS website www.qnis.org.uk/project/working-with-children-and-young-people-a-community-approach-to-understanding-and-valuing-breastfeeding-and-early-nutrition/

There is also a poster about this work that was shared at the NHS Health Scotland event in Glasgow at the end of May 2019.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
School Lesson Plans - The Breastfeeding Network

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We would like to see all children and young people learning about breastfeeding and early nutrition at school so that they have the information they need about their bodies years before they become parents. Working with school age children helps open up space to start conversations at home and help normalise breastfeeding in the wider [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LGBTQ+ inclusive books for children and young people

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to the Stonewall Book List for schools, colleges, parents, and carers. We’ve hand-selected a wide range of LGBTQ-inclusive books for children and young people to enjoy. Since we first released our book lists, there has been enormous growth in LGBTQ-inclusive children’s and young adult…

# data[].attributes.headline
The same but different lesson plans Mentally Healthy Schools

# data[].attributes.subject
The same but different lesson plans Mentally Healthy Schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This lesson plan, created for World Mental Health Day 2020, helps young children explore how our emotions connect us.

The theme for this year's World Mental Heath Day is 'mental health for all'. This lesson plan helps young children learn more about feelings and emotions.

Using the book The Same but Different Too! by Karl Newson & Kate Hindle, and some simple activities, children will learn that we may often feel similar emotions, but we often may feel different to each other too.

Using this resource

This resource is designed for:

Children aged 4 to 5

Use with whole classes and smaller groups

This resource is written as part of the Mentally Healthy Schools World Mental Health Day 2020 resources. It can be used alongside the following resources:

Curriculum links

England
Understanding the world

People and communities:

Children know about similarities and differences between themselves and others, and among families, communities and traditions.

Northern Ireland
PERSONAL UNDERSTANDING AND HEALTH

Pupils should be enabled to explore:

* themselves and their personal attributes;
MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING IN THE LOCAL AND WIDER COMMUNITY
Pupils should be enabled to explore:

* similarities and differences between groups of people;

Scotland
Social Wellbeing

* I recognise that each individual has a unique blend of abilities and needs. I contribute to making my school community one which values individuals equally and is a welcoming place for all.

Wales
Humanities - Human societies are complex and diverse, and shaped by human actions and beliefs.

I can show an awareness of who I am and that I am similar and different to others.

I am beginning to develop my awareness of similarities and differences between people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The same but different: lesson plan for ages 4 to 5 : Mentally Healthy Schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This lesson plan, created for World Mental Health Day 2020, helps young children explore how our emotions connect us.

# data[].attributes.headline
Secondary equality/human rights lessons 

# data[].attributes.subject
Secondary equality/human rights lessons 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our lesson plan ideas cover a wide range of topics and ideas for developing lesson plans, designed with Secondary Education providers in mind.

# data[].attributes.headline
RSE Day protected characteristics secondary presentation

# data[].attributes.subject
RSE Day protected characteristics secondary presentation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Accept additional cookies Reject additional cookies View cookies

Consider these guidelines when communicating with or about disabled people.

1. Language guidelines

Not everyone will agree on everything but there is general agreement on some basic guidelines.

1.1 Collective terms and labels

The word 'disabled' is a description not a group of people. Use 'disabled people' not 'the disabled' as the collective term.

However, many deaf people whose first language is BSL consider themselves part of 'the deaf community' - they may describe themselves as 'Deaf', with a capital D, to emphasise their deaf identity.

Avoid medical labels. They say little about people as individuals and tend to reinforce stereotypes of disabled people as 'patients' or unwell.

Don't automatically refer to 'disabled people' in all communications - many people who need disability benefits and services don't identify with this term. Consider using 'people with health conditions or impairments' if it seems more appropriate.

1.2 Positive not negative

Avoid phrases like 'suffers from' which suggest discomfort, constant pain and a sense of hopelessness.

Wheelchair users may not view themselves as 'confined to' a wheelchair - try thinking of it as a mobility aid instead.

1.3 Everyday phrases

Most disabled people are comfortable with the words used to describe daily living. People who use wheelchairs 'go for walks' and people with visual impairments may be very pleased - or not - 'to see you'. An impairment may just mean that some things are done in a different way.

Common phrases that may associate impairments with negative things should be avoided, for example 'deaf to our pleas' or 'blind drunk'.

2. Words to use and avoid

Avoid passive, victim words. Use language that respects disabled people as active individuals with control over their own lives.

(the) handicapped, (the) disabled

disabled (people)

afflicted by, suffers from, victim of

has [name of condition or impairment]

confined to a wheelchair, wheelchair-bound

wheelchair user

mentally handicapped, mentally defective, retarded, subnormal

with a learning disability (singular) with learning disabilities (plural)

cripple, invalid

disabled person

spastic

person with cerebral palsy

able-bodied

non-disabled

mental patient, insane, mad

person with a mental health condition

deaf and dumb; deaf mute

deaf, user of British Sign Language ( BSL), person with a hearing impairment

the blind

people with visual impairments; blind people; blind and partially sighted people

an epileptic, diabetic, depressive, and so on

person with epilepsy, diabetes, depression or someone who has epilepsy, diabetes, depression

dwarf; midget

someone with restricted growth or short stature

fits, spells, attacks

seizures

3. Some tips on behaviour

use a normal tone of voice, don't patronise or talk down

don't be too precious or too politically correct - being super-sensitive to the right and wrong language and depictions will stop you doing anything

never attempt to speak or finish a sentence for the person you are talking to

address disabled people in the same way as you talk to everyone else

speak directly to a disabled person, even if they have an interpreter or companion with them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inclusive language: words to use and avoid when writing about disability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Skip to main content We use some essential cookies to make this website work. We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services. We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects are still largely dominated by boys and young men. By not choosing these subjects, and the careers that follow, girls' are losing out on earnings and opportunities. What's more, the day to day world around us that benefits from STEM is missing out on the vital input women bring to the work they do. Decades of work by educators to change this situation is working, more girls are choosing STEM subjects. But there is still a long way to go to tackle negative gender stereotypes that hold girls and non-binary students back from choosing STEM subjects.

See our exciting resources celebrating diverse women role models in STEM.

Breaking down stereotypes - role models for girls in STEM

On Thursday, 3 March, the NEU and Stemettes held a joint webinar to launch these resources in advance of International Women's Day so they can be used to mark that day in schools.

Key speakers included Dr Anne-Marie Imafidon MBE, CEO and Founder of Stemettes and Countdown Mathematician, along with Adesua, a young Stemettes Society member and Heather McKenzie, Women's Organising Forum.

Re-watch the webinar below if you missed it.

Resources celebrating diverse women role models in STEM

The NEU has partnered with Stemettes, an award-winning social enterprise working to inspire and support young women and non-binary people to explore and choose STEM careers. Together we have produced these exciting resources celebrating diverse women role models in STEM. The resources are aimed at Key Stage 3 and 4. They are designed like meal planner, with starters, main meals and desserts. Each 'meal planner' is accompanied by a presentation and teaching notes.

Katherine Johnson

Katherine is a mathematician who contributed to the US space programs with the early application of computers at NASA. She calculated the trajectories and backup return paths for the early NASA missions and the 1969 Apollo 11 flight to the Moon. Her calculations were critical to the success of these missions.
Lesson planner Teaching notes PowerPoint presentation
Dr Nita Patel

Nita Patel is an Indian-American physician and vaccinologist who leads vaccine development at Novavax. She oversaw the development of the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine.
Lesson planner Teaching notes PowerPoint presentation
Sheila Scott OBE

Sheila Scott OBE was an English aviator who broke over 100 aviation records through her long-distance flight endeavours. On a 34000-mile "world and a half", she became the first person to fly over the North Pole in a small aircraft.
Lesson planner Teaching notes PowerPoint presentation
Victoria Velez

Victoria followed her heart to a career that focuses her love of hands-on problem solving into engineering medical technologies that save lives. Victoria is a Process Engineer at Boston Scientific in Minnesota, but she is also a local mentor and a proud Latina.
Lesson planner Teaching notes PowerPoint presentation
Liz Bonnin

Liz Bonnin is a Science presenter. At university, she studied Biochemistry and after presenting for a few years she went back to university to gain a Masters in Wild Animal Biology. Some of the shows she has presented in the past include, Top of the Pops, Bang goes the Theory, Stargazing Live and Operation Snow Tiger.
Lesson planner Teaching notes PowerPoint presentation
Orla Murphy

Orla Murphy is an audio engineer at Jaguar Land Rover. Orla realised her love for Science and Engineering when she led a school project on bubbles at the age of 16, which won first prize in the Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry section of the BT Young Scientist Competition and also won Special Award from the Institute of Physics.
Lesson planner Teaching notes PowerPoint presentation
Hiu Wai Lee

What is your favourite animal? Which dinosaur is the best and why? Hiu Wai is currently a first-year PhD student on cranial suture evolution on archosaurs, which include birds, crocodiles, non-avian dinosaurs, and their common ancestors. Her work involves programming, biotechnology, looking at fossils and their images, and working with palaeontologists and biologists. She was the teaching assistant for the online course on Dinosaur Ecosystems on EdX.
Lesson planner Teaching notes PowerPoint presentation
Amanda Obidike

Amanda is a Data Scientist and she is the Founder of STEMi Makers Africa. The STEM and Innovation Makers of Africa is a not-for-profit organisation that focuses on preparing young Africans with the right resource tools & professional development to embrace STEM pathways.
Lesson planner Teaching notes PowerPoint presentation
Dr Tessa Lau

Dr Tessa Lau is the Chief Robot Whisperer at Savioke, Inc. where she is creating a new generation of user-friendly robots that work safely, securely and reliably in human environments. Her goal is to revolutionise service robots. Dr Lau holds a PhD in Computer Science.
Lesson planner Teaching notes PowerPoint presentation
Anisah Osman Britton

Anisah is the Chief Technology Officer and Head of Ecommerce at VinoKilo, a German vintage fashion brand. She was also the CEO and Founder of an all- women and non-binary young people coding school called 23 Code Street.
Lesson planner Teaching notes PowerPoint presentation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects are still largely dominated by boys and young men. By not choosing these subjects, and the careers that follow, girls' are losing out on earnings and opportunities. What's more, the day to day world around us that benefits from STEM is missing out on the vital input women bring to the work they do.

# data[].attributes.headline
Exploring gender stereotypes at primary NEU

# data[].attributes.subject
Exploring gender stereotypes at primary NEU

# data[].attributes.headline
Discrimination lesson - KS2 (free subscription)

# data[].attributes.subject
Discrimination lesson - KS2 (free subscription)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this lesson pupils will develop their understanding of the term ‘discrimination’. Pupils will consider what makes them unique and learn which characteristics are protected under the Equality Act. Pupils will examine different acts of discrimination and discuss how these acts impact upon individua…

# data[].attributes.headline
Statement on protected characteristics CE primary

# data[].attributes.subject
Statement on protected characteristics CE primary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
All children and young people deserve an education that supports them to thrive. Quality relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) is an important part not only of keeping children and young people safe, but of helping them to lead happy, healthy and fulfilled lives.

