🎧bit.ly/DEIisAudioEp11- | 📺bit.ly/DEIisVideoEp11
Enrico E. Manalo 00:00
This is your host and DiVerity PBC's Community Engagement Lead, Enrico E. Manalo. "Intersectionality", once relegated to the confines of law scholarship, the term has made waves since finding its way to the mainstream. But what does intersectionality really mean? And what does the term mean now that corporations have started using it? In this episode interdisciplinary scholar, Assistant Professor at Duke University, and advisor of Diverity PBC, Dr. Nikki Lane joins The "DEI is:" Podcast to shine light on what's going on. With Dr. Lane we explore the history of intersectionality, its ethical dimensions, the challenges of public discourse, the value of taking our time to really understand concepts and theories that make the leap from the academe to the public sphere, and so much more. Just a reminder, if you find what we talk about on the DEI is podcast to be useful, insightful or just plain interesting. Give us a like, share it with your friends. And of course, please, please, please subscribe! DEI is: "Intersectionality", Organizational Progress, & Political Impact with Dr. Nikki Lane starts in three, two . . .
Enrico 01:19
Hello, and welcome, everybody. I'm here today with Dr. Nikki Lane, who is an interdisciplinary scholar trained as a cultural and linguistic anthropologist, working along the edges of academia making contemporary Critical Theory accessible, using common sense everyday language that anyone can understand. Dr. Lane is an Assistant Professor at Duke University, and is an advisor for DiVerity. We're talking about intersectionality, ethical considerations in DEI and how we engage with one another. I know it is also the day after Voting Day, so I hope that everybody got out there and voted and I guess we will see how that all went later today. So one of the things we're talking about today is intersectionality, right? So today in 2022 there are a lot of people who are familiar with the term, or at least they think they are. And there's been much discussion on Kimberlé Crenshaw or Dr. Kimberlé Crenshaw's meaning in coining the term in 1989, how activists in interested in racial or social equity have understood the term, and how some are responding to the ways that activists themselves use the term. So Dr. Lane, in our discussion leading up to this episode, you mentioned that it's interesting to think about intersectionality in corporate contexts, specifically that quote, unquote, intersectionality is a good word to describe what people are after, but that isn't exactly what's meant by academics or activists. So could you say more about that?
Dr. Nikki Lane 02:46
Yeah, I can say briefly that, um, you know, one of the most interesting things about the term showing up in these corporate spaces is that Crenshaw coins the term out of the—out of legal scholarship, right? She's talking about this in the context of legal systems, right, the idea that it's very difficult to sue someone for racial discrimination and gender discrimination at the same time, right? And so, you know, in some ways, intersectionality comes up because, you know, one of—some of the examples that Crenshaw is using is, it's people trying to sue the companies they work for, right? And so to think then about corporations, or companies bringing intersectionality in and trying to think about what it means is really quite interesting. I mean, I don't know if that's what she would have thought would have been possible, or if that's even, you know, that's something that—it's just interesting, right? And it's very interesting to see, it's interesting also to see how the term intersectionality can show up in these corporate spaces. But these spaces are often very hostile at the same time to Black women. You know, so for me, part of it is also like these, these are some of the exact places that have been hostile towards the people who bring this term to you, right? The Black feminist thinkers and scholars, and activists who've been working with this term are often excluded from these various places and spaces. So I think it's really interesting in a lot of ways, but those are the two that I think are perhaps at the top of my list.
Enrico 04:36
So what do you make of kind of the way that the general public has kind of run with the term?
Dr. Lane 04:42
I mean, I think that that's to be expected. I think that happens oftentimes with things that are being discussed in academic spaces. They eventually make their way out into the general public. It can happen in a number of different ways, either someone within the context of it academia writes a book that get—that galvanizes a public audience in a particular kind of way. So you might see it show up in that play—in that way. But also, I mean, there's also this way that it travels with Black women who themselves have become quite famous, right? Kimberlé Crenshaw becomes a really important public figure and so you hear her voice, you can hear her talking about intersectionality, you can type intersectionality, and Kimberlé Crenshaw's name in YouTube and watch her give a talk about it. So it's very easy to access intersectionality in a way that, at least for me, is really exciting to see. Because I think the scholarship and the work that we do in the classrooms and the things that we do in the scholarship that we produce, in academia should be in the public, it should be a part of public discourse, we should be thinking with the people who we're studying with. But what that also means is that the full context where I where I might be able to teach intersectionality over the course of two to three weeks to my students with prep time, and, you know, deep thought and critical thinking and other kinds of ways of getting them acclimated to the concept, those are things that are very difficult to sometimes do in public spaces.