Yet our School Report showed that:

40 per cent of lesbian, gay, bi and trans (LGBT) pupils are never taught anything about LGBT issues at school

only one in five (20 per cent) have learnt about consent in same-sex relationships

fewer than one in five (17 per cent) have learnt about violence or abuse in same-sex relationships.

Statutory RSHE means all children and young people, including those who are LGBT, can get the information they need to make healthy, informed choices.

At Stonewall, we've worked with hundreds of schools and colleges to help create a world where all children and young people are free to be themselves. Our team of experts have created some free guidance to help schools feel confident planning and delivering LGBT-inclusive RSHE. To read the guidance in full, download our guide, 'Putting it into Practice'. We are grateful to Sex Education Forum for their help in developing the content.

To make it easier for you, we've included a summary of the content below. Not sure where to start? Browse our suggestions for including LGBT content in the RSHE curriculum, or check out our top tips on implementing LGBT-inclusive RSHE.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LGBT-inclusive RSHE: Putting it into practice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
All children and young people deserve an education that supports them to thrive. Quality relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) is an important part not only of keeping children and young people safe, but of helping them to lead happy, healthy and fulfilled lives. Yet our...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One-hour lesson plan for KS2 and KS3 on why conspiracy theories are more common in times of crisis, and how they should be debunked.

Subject area:

Fundamental British Values, Online safety

Age group:

KS 2, KS 3

Resources:

Lesson activity, Lesson plan

Informational video about the Educate Against Hate website aimed at teachers.

A link to quickly and anonymously report online material promoting terrorism or extremism.

Subject area:

Online safety

Resources:

Reporting tool

Format:

Interactive site, Web pages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Classroom resources Archives - Educate Against Hate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One-hour lesson plan for KS2 and KS3 on why conspiracy theories are more common in times of crisis, and how they should be debunked. Subject area: Fundamental British Values, Online safety Age group: KS 2, KS 3 Resources: Lesson activity, Lesson plan Informational video about the Educate Against Hate website aimed at teachers.

# data[].attributes.headline
Range of resources to support staff (Scotland)

# data[].attributes.subject
Range of resources to support staff (Scotland)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
The General Teaching Council for Scotland

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Equality and Diversity - The General Teaching Council for Scotland

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our schools and learning communities are enriched with a diverse mix of people with different experiences and from different cultures and backgrounds.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Scotts Primary School is an inclusive school where fairness, compassion, respect and uniqueness are recognised within our key values. We are committed to continuing to make diversity, representation and equality of opportunity for all part of everything we do, so that each individual can fulfil their potential.

We recognise that certain groups in society have historically been disadvantaged because of unlawful discrimination they have faced due to their race, sex, disability, gender reassignment, marriage/civil partnership, religion/belief, pregnancy/maternity, sexual orientation or age. We therefore expect that all those within and entering our school community to behave in a way which respects the protected characteristics as outlined in the Equality Act 2010.

As per the requirements of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), we publish our Equality Information and Objectives here:
Equality information policy and objectives 2022 Equality objectives and action plan 2022
Progress towards our objectives will be monitored and reviewed every year. In line with legislation, the objectives will be re-published formally, at least every 4 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scotts Primary School is an inclusive school where fairness, compassion, respect and uniqueness are recognised within our key values. We are committed to continuing to make diversity, representation and equality of opportunity for all part of everything we do, so that each individual can fulfil their potential.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our lives, our cultures, are composed of many overlapping stories. Novelist Chimamanda Adichie tells the story of how she found her authentic cultural voice -- and warns that if we hear only a single story about another person or country, we risk a critical misunderstanding.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Select Your Cookie Preferences

We use cookies and similar tools that are necessary to enable you to make purchases, to enhance your shopping experience, and provide our services, as detailed in our Cookie Notice. We also use these cookies to understand how customers use our services (for example, by measuring site visits) so we can make improvements.

If you agree, we'll also use cookies to complement your shopping experience, as described in our Cookie Notice. This includes using third party cookies for the purpose of displaying and measuring interest-based ads. Click "Customise Cookies" to decline these cookies, make more detailed choices, or learn more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
a little guide for teachers: diversity in schools (a little guide for teachers)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
educational strategies and policy: inclusion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
educational strategies and policy: inclusion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Little Guide for Teachers: Diversity in Schools (A Little Guide for Teachers)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy A Little Guide for Teachers: Diversity in Schools (A Little Guide for Teachers) 1 by Kara, Bennie (ISBN: 9781529718546) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy Diverse Educators: A Manifesto by Kara, Bennie, Wilson, Hannah (ISBN: 9781915054982) from Amazon’s Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Select Your Cookie Preferences

We use cookies and similar tools that are necessary to enable you to make purchases, to enhance your shopping experiences and to provide our services, as detailed in our Cookie Notice. We also use these cookies to understand how customers use our services (for example, by measuring site visits) so we can make improvements.

If you agree, we'll also use cookies to complement your shopping experience across the Amazon stores as described in our Cookie Notice. This includes using first- and third-party cookies, which store or access standard device information such as a unique identifier. Third parties use cookies for their purposes of displaying and measuring personalised ads, generating audience insights, and developing and improving products. Click 'Customise Cookies' to decline these cookies, make more detailed choices, or learn more. You can change your choices at any time by visiting Cookie Preferences, as described in the Cookie Notice. To learn more about how and for what purposes Amazon uses personal information (such as Amazon Store order history), please visit our Privacy Notice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No Outsiders: Everyone Different, Everyone Welcome: Preparing Children for Life in Modern Britain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy No Outsiders: Everyone Different, Everyone Welcome: Preparing Children for Life in Modern Britain 1 by Moffat, Andrew (ISBN: 9780367894986) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In this episode, I talk to friend, colleague, and diversity, equity, and inclusion expert Aiko Bethea. We discuss empathy, accountability, and the power of listening and believing (including a very real role play). We also dissect the differences between transactional leadership and transformational leadership and why courage is a prerequisite to lasting, meaningful change.

Aiko Bethea is a leader, builder, and connector. She successfully navigated leadership roles in government, philanthropic, and corporate sectors, and in each sector, she created and served in inaugural roles to meet growing organizational needs and visions for evolving. Aiko is the principal and founder of RARE Coaching & Consulting, a consulting practice focused on coaching leaders and organizations to remove barriers to inclusion.

Aiko also co-leads The Daring Way and the Dare to Lead communities of Brené Brown Education and Research Group, serving as Senior Co-director. She partners to oversee development and implementation of the overall strategy for the facilitator communities, as well as the specific diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging strategy and oversight of the global 1,000+ member facilitator community.

Prior to this, Aiko served as Head of Diversity and Inclusion at Fred Hutch Research Center. And for over seven years, Aiko was with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, where she served as a Deputy Director. Aiko has served on several boards and provided pro bono support for nonprofit boards, and she is deeply engaged in community-building.

Aiko earned her B.A. from Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts, and her Juris Doctorate from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She is a graduate of the Hudson Institute of Coaching at Santa Barbara and is an ICF professional certified coach. Aiko is a Certified Diversity Professional and is licensed to practice law in Georgia. She is highly sought-after as an executive coach and consultant.

Follow Aiko

Brené Brown: Hi, everyone. I'm Brené Brown, and this is the Dare to Lead podcast, and I'm so excited today because I get to introduce you to someone who has been such an incredible teacher for me, a friend, we're colleagues, we work together, and she has really fundamentally shifted a lot of my thinking on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion work, and I just can't wait for you to meet her because her ideas are so grounded in courage and empathy and connection, it's just the medicine we need right now, and so if you're trying to figure out, "How do I do this anti-racism work at work? How do I show up? What do I need to be watching for? What do I need to be listening for? When do I need to pull back? When do I need to step up?" All those questions that all of us are asking ourselves on a daily, sometimes hourly basis, I just don't know a better teacher than Aiko Bethea. So Aiko is, she's a leader, she's a builder, she's a connector, she has had big leadership roles in government, philanthropic organizations, in the corporate sector, she is a Principal and Founder of Rare Coaching and Consulting, a consulting practice focused on coaching leaders and organizations specifically around removing barriers to inclusion.

BB: Aiko is also a senior co-director at our organization, the Brené Brown Education and Research Group. She co-leads the Daring Way and the Dare to Lead facilitation communities. She partners to oversee development and implementation of the overall strategy for these facilitator communities, and by facilitator communities, I mean folks who are trained in my work and go out and teach people. And she also helps us identify and address specific diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging strategies. And she helps really build, teach, and nurture our global facilitator community, which has close to 2000 facilitators. Prior to working with us, she served as the Head of Diversity and Inclusion at Fred Hutch Research Center, and for over seven years, Aiko was with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation where she served as a Deputy Director. She has served on several boards and provided a lot of pro bono support for non-profit boards. She is deeply, deeply engaged in community building. She's got her BA from Smith in North Hampton, Massachusetts, her Juris Doctorate from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and she's a graduate of the Hudson Institute of Coaching at Santa Barbara.

BB: She's an ICF professional certified coach, and she is also a certified Diversity Professional and licensed to practice law in Georgia. I just feel so lucky to work with her every day. I feel so lucky to learn from her, and I feel really grateful that I get to share her insights with y'all. These are the questions that we're all asking ourselves and organizations right now about how to do the next right thing. Alright, so first, Aiko, thank you so much for joining me on the Dare to Lead podcast.

AB: Thank you for having me. Super exciting.

BB: I have to say that you have brought so much wisdom, experience, depth of understanding to not only our organization, but as a Dare to Lead facilitator, as someone who headed up our initiative on diversity, inclusion, equity, and belonging, our co-creation group, you led that amazingly. So I guess I'm just really excited that you're here and excited that I get to share what you've taught me with a big audience.

AB: Thank you, well, I'm excited to share and I've learned so much more from you so, likewise.

BB: Alright, so let me start here, you wrote an article on Medium. Was this after George Floyd's murder?

AB: It was.

BB: It was, right. It was the end of May that you wrote this, right?

AB: Yeah.

BB: And the title was "An Open Letter to Corporate America, Philanthropy, Academia, etc.: What Now?" Like what's next? And I want to read part of this article. You and I both work with leaders of organizations, from small businesses to Fortune 20 companies who are many, wanting to do the right thing around anti-racism work, wanting to do the right thing around equity and inclusion work, but are scared and don't know where to start. And this was the best thing I'd ever seen.

AB: Thank you for saying that.

BB: Yeah, so let me read some of this: "The fact that some of the leadership of organizations were awake just a bit, are impacted enough to recognize that they should respond to this national crisis, offers a tiny glimmer of light. For many of these CEOs and companies, this was the first time a statement about racism or the trials of Blackness was ever publicly acknowledged. Now we ask you: Do you know what comes next? Do you know that sending that letter to the public and to your employees does not end with a period, in fact, there should not even be a comma. Keep moving. There is work to be done inside your company, in your leadership teams, among people who are making decisions, all too often the focus is on white men, but there are also people who look like your mothers, daughters and wives. There is work for everyone. And here are some steps you can take now, for those of you who penned letters that reflected how soul-crushing this week has been and dedicating support to Black employees." I just have to say I felt some fire reading this, did you write it with some fire?

AB: I did. This article took 30 minutes to write. So it was really feeling it in the moment, so... Yeah.

BB: So those were inspired.

AB: They were, they were.

BB: And they took 30 minutes. Yeah.

AB: Absolutely.

BB: I want to start from the beginning. And if you're listening right now, I've already said this in the intro, but I'm going to say it again, my goal is to give you tangible actionable calls to courage around these conversations. So I want to start here with, can you lay out some terms for us, diversity, equity, inclusion. What exactly do those mean?

AB: Sure. So diversity, of course, we hear it meaning every characteristic trait of people. You hear it meaning things like difference in education, and of course just all the protected class identities as well, and when I'm talking specifically about this work, I talk about it in terms of diversity that matters, that actually creates a difference, that creates disparities. So otherwise, you get in this slippery slope where people might say, "Hey, we have diversity, because we have Stanford class of '70, Stanford class of '71, and Stanford class of '72 on the panel," but we're talking about diversity that makes a difference in terms of disparities. And we know in this country that a lot of those have to do with the one start in the protected classes, and I actually, with clients, I share that, if you're not talking about and you're not including protected classes, then you're not really talking about the diversity that matters, those have to be included.

BB: And so protected classes, you're talking about race...

AB: Yes, race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, national origin, different abilities in some states, I think, and it's necessary to also say LGBT, our LGBT community as well, even though there may not be protections under our constitution or federal laws, definitely our states, several state laws have recognized any groups that are marginalized and historically marginalized, they should be included in that first and foremost, when we're talking about diversity in the context of diversity, equity, inclusion. And of course, we're talking about mental health, right, and differences in that way as well.

BB: And then tell me what is the difference between diversity and inclusion?

AB: So you can actually have... You can have diversity and not have inclusion, so you can have a collection of a lot of different people, but if those people don't feel included, you're not actually going to leverage the power of that diversity. You've just collected a lot of different people who are in the room or in the company together. Inclusion is actually creating a space in an environment where people feel like they can actually express dissent, where they can bring their ideas to the table, and it's not a matter of just feeling welcomed, but also valued, "What I say matters. The perspective that I bring matters, my lived experience matters," and that's the diversity and the inclusion together is what harnesses when you get innovation, when you get psychological safety.

BB: Got it.

AB: So you can have diversity and not have inclusion, but I don't think you can have inclusion in terms of harnessing the outputs without having diversity.

BB: Helpful. How does equity fit in here?

AB: So equity, I see it as intimately connected with why we even talk about diversity. Diversity started being introduced in corporate America based on wanting to have integration, right? And so when diversity was introduced in that context, it was really about equity and about who was not included, so now we intentionally say equity because now you can talk about diversity and talk about... Just like I was saying, a lot of groups that are homogeneous in terms of privilege, so now we intentionally say equity. It's about also recognizing people who have systemically and historically been excluded, are marginalized, so now you have to think about that as well, and then intentionally.

BB: This is something that you've taught me, you think it's important for organizations to define these terms, and that it's dangerous when you've got a group of people within an organization that all have different ideas of what these words mean and the importance of them and what they provide. What happens when you just start saying, DEI, really fast, DEI... DEI... And you don't stop and explain and operationalize what that means, and people are operating from different beliefs?

AB: Yeah, so it's just like any kind of business initiative, right? So organizations introduce values, and you know this about values, if you don't define them, if you don't talk about what the behaviors are that complement them as well, or define them, you just got a lot of random words and everybody thinks that they're talking about same thing, but they're not. It's also when you don't define them, how do you also hold one another accountable, how do you actually measure that you're making progress, and how do you make sure that you're aligned even on the philosophy and the intention underneath it? So you have to make sure you're all talking about the same things, otherwise, people don't even know how to show up around those words.

BB: Okay, so we say to each other in an organization, "This is important to us." We define the terms. What happens when we have varying levels of commitment around the importance to begin the conversation?

AB: So I think that it has to be incumbent upon one, the leadership to really talk about why this is important to them, and not just harping on the business case, but talking about why it's important to them as individuals, and oftentimes we talk about, this is the head and the heart. And this is when we're talking to our leaders about "What's your personal narrative around this?" and why this is important, and this is also when you intertwine or integrate it with narratives and storytelling, and those are the things that people remember is Why... Why was this important to Brad? Why was this important to Cathy? And there's a different type of accountability too. When you look at studies around what makes an organization's culture change, especially around these types of issues, it's not about the business case, right? It's really about social accountability. So that's me looking over at you and saying, "Hey, Brené, that thing that you said, can we talk more about it?" It's not a confrontation, it's asking you and holding your feet to it to say, "Well, what did you mean by that?" And I think there's so much importance now about having those conversations, understanding what that means in terms of getting the stick-to-it-ness, that's what actually brings people on board to be dedicated and loyal to a cause, not just the business case.

AB: When we talk about operationalizing it, there are other things, right? Oh, I'm going to do really well in my performance management, so we're going to include it in performance management, because now people are accountable, right? We're going to include it in our values, we're going to include it in our job competencies, all these ways to operationalize it, but if you only do it in that way of operationalizing it, then it becomes transactional. It becomes a lot of rules and things that you're being graded on and it's almost compliance-driven, but if you're doing it in a relational way, in terms of the storytelling of why this was really important to Brené, and why this is really important to my co-worker right over here, there's a different motivation to want to do something different and want to show up differently, and it doesn't have to do with your compensation doesn't have to do with, this is what the rule says and we're supposed to... how we're supposed to show up. That's the difference, I think, between transformational change and transactional, and one has a much deeper depth of sustainability and culture shift, and the other one has more of measurement and counts and making sustainability in a way of measuring progress, but not in terms of depth of difference in culture. Does that make sense?

BB: I have goosebumps, and I'll tell you why this is so important. God, this is so important. It takes me back to this professor, I studied under, Karen Stout, and she studied femicide, the killing of women by intimate partners, and I was one of the first qualitative doctoral students, and she really championed me, although she was a quantitative researcher, and she told me one day, she said, "You know what, when it comes to women being killed by intimate partners, I wish all we had to do is put numbers in front of people, but we need the stories as well," and then she said, "And it'd be nice if we could just tell them stories, but we have to have the numbers as well," and she said, "So this conflict between qualitative and quantitative, the conflict that you just brought up between stories and measurement, and the stories and accountability, it's a false dichotomy that just doesn't exist." And I want to play back what I thought I heard. Is that for deep transformational change around diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, can't just be transactional, it has to be relational, it has to be people's stories and their narrative, it has to be not dehumanize, but re-humanize the stories. Is that what you're saying?

AB: Yes, and you said it so much better than I.

BB: No, I didn't.

AB: Yeah. And I do want to say that the other part about this is that when people think transactional and transformational, they don't understand, you have to be really explicit that transformational actually still includes the components of transactional, you're still measuring, you're still looking at data, you're looking at data that matters beyond the numbers, what are even the stories, like, quantitative and the qualitative, right? But you're so much more intentional about what's underneath it and you're disaggregating it in different ways and understanding it in different ways, right?

BB: God, yes.

AB: So it's not that transformational excludes data, it's not that it excludes the components of transactional, you're just making it much more holistic and you're centering people instead of just numbers and sanitized data, right? You're centering... Its people-centric and is also introspective. You can be transactional, making changes, but you never have to be introspective, right? That's a difference between the two, I think.

BB: Yes. And I have to say in my experience, I'm telling you right now, this frame of transactional versus transformative, just the words make me think compliance versus in my bones, in my breath, just in my body, that's what I hear and it's such an important frame because the story I make up and you tell me whether it's true or not, because this is your expertise, right. The story I make up is that transactional only attempts to change culture around diversity, equity, and inclusion, lead to a lot of resentment, lead to a lot of shaming and blaming and create more division than more togetherness?

AB: Yes, I would say that or it doesn't create anything, it's just a lot of numbers, right?

BB: So it's nothing.

AB: It's a lot. Oftentimes it can be, I think though in the operationalizing it, it is putting pressures on people, but they might not understand exactly why, they may not be totally sold on it, and they're just counting widgets, right? But the aspect of transformative work, it is creating connection, it requires empathy, it requires actually hearing stories from one another, and I will tell you about that aspect of being a learner when you're in the transformative part, it's not just changing the culture of the work it's changing people. So what actually goes beyond the work atmosphere, and one of the reasons why I used your model about courageous leadership with the DEI work is one, what's in the article that... DEI work is leadership work, period. But the other aspect of it is that it provides space for people to actually become... Have changes, transformative. So I think about leaders and the people who want to do this work who are leading companies and what some of those barriers are, and you introduced the language of shame, right? And for a lot of people moving forward in DEI work, and you're doing this transformative way, it requires introspection, which can be really painful.

BB: Yes.

AB: And those are the moments where you're thinking, "Oh man, I remember when I said that thing... Oh man, my grandfather. Yeah, he was a racist. Oh man, my church..." You start, it's almost like the scales are lifted and it's really painful, and so it's not only moving through shame, but it's... And having to experience empathy and share these stories of people, right? So that you can move beyond that, but then it's also that, followed right afterwards by grief, because there's a loss... There's a loss of innocence and seeing things as you once saw it, there's a loss possibly of community. "Maybe I don't want to go to that church anymore. Man, I realized I was raising my kids around just all white people and I want them to see something different. Oh man, my spouse always saying that thing, I'm not going to tolerate it anymore." So there is a grief in the change of your relationships, seeing yourself differently, your community, and that is tough, but if you want to get through transformation, those are two of the barriers I talk about often with leaders, is that... This is why it's hard, is not because you don't want to, it's not because you're not sucking it up, right, when you think about the language like white fragility, it makes people feel like, "You know what, I just need to get comfortable with being uncomfortable and I need to suck it up." Which you and I both know just means more armor versus let's lean in to this, it's hard.

BB: Wow.

AB: There's shame. There's grief, let's move through this together, and that's where you can get transformative, not telling people, "You're just so fragile, suck it up and put your armor on basically, and move through it." It's "Let's explore this. What are we learning about ourselves? What are we learning about this?"

BB: Man. Yeah, this is hard work. This is such hard work, you're having to challenge where you're from, where you go, what you do, who you hang with, and it's so crazy, because in Dare to Lead, we talk about daring leadership, the importance of creating a culture where armor is neither rewarded or required. So what I hear you saying... I'm just having like... It's like you and I work together almost every day. And I'm just... You're freaking me out here Aiko, because you're just giving me language around new things, because how do you create transformative DEI work where armor is not rewarded or required? That is shame work, that's grief work. That's vulnerability work.