Enrico 06:19
Yeah.
Dr. Lane 06:20
So what happens is, is the public gets this term and they get it in a very specific, almost, some might say, "watered down" way that doesn't really allow them to access the full complexity of—of what the term means, or the term in relationship to Black feminist thinkers. Instead, they say they see intersectionality and they think of it they think of Kimberlé Crenshaw, and they sometimes—they sometimes do this thing where they think of all Black feminist theory, or all Black feminist scholarship as those two things, those two—
Enrico 06:55
Yeah. Yeah, I mean, it is interesting—like, so one of the things that we can't kind of "wave away" is, we live in an increasingly complex world and you know, biologically, our processing power hasn't increased at all. And we're still just somehow supposed to get used to "drinking from the firehose", right? It's like, you know, like, to your point, when I learned about social identity theory in grad school, like, it took me a while to wrap my head around the concept. But now that the public's kind of gotten a hold of it, it's like, "oh, this is just this divisive thing" and like, just dismissed out of hand, and it's like, "no, there's a lot more to this and this actually explains a lot of what we're experiencing and—
Dr. Lane 07:03
Right
Enrico 07:03
I'm aware that I'm sounding like a giant nerd to you, and you're like, looking at me weird." And it's like, you know, this whole thing?
Dr. Lane 07:46
Yeah no, it's true I mean, you know, I, I've spent the better part of a decade or so studying Black feminist theory and I understand intersectionality as one of many ways that Black feminist thinkers, Black Queer theorists have work—have worked with systems of oppression, the way power works, and how those things are related to one another. So intersectionality is one of many things in my toolkit for understanding how things are related to one another; how race, gender, sex class and how those things are related. And when I think of intersectionality, specifically, I'm tend—I tend to think about discrimination and oppression. So I tend to think about how racism, sexism, heterosexism are interrelated to one another. So I don't—so if you know, so when you're talking about intersectionality, what people sometimes do is they talk about it in the same language that they're used to, which is usually like identity—identity politics, right? They're thinking about it in—in terms—in very specific terms of identity. And I'm like, "I don't really think that's what Crenshaw was talking about". I mean, maybe she was, we could ask her,
Enrico 09:01
Yeah, still alive.
Dr. Lane 09:02
but I think this is the thing. This is the part of like, what happens in academia, right? We argue. We do not all agree
Enrico 09:12
Yeah.
Dr. Lane 09:12
whether or not it's an explanatory term to discuss identity, or if it's an explanatory term to discuss oppression or discrimination. We are not all on the same page.
Enrico 09:23
Yeah.
Dr. Lane 09:24
So I think it's also important to understand that sometimes what happens is you get these terms and you get these phrases out of academia, but the complexity even of how they are discussed, within or among the people who are using it, that complexity gets lost too.
Enrico 09:42
That's absolutely true. And for those who are tuning in, if you've never become familiar with how smack is talked in academic circles, let me tell you, it can be devastating you know—
Dr. Lane 09:56
We get—mmm, people get UGLY, people get nasty
Enrico 09:58
People throw down
Dr. Lane 10:00
it's throwdowns. It's a whole paper reading [unclear]. It's absolutely brilliant. Something like that out—like, mwah! Beef is great when it's coming out, you know, it's like a 20 page article of just straight up beef. It's great.
Enrico 10:13
Yeah
Dr. Lane 10:14
Um, but you know, but that's true, right? We argue we have conversations about it. We sit around at academic conferences disagreeing with one another, right? These are things that we do. And the reason we do it is because it actually moves the scholarship forward.
Enrico 10:29
Yeah.
Dr. Lane 10:30
Like you have to have critical debate and critical conversations in order to find something new. And so I think even the—the practice, right of being in conversation with people who agree with you, partly and not is something that I try to teach my students how to do.
Enrico 10:49
Yeah.
Dr. Lane 10:50
But the complexity of even trying to do that in a public forum, in a public space can be really difficult to try to do. You know, how do you hold on to disagreement and still know that y'all are still working towards the same thing?