AB: It is, it is. And it's creating that space for it, which we traditionally think about the work for, so the workspace is not a place for that. And you think about right now, there's been this effort to try to provide a clearing or space within workplaces so that the hurt of people of color, particularly Black people in the U.S. at this time, where there's space for that in the workplace. But at the same time, it's, "We're going through our own grieving, and I don't know if I would venture to say that there's a healing right now in it, but there is a grieving and we have learned how to carry that grief, and for many people... I have a lot of workshops that are just only centered on people of color, it's a matter of, "Hey, the script has been flipped," now I'm going to work, and they're wanting to talk about race, they're wanting to talk about these things, and that's painful for me, and I've done really well at compartmentalizing where I go in, I do my thing and I leave, but now there's an expectation that I need to talk about this stuff. And they want to talk about it.

AB: So part of doing this work in organizations is also saying, "Well, who's it serving?" Is it serving the people who are already the most harmed right now in society, and as an assumption of, "It's time to talk about it. It's past due. It's urgent." Well, guess what? It was urgent yesterday. It was urgent before George Floyd. Who are we serving by doing this work and how... And are we being intentional about it? So there's this weighing of, yes, urgency, but recognize that for many of us, this was a daily day-to-day. So thinking about what is the innate privilege there of corporate America or others waking up and saying, "Now, I want to talk about this, now I'm ready," but recognizing that there's always been blood in the water, right?

BB: Yeah.

AB: So thinking about the intentionality of how you're doing this work too.

BB: Do you think to address the centering of white timing around this work, that this work should always be co-created and co-led by people with the lived experiences...

AB: Absolutely, and I think it's a matter of extending that invitation and being willing to be led by, and that means also thinking about our action bias, our pacing, all these other things I think you often talk about horizon conflict, right?

BB: Yeah.

AB: In terms of who's timing and who's pacing, so I think that that's a required balance, but I think our systems, especially in the US, and even our governance structures are not built for that, our systems are to go, go, go, and we listen to who the leader is, versus this idea of collaborative and group learning and moving forward for the better of the whole in this way, we're not wired to do that, our systems aren't wired to do that, I should say.

BB: Yeah, our systems are definitely not wired to do that, and our systems like I guess the culmination of our need to produce, produce, produce, or at least meet those. And one of the things that I want to break down a couple of words that Aiko is using, because they're terms we use in the Dare to Lead work, so horizon conflict, when Aiko and I are both standing on a cliff looking out at the Sea, and her binoculars are pointed straight down and what she sees, and mine pointed out at a ship that I see sailing maybe a mile or so out, but then the person standing next to me is looking past the horizon, and then we get into a conflict because we have different concerns, different timings, different senses of urgency, but it's not because we don't have shared goals it's that we are taking different responsibilities for different horizons, and so that's one thing. The action bias, I want to break this down for a minute, because you've taught me a lot about this, and I thought I was a good teacher around action bias, because it came up in the research, so action bias is the need to fix, fix, fix, fast, fast, fast, and let's just take it out of the DEI realm.

BB: So for a second, just to define it and then bring it back to the DEI realm. So action bias is, " Oh God. We've got to get this shit done right now." The thing that drives action bias is discomfort and vulnerability. I see a problem and it makes me uncomfortable and I feel vulnerable so I'm going to rush to solve it, even before I've defined the problem, which goes against all of our better data. So we know Einstein, my favorite quote, "If I had an hour to solve a problem, that would save people's lives, I'd still spend 55 minutes defining the problem and five minutes solving it." So one of the things we've seen and that you've taught me is when we have a new lens and we're like, "Oh my God, Black Lives Matter. Oh my God, there is racism. Oh, let me fix it. Let me fix it. Let me fix you. Let me fix everything." And you are always telling me personally, and we're always telling leaders together, "Slow down, listen." Tell me about that. Tell me about the slow down and listen as opposed to rushing and applying your sense of urgency as kind of an act of privilege.

AB: Well, if we talked about it in the sense of privilege, we can even talk about specific incidents where many of us don't have space to slow down, right?

BB: Yeah.

AB: You have to keep moving and you're thinking almost with the quickness in terms of 20 different ways from Sunday of what could happen in this situation and the risk associated with it. So that's just one thing about having to consider and think about a million perspectives just in order to survive. So that's one aspect. Another one is just thinking about... And this actually came from you is "What's happening in the space between each moment?" When we were talking about even with empathy and the steps around it, and not even that it's just somebody wanting to jump to action to fix something, but first you have to be present, which means that you have to slow down, you have to listen, which means that you can't rush the other person, you have to hear what they're saying, and sometimes you have to see what they're saying, and then you have to wait. What is the hardest part in between that... And this, I loved this language that you use was believing them.

AB: So in terms of getting to a place of believing somebody, where we are in this country now, it's usually not automated when you have completely different lived experiences, so you actually have to stop and understand and actually hear all of the arguments that are being told to you and being whispered to you about why this perspective can't be real, why you shouldn't believe this, what does this mean if you actually believe what this person is saying? You actually have to engage in that conversation so that you can understand when this person has said, "Yeah, when I was in this meeting, I was the only woman, or I was the only Black person there, no one made any eye contact with me the whole time, even though it was my presentation, and then they started asking Brad for all of the answers." And you have to stop yourself and say, "Why would I not believe this?" And get yourself to the point to believe it, so that all of this takes time... All of this takes time.

BB: Pain. Pain is why, yeah, I don't want to believe it because of pain.

AB: And what does it say, what does it say about the society that I'm living in that I never saw this happen? What does this mean about me because I've actually done that before? There's a lot of process that's happening between that, that you don't capture if you're going from one thing, zero to one hundred, but that's where the introspection is happening that we talked about for transformative change, that's when being people-centered happens, and then asking the person, "Well, what do you think is needed in this moment? What can we do?" Versus jumping to action, because now you fixed it, because you have all the answers. So that takes time, that A to Z right there. Otherwise, we're jumping in, we fixed it, and now we feel great, but we didn't see the person, we didn't assess ourselves, there is no space for us to transform or change or to actually elevate our own existence and learning. So I think that that's something we have to think about in terms of action bias and why we really do take the time.

BB: So role-play with me. I'm going to ask you, so Aiko, "How did your presentation go?" And I want you to be the person that says, "No one looked at me, it was my presentation. No one made eye contact with me." I want you to do the whole thing. So Aiko, how'd your presentation go?

AB: It went okay.

BB: Why just okay?

AB: I stayed up all night and had been planning for this. This is was my big moment.

BB: Yeah.

AB: And it just didn't go... It just didn't feel right.

BB: So I'm just saying to y'all right now I made a decision tree, so my decision tree is... "I'm sure it was great. Hey, what time is our next meeting? I'm sure that's in your head. I'm sure you did great, we all kind of question ourselves," or I can say, "Say more, help me understand what didn't feel right, you really busted your ass putting this thing together. So what felt weird?"

AB: It almost felt like I was just talking to myself. I'm glad that you asked me that. I felt like I was talking to myself and no one was even looking at me or making eye contact with me at all, it was like I could have been in the room by myself.

BB: Okay, so decision tree off-ramp from pain and discomfort is, "Yeah, sometimes we feel like that when we give talks, so I'll see you at noon at the next meeting," or okay, so that's the off-ramp, then the on-ramp is, "Wait, are you saying that you gave this presentation that you've been working on for two months and you felt invisible in there like no one looked at you?"

AB: Yep Brené, that is exactly the word I would use is invisible. I know that, of course, nobody in the room looks like me. But even as I was making the presentation, no one asked me the questions, they looked over at Brad instead of me and I'm giving the presentation. Afterwards when people said, "Good job," they were saying it into the space and to each other, and not me and I'm the one who just gave the presentation. So I was really deflated, and I'm still trying to figure this out.

BB: This is my off-ramp, "Well, it sounds like you might be a little sensitive. And it sounds like... It sounds like maybe you wanted a lot of credit, but this is a team, and so I think... I'm sure you did a great job, and I'm glad that everyone else felt included, and I think I get silly and sensitive after a big moment." Again, that was an off-ramp, that shit happens a thousand times a day. I'm tapping out.

AB: Yes, or "I think you're exaggerating that, or blah, blah." So all of the dismissiveness, the "I don't believe you."

BB: Yeah, so let me go the other way, "Okay, so I just want to play this back to make sure I'm tracking here, you gave this presentation, no one made eye contact with you, they asked Brad the follow-up questions and then they didn't look at you genuinely. That's bullshit, I'm going to call those people into my office right now and we're going to have a CTJ baby, we're going to have a Come to Jesus because no one treats people on my team like that. And you know what? I'm with you, my sister." So let's explain the pain in that.

AB: Yes, so now you haven't paused at all to ask me, "Hey, well, what do you need?" You went straight to fixing, and now you feel great.

BB: I do.

AB: And you're the savior, and you're just with it, and I'm still there with not really fully being heard yet.

BB: And now I'm like, "I've sprouted my white girl halo, I'm the ally now, look at me, I'm in the ally." So this is actually probably what I would say, "I think invisibility is one of the most painful experiences I've ever had in my life, and my gut is, we need to address this, but I want you to take some time and think about what support looks like for you in addressing this, and how we can do this together, or maybe more importantly, how I can support you doing it. And that support can look like whatever you need it to look like, but I'm sorry that happened because I know how good that work was, and I know how hard you worked to put that together, and it's not okay."

AB: Exactly. And now I feel completely seen, I don't feel disempowered, I feel heard, and now even the shame or humiliation I feel has dissipated to an extent, and that is so empowering, completely different way, but it took time and took you to be introspective. Even that pause, I'm thinking about your power and privilege in the moment and how can it be used in concert together, all of those steps, which oftentimes we don't see happening.

BB: And I have to say that one of the things that we talked about yesterday, you and I, in the empathy pause is I am examining, as your leader and as a leader, maybe of Brad and the other people in there, I'm examining... I have a part in this. Maybe I didn't build this culture, but I'm running it now, let me tell you though, I had five off tap out of and discomfort moments that I had to circumvent. Those are real for people, and those are not just real for white folks, those are real for everybody in a situation with empathy. If someone that you love, who looks just like you, who has a shared lived experience, calls you and says, "This is the hardest shit thing that I'm going through right now." Every one of us has tap out of empathy opportunities. The difference is, I think... And this is white supremacy, is, we don't have to pause as long around the believing with people who are more like us.

AB: Yeah, and we have to also just recognize that that is part of human nature, right? Is likeness in group? And it's a matter of now we need to exercise this kind of transcendence in the area of ways and gender very intentionally, and to do it that way. So I think there's something else you just said too, which is that, "Hey, I didn't create it, but I'm a part of it now and I can do something about it." And that is another distinguishing factor that a lot of people don't see, they see this, all of these systemic things as individualistic, "Well, my ancestors didn't own slaves." Well, I didn't say that, but this idea of seeing a system and recognizing we all are impacted, and how do I address the system? That's the thing I can do. How do I address the system? That's my role. Right?

BB: Yeah. And for me, one of the things that was very changing for me probably, I don't know, at some point in my social work career, is I had a teacher, Jean Kantambu Latting, she taught systems theory, it was very difficult class in structural functionalism, like just a study of systems, and she used to say when systems are in place, you are either actively supporting them or actively dismantling them, there are not any neutral behaviors. Do you believe that?

AB: Yes, absolutely. I think that's a lot of the premise of a lot of Kendi's work, right.

BB: Oh, Ibram Kendi, yeah.

AB: Yeah, yep, yep. So the other part too, is even in working again with just people of color, it's the same thing, a fish doesn't know it's in water. We're swimming in it too, as people of color, you're swimming in white supremacy also, and there's a risk that you're perpetuating it, when we talk about the cheap seats, or we talk about where is the inner critic coming from, for people of color it's repeating things that a white supremacist system has told you about yourself and now you're repeating it to yourself. So we also have to extract ourselves actively in order to support ourselves and see ourselves separate from what the messages are that we're being told everyday that, "You don't belong here. You're not worthy. You're less than. Who do you think you are that you're in there?" And it's different, a lot of people can play impostor syndrome as the same for everyone, but when you're in a system that's designed to tell you that you're less than and for everyone to believe it, that's a hell of a different kind of impostor syndrome and inner-critic voices that you're hearing than others.

BB: Oh God, yes.

AB: And us doing that work constantly to have to elevate ourselves in a way that's totally counter to what the system would be telling us about ourselves, right?

BB: Yes. And that is the entire field of study of internalized oppression, that is... I think of our friend Sonya Renee Taylor, it's like her work.

AB: Yes, amen to that, amen to that. Yes, and even that... Yeah, just her as part of a closure process, I often talk about her three pieces.

BB: Tell us.

AB: But that idea of not feeling like you have to understand everything. Her three pieces about your body, they are exactly what we need in order to make us stop, reflect, and make sure we're not internalizing. So it's the same steps we talked about before about racing to action bias when you're dealing with somebody who has an experience different from yours and assessing your privilege and what have you, it's the same for us in terms of, "Hey, what am I thinking? Why am I thinking that about myself? Okay, whose message is that?" And then reclaiming a message about yourself that's true, that tells you that you belong, that tells you that you're worthy, and that means that you have to slow down to be able to do that. You have to slow down and reflect all of those same steps that we talked about for other people, we have to do it ourselves. I don't think anybody escapes that, right?

BB: No, no one rides for free on that one, for sure.

[laughter]

AB: There's not much in society that gives us space to just slow down unless we take it. It's definitely something that we have to take. So I want to say that making peace with not understanding, making peace with difference, and making peace with your body, those three pieces that she talks about.

BB: Those are Sonya Renee Taylor's three pieces?

AB: They are, they are.

BB: Say them one more time.

AB: Making peace with not understanding, making peace with difference, and making peace with your body. In her work, it is so powerful in terms of using it with in-group, I use it often, yeah.

BB: She's got a great book called, The Body Is Not an Apology, and I also did an Unlocking Us episode with her.

AB: Yes, and anybody who has not listened to it needs to, and if you have not gotten the book, The Body Is Not an Apology: The Power of Radical Self-Love, get it.

BB: As you can tell, Aiko and I are fans. Okay.

AB: Yes.

BB: I'm going to have to ask you this. Can we do Part Two of this?

AB: Yes.

BB: I think we have just blown my mind, shored up my heart, grounded my feet. I just loved you so much going into this, and now it's even more, if possible.

AB: Thank you for having me, and I will just say that the work that you've put out there has been so instrumental in the work that I do and DEI work with leaders, and also with in-group communities, it's been super powerful, the language and experience of shame and grief, they're universal, and I think really for us to get to this transformative space where we appreciate ourselves, our experiences, and one another is core to it. It's core.

BB: It's core. We are just the innate need to be loved and seen, and to love and see others, maybe we end up with another person whose work we both... We appreciate Austin Channing Brown, who said anti-racism work is the work of being a better human being to other human beings.

AB: Yep, yep.

BB: Alright. We're going to come back, we're going to... If you're listening, you can access Aiko's Medium article on the web page for the podcast, and then we're going to come back. I think this is just the most unexpected and powerful conversation, and then we're going to come back and do a Part Two to this with tangible next steps.

AB: Oh, we didn't even get to that. [chuckle]

BB: But you know why we didn't?

AB: Why's that?

BB: Because we didn't succumb to the action bias.

AB: That's right, you're right. We took our time, we had a conversation. [chuckle]

BB: We had a conversation that was transformative about transformative, and we didn't go straight into the list of things for organizations to do, and I saw your heart in this conversation, and I think this is where change starts because someone named Aiko taught me that.

AB: Oh, you made me warm and fuzzy, oh no. We need to end it now because now it's now like... [laughter] Thank you for saying that.

BB: Thank you. But Part Two, are you... Can I commit to all of our listeners here there's a Part Two?

AB: Yep, I'm down with that.

BB: Alright, before I let you go, we're all warm and fuzzy, but before I let you go, we've got to do the rapid-fire questions, fill in the blank for me. Ready? Vulnerability is.

AB: Everyone.

BB: What is something that people often get wrong about you?

AB: That I don't have a sense of humor.

BB: That is definitely wrong. Okay, what is one piece of leadership advice that you've been given that's so remarkable, you need to share it with us, or so crappy that you need to warn us?

AB: Terrible is make sure you're seen. Wonderful is, I love when people say, "Why did God give you two ears and one mouth?" That's the best. That's a church lady, giving me that.

[laughter]

BB: That's the best. Okay, what is one stereotype or myth of leadership that we need to let go of?

AB: Well, that's the last person in the room.

BB: Say more.

AB: Leadership is the person who's in the front of the room.

BB: Yeah. So really the leader is the last?

AB: Yes, absolutely.

BB: Okay, what would you say to someone who doesn't consider themselves a leader or leadership material?

AB: Everybody is a leader. Don't believe the lies.

BB: What's your best leadership quality?

AB: I love stories, I love listening to stories.

BB: What's the hard leadership lesson that you have to keep learning and unlearning and re-learning, that lesson that the universe just keeps putting in front of you?

AB: You can't fix everything, and you shouldn't fix everything, everything's not there for you to fix.

BB: That felt aggressively attacking of me.

[laughter]

AB: That's mine, for sure.

BB: Yep. Okay, what's one thing you're really excited about right now?

AB: Georgia turned blue. I'm super excited about that. Georgia turned blue. I'm so proud of all the people who made it happen. Stacey Abrams, Natasha Brown, these folks who I love and I'm just, I'm so proud.

BB: Amen. Tell me one thing that you're deeply grateful for right now.

AB: My boys. Wes and Ben.

BB: Wes and Ben. Ages?

AB: 12 and 11. Now ask me, sizes: 6 feet and 5'8″.

BB: In order? Is the 12-year-old taller?

AB: Yes.

BB: Got it. Wow, those are big boys.

AB: They are. With big hearts.

BB: So we asked you for five songs, you can't live without. You gave us seven and we said, "Okay," because you're Aiko and we love you. You did make a note on number one, which is "Lift Every Voice." That this is the only one that you really can't live without. The others are "Baby, I'm a Star," by Prince. "Stand Up," by Cynthia Erivo, from the Harriet soundtrack. "Keep on Going," by Vivian Green. "Blessed." by Jill Scott. "I Choose," by India Arie, and "Freedom," by Beyoncé. In one sentence, what does this mini mix tape say about you?

AB: It says that I'm hopeful, it says that I love my heritage, and it says that I'm looking forward to my legacy.

BB: Thank you, Aiko Bethea for joining us on the Dare to Lead podcast. You're making a difference.

AB: Thank you for having me Brené.

[music]

BB: Man, do you see now why I'm so incredibly grateful for Aiko as a teacher, as a friend, as a colleague? She just has a deeply human way of helping us understand our own humanity, if you want to follow her on Instagram, it's @rare_coach, Rare is R-A-R-E. She's LinkedIn Aiko Bethea. Facebook is Facebook.com/rarecoach. And her website is www.rarecoaching.net. Really appreciate you listening to the Dare to Lead podcast. My goal is to take on the issues that we are all up against, that we're all facing the real questions, we're going to have Aiko back, we're going to dig into some more tactical, practical steps, not for transactional change, but for transformational change, but I love that we started with the conversation and the narrative. Thank you so much for joining us on the Dare to Lead podcast. This is a Spotify original from Parcast. It's hosted by me, Brené Brown. It's produced by Max Cutler, Kristen Acevedo, Carleigh Madden, and by Weird Lucy Productions. The sound design is by Kristen Acevedo, and the music is by the amazing band, The Suffers.

[music]

© 2020 Brené Brown Education and Research Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

Brown, B. (Host). (2020, November 9). Brené with Aiko Bethea on Inclusivity at Work: The Heart of Hard Conversations. [Audio podcast episode]. In D are to Lead with Brené Brown. Parcast Network. https://brenebrown.com/podcast/brene-with-aiko-bethea-on-inclusivity-at-work-the-heart-of-hard-conversations/

Brené Brown: Hi, everyone. I'm Brené Brown, and this is the Dare to Lead podcast, and I'm so excited today because I get to introduce you to someone who has been such an incredible teacher for me, a friend, we're colleagues, we work together, and she has really fundamentally shifted a lot of my thinking on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion work, and I just can't wait for you to meet her because her ideas are so grounded in courage and empathy and connection, it's just the medicine we need right now, and so if you're trying to figure out, "How do I do this anti-racism work at work? How do I show up? What do I need to be watching for? What do I need to be listening for? When do I need to pull back? When do I need to step up?" All those questions that all of us are asking ourselves on a daily, sometimes hourly basis, I just don't know a better teacher than Aiko Bethea. So Aiko is, she's a leader, she's a builder, she's a connector, she has had big leadership roles in government, philanthropic organizations, in the corporate sector, she is a Principal and Founder of Rare Coaching and Consulting, a consulting practice focused on coaching leaders and organizations specifically around removing barriers to inclusion.

BB: Aiko is also a senior co-director at our organization, the Brené Brown Education and Research Group. She co-leads the Daring Way and the Dare to Lead facilitation communities. She partners to oversee development and implementation of the overall strategy for these facilitator communities, and by facilitator communities, I mean folks who are trained in my work and go out and teach people. And she also helps us identify and address specific diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging strategies. And she helps really build, teach, and nurture our global facilitator community, which has close to 2000 facilitators. Prior to working with us, she served as the Head of Diversity and Inclusion at Fred Hutch Research Center, and for over seven years, Aiko was with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation where she served as a Deputy Director. She has served on several boards and provided a lot of pro bono support for non-profit boards. She is deeply, deeply engaged in community building. She's got her BA from Smith in North Hampton, Massachusetts, her Juris Doctorate from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and she's a graduate of the Hudson Institute of Coaching at Santa Barbara.

BB: She's an ICF professional certified coach, and she is also a certified Diversity Professional and licensed to practice law in Georgia. I just feel so lucky to work with her every day. I feel so lucky to learn from her, and I feel really grateful that I get to share her insights with y'all. These are the questions that we're all asking ourselves and organizations right now about how to do the next right thing. Alright, so first, Aiko, thank you so much for joining me on the Dare to Lead podcast.

AB: Thank you for having me. Super exciting.

BB: I have to say that you have brought so much wisdom, experience, depth of understanding to not only our organization, but as a Dare to Lead facilitator, as someone who headed up our initiative on diversity, inclusion, equity, and belonging, our co-creation group, you led that amazingly. So I guess I'm just really excited that you're here and excited that I get to share what you've taught me with a big audience.

AB: Thank you, well, I'm excited to share and I've learned so much more from you so, likewise.

BB: Alright, so let me start here, you wrote an article on Medium. Was this after George Floyd's murder?

AB: It was.

BB: It was, right. It was the end of May that you wrote this, right?

AB: Yeah.

BB: And the title was "An Open Letter to Corporate America, Philanthropy, Academia, etc.: What Now?" Like what's next? And I want to read part of this article. You and I both work with leaders of organizations, from small businesses to Fortune 20 companies who are many, wanting to do the right thing around anti-racism work, wanting to do the right thing around equity and inclusion work, but are scared and don't know where to start. And this was the best thing I'd ever seen.

AB: Thank you for saying that.

BB: Yeah, so let me read some of this: "The fact that some of the leadership of organizations were awake just a bit, are impacted enough to recognize that they should respond to this national crisis, offers a tiny glimmer of light. For many of these CEOs and companies, this was the first time a statement about racism or the trials of Blackness was ever publicly acknowledged. Now we ask you: Do you know what comes next? Do you know that sending that letter to the public and to your employees does not end with a period, in fact, there should not even be a comma. Keep moving. There is work to be done inside your company, in your leadership teams, among people who are making decisions, all too often the focus is on white men, but there are also people who look like your mothers, daughters and wives. There is work for everyone. And here are some steps you can take now, for those of you who penned letters that reflected how soul-crushing this week has been and dedicating support to Black employees." I just have to say I felt some fire reading this, did you write it with some fire?

AB: I did. This article took 30 minutes to write. So it was really feeling it in the moment, so... Yeah.

BB: So those were inspired.

AB: They were, they were.

BB: And they took 30 minutes. Yeah.

AB: Absolutely.

BB: I want to start from the beginning. And if you're listening right now, I've already said this in the intro, but I'm going to say it again, my goal is to give you tangible actionable calls to courage around these conversations. So I want to start here with, can you lay out some terms for us, diversity, equity, inclusion. What exactly do those mean?

AB: Sure. So diversity, of course, we hear it meaning every characteristic trait of people. You hear it meaning things like difference in education, and of course just all the protected class identities as well, and when I'm talking specifically about this work, I talk about it in terms of diversity that matters, that actually creates a difference, that creates disparities. So otherwise, you get in this slippery slope where people might say, "Hey, we have diversity, because we have Stanford class of '70, Stanford class of '71, and Stanford class of '72 on the panel," but we're talking about diversity that makes a difference in terms of disparities. And we know in this country that a lot of those have to do with the one start in the protected classes, and I actually, with clients, I share that, if you're not talking about and you're not including protected classes, then you're not really talking about the diversity that matters, those have to be included.

BB: And so protected classes, you're talking about race...

AB: Yes, race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, national origin, different abilities in some states, I think, and it's necessary to also say LGBT, our LGBT community as well, even though there may not be protections under our constitution or federal laws, definitely our states, several state laws have recognized any groups that are marginalized and historically marginalized, they should be included in that first and foremost, when we're talking about diversity in the context of diversity, equity, inclusion. And of course, we're talking about mental health, right, and differences in that way as well.

BB: And then tell me what is the difference between diversity and inclusion?

AB: So you can actually have... You can have diversity and not have inclusion, so you can have a collection of a lot of different people, but if those people don't feel included, you're not actually going to leverage the power of that diversity. You've just collected a lot of different people who are in the room or in the company together. Inclusion is actually creating a space in an environment where people feel like they can actually express dissent, where they can bring their ideas to the table, and it's not a matter of just feeling welcomed, but also valued, "What I say matters. The perspective that I bring matters, my lived experience matters," and that's the diversity and the inclusion together is what harnesses when you get innovation, when you get psychological safety.

BB: Got it.

AB: So you can have diversity and not have inclusion, but I don't think you can have inclusion in terms of harnessing the outputs without having diversity.

BB: Helpful. How does equity fit in here?

AB: So equity, I see it as intimately connected with why we even talk about diversity. Diversity started being introduced in corporate America based on wanting to have integration, right? And so when diversity was introduced in that context, it was really about equity and about who was not included, so now we intentionally say equity because now you can talk about diversity and talk about... Just like I was saying, a lot of groups that are homogeneous in terms of privilege, so now we intentionally say equity. It's about also recognizing people who have systemically and historically been excluded, are marginalized, so now you have to think about that as well, and then intentionally.

BB: This is something that you've taught me, you think it's important for organizations to define these terms, and that it's dangerous when you've got a group of people within an organization that all have different ideas of what these words mean and the importance of them and what they provide. What happens when you just start saying, DEI, really fast, DEI... DEI... And you don't stop and explain and operationalize what that means, and people are operating from different beliefs?

AB: Yeah, so it's just like any kind of business initiative, right? So organizations introduce values, and you know this about values, if you don't define them, if you don't talk about what the behaviors are that complement them as well, or define them, you just got a lot of random words and everybody thinks that they're talking about same thing, but they're not. It's also when you don't define them, how do you also hold one another accountable, how do you actually measure that you're making progress, and how do you make sure that you're aligned even on the philosophy and the intention underneath it? So you have to make sure you're all talking about the same things, otherwise, people don't even know how to show up around those words.

BB: Okay, so we say to each other in an organization, "This is important to us." We define the terms. What happens when we have varying levels of commitment around the importance to begin the conversation?

AB: So I think that it has to be incumbent upon one, the leadership to really talk about why this is important to them, and not just harping on the business case, but talking about why it's important to them as individuals, and oftentimes we talk about, this is the head and the heart. And this is when we're talking to our leaders about "What's your personal narrative around this?" and why this is important, and this is also when you intertwine or integrate it with narratives and storytelling, and those are the things that people remember is Why... Why was this important to Brad? Why was this important to Cathy? And there's a different type of accountability too. When you look at studies around what makes an organization's culture change, especially around these types of issues, it's not about the business case, right? It's really about social accountability. So that's me looking over at you and saying, "Hey, Brené, that thing that you said, can we talk more about it?" It's not a confrontation, it's asking you and holding your feet to it to say, "Well, what did you mean by that?" And I think there's so much importance now about having those conversations, understanding what that means in terms of getting the stick-to-it-ness, that's what actually brings people on board to be dedicated and loyal to a cause, not just the business case.

AB: When we talk about operationalizing it, there are other things, right? Oh, I'm going to do really well in my performance management, so we're going to include it in performance management, because now people are accountable, right? We're going to include it in our values, we're going to include it in our job competencies, all these ways to operationalize it, but if you only do it in that way of operationalizing it, then it becomes transactional. It becomes a lot of rules and things that you're being graded on and it's almost compliance-driven, but if you're doing it in a relational way, in terms of the storytelling of why this was really important to Brené, and why this is really important to my co-worker right over here, there's a different motivation to want to do something different and want to show up differently, and it doesn't have to do with your compensation doesn't have to do with, this is what the rule says and we're supposed to... how we're supposed to show up. That's the difference, I think, between transformational change and transactional, and one has a much deeper depth of sustainability and culture shift, and the other one has more of measurement and counts and making sustainability in a way of measuring progress, but not in terms of depth of difference in culture. Does that make sense?

BB: I have goosebumps, and I'll tell you why this is so important. God, this is so important. It takes me back to this professor, I studied under, Karen Stout, and she studied femicide, the killing of women by intimate partners, and I was one of the first qualitative doctoral students, and she really championed me, although she was a quantitative researcher, and she told me one day, she said, "You know what, when it comes to women being killed by intimate partners, I wish all we had to do is put numbers in front of people, but we need the stories as well," and then she said, "And it'd be nice if we could just tell them stories, but we have to have the numbers as well," and she said, "So this conflict between qualitative and quantitative, the conflict that you just brought up between stories and measurement, and the stories and accountability, it's a false dichotomy that just doesn't exist." And I want to play back what I thought I heard. Is that for deep transformational change around diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, can't just be transactional, it has to be relational, it has to be people's stories and their narrative, it has to be not dehumanize, but re-humanize the stories. Is that what you're saying?

AB: Yes, and you said it so much better than I.

BB: No, I didn't.

AB: Yeah. And I do want to say that the other part about this is that when people think transactional and transformational, they don't understand, you have to be really explicit that transformational actually still includes the components of transactional, you're still measuring, you're still looking at data, you're looking at data that matters beyond the numbers, what are even the stories, like, quantitative and the qualitative, right? But you're so much more intentional about what's underneath it and you're disaggregating it in different ways and understanding it in different ways, right?

BB: God, yes.

AB: So it's not that transformational excludes data, it's not that it excludes the components of transactional, you're just making it much more holistic and you're centering people instead of just numbers and sanitized data, right? You're centering... Its people-centric and is also introspective. You can be transactional, making changes, but you never have to be introspective, right? That's a difference between the two, I think.

BB: Yes. And I have to say in my experience, I'm telling you right now, this frame of transactional versus transformative, just the words make me think compliance versus in my bones, in my breath, just in my body, that's what I hear and it's such an important frame because the story I make up and you tell me whether it's true or not, because this is your expertise, right. The story I make up is that transactional only attempts to change culture around diversity, equity, and inclusion, lead to a lot of resentment, lead to a lot of shaming and blaming and create more division than more togetherness?

AB: Yes, I would say that or it doesn't create anything, it's just a lot of numbers, right?

BB: So it's nothing.

AB: It's a lot. Oftentimes it can be, I think though in the operationalizing it, it is putting pressures on people, but they might not understand exactly why, they may not be totally sold on it, and they're just counting widgets, right? But the aspect of transformative work, it is creating connection, it requires empathy, it requires actually hearing stories from one another, and I will tell you about that aspect of being a learner when you're in the transformative part, it's not just changing the culture of the work it's changing people. So what actually goes beyond the work atmosphere, and one of the reasons why I used your model about courageous leadership with the DEI work is one, what's in the article that... DEI work is leadership work, period. But the other aspect of it is that it provides space for people to actually become... Have changes, transformative. So I think about leaders and the people who want to do this work who are leading companies and what some of those barriers are, and you introduced the language of shame, right? And for a lot of people moving forward in DEI work, and you're doing this transformative way, it requires introspection, which can be really painful.

BB: Yes.

AB: And those are the moments where you're thinking, "Oh man, I remember when I said that thing... Oh man, my grandfather. Yeah, he was a racist. Oh man, my church..." You start, it's almost like the scales are lifted and it's really painful, and so it's not only moving through shame, but it's... And having to experience empathy and share these stories of people, right? So that you can move beyond that, but then it's also that, followed right afterwards by grief, because there's a loss... There's a loss of innocence and seeing things as you once saw it, there's a loss possibly of community. "Maybe I don't want to go to that church anymore. Man, I realized I was raising my kids around just all white people and I want them to see something different. Oh man, my spouse always saying that thing, I'm not going to tolerate it anymore." So there is a grief in the change of your relationships, seeing yourself differently, your community, and that is tough, but if you want to get through transformation, those are two of the barriers I talk about often with leaders, is that... This is why it's hard, is not because you don't want to, it's not because you're not sucking it up, right, when you think about the language like white fragility, it makes people feel like, "You know what, I just need to get comfortable with being uncomfortable and I need to suck it up." Which you and I both know just means more armor versus let's lean in to this, it's hard.

BB: Wow.

AB: There's shame. There's grief, let's move through this together, and that's where you can get transformative, not telling people, "You're just so fragile, suck it up and put your armor on basically, and move through it." It's "Let's explore this. What are we learning about ourselves? What are we learning about this?"

BB: Man. Yeah, this is hard work. This is such hard work, you're having to challenge where you're from, where you go, what you do, who you hang with, and it's so crazy, because in Dare to Lead, we talk about daring leadership, the importance of creating a culture where armor is neither rewarded or required. So what I hear you saying... I'm just having like... It's like you and I work together almost every day. And I'm just... You're freaking me out here Aiko, because you're just giving me language around new things, because how do you create transformative DEI work where armor is not rewarded or required? That is shame work, that's grief work. That's vulnerability work.

AB: It is, it is. And it's creating that space for it, which we traditionally think about the work for, so the workspace is not a place for that. And you think about right now, there's been this effort to try to provide a clearing or space within workplaces so that the hurt of people of color, particularly Black people in the U.S. at this time, where there's space for that in the workplace. But at the same time, it's, "We're going through our own grieving, and I don't know if I would venture to say that there's a healing right now in it, but there is a grieving and we have learned how to carry that grief, and for many people... I have a lot of workshops that are just only centered on people of color, it's a matter of, "Hey, the script has been flipped," now I'm going to work, and they're wanting to talk about race, they're wanting to talk about these things, and that's painful for me, and I've done really well at compartmentalizing where I go in, I do my thing and I leave, but now there's an expectation that I need to talk about this stuff. And they want to talk about it.

AB: So part of doing this work in organizations is also saying, "Well, who's it serving?" Is it serving the people who are already the most harmed right now in society, and as an assumption of, "It's time to talk about it. It's past due. It's urgent." Well, guess what? It was urgent yesterday. It was urgent before George Floyd. Who are we serving by doing this work and how... And are we being intentional about it? So there's this weighing of, yes, urgency, but recognize that for many of us, this was a daily day-to-day. So thinking about what is the innate privilege there of corporate America or others waking up and saying, "Now, I want to talk about this, now I'm ready," but recognizing that there's always been blood in the water, right?

BB: Yeah.

AB: So thinking about the intentionality of how you're doing this work too.

BB: Do you think to address the centering of white timing around this work, that this work should always be co-created and co-led by people with the lived experiences...

AB: Absolutely, and I think it's a matter of extending that invitation and being willing to be led by, and that means also thinking about our action bias, our pacing, all these other things I think you often talk about horizon conflict, right?

BB: Yeah.

AB: In terms of who's timing and who's pacing, so I think that that's a required balance, but I think our systems, especially in the US, and even our governance structures are not built for that, our systems are to go, go, go, and we listen to who the leader is, versus this idea of collaborative and group learning and moving forward for the better of the whole in this way, we're not wired to do that, our systems aren't wired to do that, I should say.

BB: Yeah, our systems are definitely not wired to do that, and our systems like I guess the culmination of our need to produce, produce, produce, or at least meet those. And one of the things that I want to break down a couple of words that Aiko is using, because they're terms we use in the Dare to Lead work, so horizon conflict, when Aiko and I are both standing on a cliff looking out at the Sea, and her binoculars are pointed straight down and what she sees, and mine pointed out at a ship that I see sailing maybe a mile or so out, but then the person standing next to me is looking past the horizon, and then we get into a conflict because we have different concerns, different timings, different senses of urgency, but it's not because we don't have shared goals it's that we are taking different responsibilities for different horizons, and so that's one thing. The action bias, I want to break this down for a minute, because you've taught me a lot about this, and I thought I was a good teacher around action bias, because it came up in the research, so action bias is the need to fix, fix, fix, fast, fast, fast, and let's just take it out of the DEI realm.

BB: So for a second, just to define it and then bring it back to the DEI realm. So action bias is, " Oh God. We've got to get this shit done right now." The thing that drives action bias is discomfort and vulnerability. I see a problem and it makes me uncomfortable and I feel vulnerable so I'm going to rush to solve it, even before I've defined the problem, which goes against all of our better data. So we know Einstein, my favorite quote, "If I had an hour to solve a problem, that would save people's lives, I'd still spend 55 minutes defining the problem and five minutes solving it." So one of the things we've seen and that you've taught me is when we have a new lens and we're like, "Oh my God, Black Lives Matter. Oh my God, there is racism. Oh, let me fix it. Let me fix it. Let me fix you. Let me fix everything." And you are always telling me personally, and we're always telling leaders together, "Slow down, listen." Tell me about that. Tell me about the slow down and listen as opposed to rushing and applying your sense of urgency as kind of an act of privilege.

AB: Well, if we talked about it in the sense of privilege, we can even talk about specific incidents where many of us don't have space to slow down, right?

BB: Yeah.

AB: You have to keep moving and you're thinking almost with the quickness in terms of 20 different ways from Sunday of what could happen in this situation and the risk associated with it. So that's just one thing about having to consider and think about a million perspectives just in order to survive. So that's one aspect. Another one is just thinking about... And this actually came from you is "What's happening in the space between each moment?" When we were talking about even with empathy and the steps around it, and not even that it's just somebody wanting to jump to action to fix something, but first you have to be present, which means that you have to slow down, you have to listen, which means that you can't rush the other person, you have to hear what they're saying, and sometimes you have to see what they're saying, and then you have to wait. What is the hardest part in between that... And this, I loved this language that you use was believing them.

AB: So in terms of getting to a place of believing somebody, where we are in this country now, it's usually not automated when you have completely different lived experiences, so you actually have to stop and understand and actually hear all of the arguments that are being told to you and being whispered to you about why this perspective can't be real, why you shouldn't believe this, what does this mean if you actually believe what this person is saying? You actually have to engage in that conversation so that you can understand when this person has said, "Yeah, when I was in this meeting, I was the only woman, or I was the only Black person there, no one made any eye contact with me the whole time, even though it was my presentation, and then they started asking Brad for all of the answers." And you have to stop yourself and say, "Why would I not believe this?" And get yourself to the point to believe it, so that all of this takes time... All of this takes time.

BB: Pain. Pain is why, yeah, I don't want to believe it because of pain.

AB: And what does it say, what does it say about the society that I'm living in that I never saw this happen? What does this mean about me because I've actually done that before? There's a lot of process that's happening between that, that you don't capture if you're going from one thing, zero to one hundred, but that's where the introspection is happening that we talked about for transformative change, that's when being people-centered happens, and then asking the person, "Well, what do you think is needed in this moment? What can we do?" Versus jumping to action, because now you fixed it, because you have all the answers. So that takes time, that A to Z right there. Otherwise, we're jumping in, we fixed it, and now we feel great, but we didn't see the person, we didn't assess ourselves, there is no space for us to transform or change or to actually elevate our own existence and learning. So I think that that's something we have to think about in terms of action bias and why we really do take the time.

BB: So role-play with me. I'm going to ask you, so Aiko, "How did your presentation go?" And I want you to be the person that says, "No one looked at me, it was my presentation. No one made eye contact with me." I want you to do the whole thing. So Aiko, how'd your presentation go?

AB: It went okay.

BB: Why just okay?

AB: I stayed up all night and had been planning for this. This is was my big moment.

BB: Yeah.

AB: And it just didn't go... It just didn't feel right.

BB: So I'm just saying to y'all right now I made a decision tree, so my decision tree is... "I'm sure it was great. Hey, what time is our next meeting? I'm sure that's in your head. I'm sure you did great, we all kind of question ourselves," or I can say, "Say more, help me understand what didn't feel right, you really busted your ass putting this thing together. So what felt weird?"

AB: It almost felt like I was just talking to myself. I'm glad that you asked me that. I felt like I was talking to myself and no one was even looking at me or making eye contact with me at all, it was like I could have been in the room by myself.

BB: Okay, so decision tree off-ramp from pain and discomfort is, "Yeah, sometimes we feel like that when we give talks, so I'll see you at noon at the next meeting," or okay, so that's the off-ramp, then the on-ramp is, "Wait, are you saying that you gave this presentation that you've been working on for two months and you felt invisible in there like no one looked at you?"

AB: Yep Brené, that is exactly the word I would use is invisible. I know that, of course, nobody in the room looks like me. But even as I was making the presentation, no one asked me the questions, they looked over at Brad instead of me and I'm giving the presentation. Afterwards when people said, "Good job," they were saying it into the space and to each other, and not me and I'm the one who just gave the presentation. So I was really deflated, and I'm still trying to figure this out.

BB: This is my off-ramp, "Well, it sounds like you might be a little sensitive. And it sounds like... It sounds like maybe you wanted a lot of credit, but this is a team, and so I think... I'm sure you did a great job, and I'm glad that everyone else felt included, and I think I get silly and sensitive after a big moment." Again, that was an off-ramp, that shit happens a thousand times a day. I'm tapping out.

AB: Yes, or "I think you're exaggerating that, or blah, blah." So all of the dismissiveness, the "I don't believe you."

BB: Yeah, so let me go the other way, "Okay, so I just want to play this back to make sure I'm tracking here, you gave this presentation, no one made eye contact with you, they asked Brad the follow-up questions and then they didn't look at you genuinely. That's bullshit, I'm going to call those people into my office right now and we're going to have a CTJ baby, we're going to have a Come to Jesus because no one treats people on my team like that. And you know what? I'm with you, my sister." So let's explain the pain in that.

AB: Yes, so now you haven't paused at all to ask me, "Hey, well, what do you need?" You went straight to fixing, and now you feel great.

BB: I do.

AB: And you're the savior, and you're just with it, and I'm still there with not really fully being heard yet.

BB: And now I'm like, "I've sprouted my white girl halo, I'm the ally now, look at me, I'm in the ally." So this is actually probably what I would say, "I think invisibility is one of the most painful experiences I've ever had in my life, and my gut is, we need to address this, but I want you to take some time and think about what support looks like for you in addressing this, and how we can do this together, or maybe more importantly, how I can support you doing it. And that support can look like whatever you need it to look like, but I'm sorry that happened because I know how good that work was, and I know how hard you worked to put that together, and it's not okay."

AB: Exactly. And now I feel completely seen, I don't feel disempowered, I feel heard, and now even the shame or humiliation I feel has dissipated to an extent, and that is so empowering, completely different way, but it took time and took you to be introspective. Even that pause, I'm thinking about your power and privilege in the moment and how can it be used in concert together, all of those steps, which oftentimes we don't see happening.

BB: And I have to say that one of the things that we talked about yesterday, you and I, in the empathy pause is I am examining, as your leader and as a leader, maybe of Brad and the other people in there, I'm examining... I have a part in this. Maybe I didn't build this culture, but I'm running it now, let me tell you though, I had five off tap out of and discomfort moments that I had to circumvent. Those are real for people, and those are not just real for white folks, those are real for everybody in a situation with empathy. If someone that you love, who looks just like you, who has a shared lived experience, calls you and says, "This is the hardest shit thing that I'm going through right now." Every one of us has tap out of empathy opportunities. The difference is, I think... And this is white supremacy, is, we don't have to pause as long around the believing with people who are more like us.

AB: Yeah, and we have to also just recognize that that is part of human nature, right? Is likeness in group? And it's a matter of now we need to exercise this kind of transcendence in the area of ways and gender very intentionally, and to do it that way. So I think there's something else you just said too, which is that, "Hey, I didn't create it, but I'm a part of it now and I can do something about it." And that is another distinguishing factor that a lot of people don't see, they see this, all of these systemic things as individualistic, "Well, my ancestors didn't own slaves." Well, I didn't say that, but this idea of seeing a system and recognizing we all are impacted, and how do I address the system? That's the thing I can do. How do I address the system? That's my role. Right?

BB: Yeah. And for me, one of the things that was very changing for me probably, I don't know, at some point in my social work career, is I had a teacher, Jean Kantambu Latting, she taught systems theory, it was very difficult class in structural functionalism, like just a study of systems, and she used to say when systems are in place, you are either actively supporting them or actively dismantling them, there are not any neutral behaviors. Do you believe that?

AB: Yes, absolutely. I think that's a lot of the premise of a lot of Kendi's work, right.

BB: Oh, Ibram Kendi, yeah.

AB: Yeah, yep, yep. So the other part too, is even in working again with just people of color, it's the same thing, a fish doesn't know it's in water. We're swimming in it too, as people of color, you're swimming in white supremacy also, and there's a risk that you're perpetuating it, when we talk about the cheap seats, or we talk about where is the inner critic coming from, for people of color it's repeating things that a white supremacist system has told you about yourself and now you're repeating it to yourself. So we also have to extract ourselves actively in order to support ourselves and see ourselves separate from what the messages are that we're being told everyday that, "You don't belong here. You're not worthy. You're less than. Who do you think you are that you're in there?" And it's different, a lot of people can play impostor syndrome as the same for everyone, but when you're in a system that's designed to tell you that you're less than and for everyone to believe it, that's a hell of a different kind of impostor syndrome and inner-critic voices that you're hearing than others.

BB: Oh God, yes.

AB: And us doing that work constantly to have to elevate ourselves in a way that's totally counter to what the system would be telling us about ourselves, right?

BB: Yes. And that is the entire field of study of internalized oppression, that is... I think of our friend Sonya Renee Taylor, it's like her work.

AB: Yes, amen to that, amen to that. Yes, and even that... Yeah, just her as part of a closure process, I often talk about her three pieces.

BB: Tell us.

AB: But that idea of not feeling like you have to understand everything. Her three pieces about your body, they are exactly what we need in order to make us stop, reflect, and make sure we're not internalizing. So it's the same steps we talked about before about racing to action bias when you're dealing with somebody who has an experience different from yours and assessing your privilege and what have you, it's the same for us in terms of, "Hey, what am I thinking? Why am I thinking that about myself? Okay, whose message is that?" And then reclaiming a message about yourself that's true, that tells you that you belong, that tells you that you're worthy, and that means that you have to slow down to be able to do that. You have to slow down and reflect all of those same steps that we talked about for other people, we have to do it ourselves. I don't think anybody escapes that, right?

BB: No, no one rides for free on that one, for sure.

[laughter]

AB: There's not much in society that gives us space to just slow down unless we take it. It's definitely something that we have to take. So I want to say that making peace with not understanding, making peace with difference, and making peace with your body, those three pieces that she talks about.

BB: Those are Sonya Renee Taylor's three pieces?

AB: They are, they are.

BB: Say them one more time.

AB: Making peace with not understanding, making peace with difference, and making peace with your body. In her work, it is so powerful in terms of using it with in-group, I use it often, yeah.

BB: She's got a great book called, The Body Is Not an Apology, and I also did an Unlocking Us episode with her.

AB: Yes, and anybody who has not listened to it needs to, and if you have not gotten the book, The Body Is Not an Apology: The Power of Radical Self-Love, get it.

BB: As you can tell, Aiko and I are fans. Okay.

AB: Yes.

BB: I'm going to have to ask you this. Can we do Part Two of this?

AB: Yes.

BB: I think we have just blown my mind, shored up my heart, grounded my feet. I just loved you so much going into this, and now it's even more, if possible.

AB: Thank you for having me, and I will just say that the work that you've put out there has been so instrumental in the work that I do and DEI work with leaders, and also with in-group communities, it's been super powerful, the language and experience of shame and grief, they're universal, and I think really for us to get to this transformative space where we appreciate ourselves, our experiences, and one another is core to it. It's core.

BB: It's core. We are just the innate need to be loved and seen, and to love and see others, maybe we end up with another person whose work we both... We appreciate Austin Channing Brown, who said anti-racism work is the work of being a better human being to other human beings.

AB: Yep, yep.

BB: Alright. We're going to come back, we're going to... If you're listening, you can access Aiko's Medium article on the web page for the podcast, and then we're going to come back. I think this is just the most unexpected and powerful conversation, and then we're going to come back and do a Part Two to this with tangible next steps.

AB: Oh, we didn't even get to that. [chuckle]

BB: But you know why we didn't?

AB: Why's that?

BB: Because we didn't succumb to the action bias.

AB: That's right, you're right. We took our time, we had a conversation. [chuckle]

BB: We had a conversation that was transformative about transformative, and we didn't go straight into the list of things for organizations to do, and I saw your heart in this conversation, and I think this is where change starts because someone named Aiko taught me that.

AB: Oh, you made me warm and fuzzy, oh no. We need to end it now because now it's now like... [laughter] Thank you for saying that.

BB: Thank you. But Part Two, are you... Can I commit to all of our listeners here there's a Part Two?

AB: Yep, I'm down with that.

BB: Alright, before I let you go, we're all warm and fuzzy, but before I let you go, we've got to do the rapid-fire questions, fill in the blank for me. Ready? Vulnerability is.

AB: Everyone.

BB: What is something that people often get wrong about you?

AB: That I don't have a sense of humor.

BB: That is definitely wrong. Okay, what is one piece of leadership advice that you've been given that's so remarkable, you need to share it with us, or so crappy that you need to warn us?

AB: Terrible is make sure you're seen. Wonderful is, I love when people say, "Why did God give you two ears and one mouth?" That's the best. That's a church lady, giving me that.

[laughter]

BB: That's the best. Okay, what is one stereotype or myth of leadership that we need to let go of?

AB: Well, that's the last person in the room.

BB: Say more.

AB: Leadership is the person who's in the front of the room.

BB: Yeah. So really the leader is the last?

AB: Yes, absolutely.

BB: Okay, what would you say to someone who doesn't consider themselves a leader or leadership material?

AB: Everybody is a leader. Don't believe the lies.

BB: What's your best leadership quality?

AB: I love stories, I love listening to stories.

BB: What's the hard leadership lesson that you have to keep learning and unlearning and re-learning, that lesson that the universe just keeps putting in front of you?

AB: You can't fix everything, and you shouldn't fix everything, everything's not there for you to fix.

BB: That felt aggressively attacking of me.

[laughter]

AB: That's mine, for sure.

BB: Yep. Okay, what's one thing you're really excited about right now?

AB: Georgia turned blue. I'm super excited about that. Georgia turned blue. I'm so proud of all the people who made it happen. Stacey Abrams, Natasha Brown, these folks who I love and I'm just, I'm so proud.

BB: Amen. Tell me one thing that you're deeply grateful for right now.

AB: My boys. Wes and Ben.

BB: Wes and Ben. Ages?

AB: 12 and 11. Now ask me, sizes: 6 feet and 5'8″.

BB: In order? Is the 12-year-old taller?

AB: Yes.

BB: Got it. Wow, those are big boys.

AB: They are. With big hearts.

BB: So we asked you for five songs, you can't live without. You gave us seven and we said, "Okay," because you're Aiko and we love you. You did make a note on number one, which is "Lift Every Voice." That this is the only one that you really can't live without. The others are "Baby, I'm a Star," by Prince. "Stand Up," by Cynthia Erivo, from the Harriet soundtrack. "Keep on Going," by Vivian Green. "Blessed." by Jill Scott. "I Choose," by India Arie, and "Freedom," by Beyoncé. In one sentence, what does this mini mix tape say about you?

AB: It says that I'm hopeful, it says that I love my heritage, and it says that I'm looking forward to my legacy.

BB: Thank you, Aiko Bethea for joining us on the Dare to Lead podcast. You're making a difference.

AB: Thank you for having me Brené.

[music]

BB: Man, do you see now why I'm so incredibly grateful for Aiko as a teacher, as a friend, as a colleague? She just has a deeply human way of helping us understand our own humanity, if you want to follow her on Instagram, it's @rare_coach, Rare is R-A-R-E. She's LinkedIn Aiko Bethea. Facebook is Facebook.com/rarecoach. And her website is www.rarecoaching.net. Really appreciate you listening to the Dare to Lead podcast. My goal is to take on the issues that we are all up against, that we're all facing the real questions, we're going to have Aiko back, we're going to dig into some more tactical, practical steps, not for transactional change, but for transformational change, but I love that we started with the conversation and the narrative. Thank you so much for joining us on the Dare to Lead podcast. This is a Spotify original from Parcast. It's hosted by me, Brené Brown. It's produced by Max Cutler, Kristen Acevedo, Carleigh Madden, and by Weird Lucy Productions. The sound design is by Kristen Acevedo, and the music is by the amazing band, The Suffers.

[music]

© 2020 Brené Brown Education and Research Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

Dare to Lead Podcast with Paul Leonardi & Tsedal Neeley

Dare to Lead Podcast with Paul Leonardi & Tsedal Neeley

Dare to Lead Podcast with Mike Erwin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brené with Aiko Bethea on Inclusivity at Work: The Heart of Hard Conversations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this episode, I talk to friend, colleague, and diversity, equity, and inclusion expert Aiko Bethea. We discuss empathy, accountability, and the power of listening and believing (including a very real role play). We also dissect the differences between transactional leadership and transformational leadership and why courage is a prerequisite to lasting, meaningful change.