Enrico 11:03
Right. And so my background is in Conflict Resolution with a focus on productive conflict. And this is definitely one expression right? Scientific rigor is absolutely productive conflict. And it's something like, the term "intersectionality" escapes from the ivory tower into the mainstream, but none of that productive conflict, and that rigor comes with it. And that's—that I see as a big problem, like, not just for that one term, but in so many aspects of our lives, because it's what helps us to actually understand what we're—what—like these deeper, more complex issues. So I'll pivot to the audience real quick. So how do you explain intersectionality to those unfamiliar, or to who "think" they are familiar with the term, so—
Dr. Lane 11:49
Oh!
Enrico 11:53
Please tell me more.
Dr. Lane 11:55
Oh, I pull out a PowerPoint, I be like, "sit down". I'll pull up my PowerPoint. No, but I will, I will say this, I do—I mean, I teach intersectionality when I teach Black feminist theory, or—and I teach things related to it. And I do it in a couple of different ways. And I usually do it depending on what I need my students to be able to do at the end, right? If I need them to be able to do a thing that we call in Black feminist theory, "intersectional analysis", then I teach them intersectionality in a way that they can perform or conduct a particular kind of analysis.
Enrico 12:33
Yeah.
Dr. Lane 12:33
Right? So, so it's—so I teach it in a way that it needs in ways that are sensitive to how it needs to be operationalized in some way. Um, but but I think I mean, at least when I'm hearing this question, I think someone might want me to give them like a one sentence, one or two sentence answer to it. And the truth is, is that I don't do that, you know, somebody wants to know what intersectionality is, I'd be like, "Okay, you want to understand intersectionality? Well, then you need to understand that Black woman had been doing this work for a long time." All right, I talk about—I go back to Ida B. Wells Barnett. In 1892. She writes this pamphlet called "Southern Horrors: Lynch Law and All Its Phases". She writes this essay about lynching, and she in it—and she talks about the different positions of Black men and white men, white women and Black women in the context of lynching in the United States. She teases out, right? The speci—the specificity of their experiences of this one kind of phenomenon. That is "doing" intersectionality. And I think it's one of the most brilliant pieces of writing I've read in a long time—you know, ever right? Written in 1918—1892. And if you go back and look at some of Ida B. Wells's writing in Southern Horrors. It reads like it could be some really A-1 Twitter threads, you know, like, I would love to just start an Ida B. Wells Barnett Twitter account just so I can, like—anyway, she—but what she does is she analyzes race, gender, and sex—sexuality, and region, all at the same time.
Enrico 12:39
Wow.
Dr. Lane 13:32
Right. And that's what she's able to do. That's what we call, like, that's the "thing", like that's "doing the thing" that's making race, gender sexuality, important all at the same time, right and not—and also differentiating the ways that they affect people differently based on their social location. So I think that—so I would start there, you know? That's 1892 and she's not calling it intersectional—"intersectionality" that would happen 100 years later, right? But then you have someone like, um—but then—but then you have someone like Anna Julia Cooper, who writes this essay—you know who writes this book "A Voice from the South" (also in 1892). She says this thing that's really important, she says, you know [paraphrasing], "only Black women can say when and where I enter—the whole Negro race can come with me." So what—what—what she's saying is that those at the very bottom of these particular kinds of social structures, if THEY can get in, then everybody above them (or slightly above them) can also get in too.
Enrico 15:27
Right.
Dr. Lane 15:27
If you if you address the needs of the "lowest", then everybody else can get into just by the very nature of the lowest being accounted for. When—when Kimberlé Crenshaw writes her essay in 1989, "Demarginalizing the Intersection [of Race and Sex]", she gives us one—you know, she gives us a couple different metaphors, in thinking about intersectionality gives us an intersection, like a literal intersection.
Enrico 15:50
Right.
Dr. Lane 15:51
Cross streets, and then that moment in the middle, the injury occurs, and you can't really tell if it's because this street, you know—folks come—but you can't really tell at that moment. But she also gives us another metaphor to think about intersectionality. And it's a basement, where at the bottom of that basement is all the people who are multiple disadvantaged for a multiple different reasons. And at the top in the upper room are those who experience no forms of discrimination.
Enrico 16:17
Yeah.
Dr. Lane 16:17
On the shoulders of those who are at the very bottom are those who can say, but for one thing, they too could be in that upper room. One thing, they too can be in the upper room. And so Anna, Julia Cooper literally did that in 1892. So, um, and so—and then I will talk about Francis Beale, who wrote this essay in 1970, called "Double Jeopardy [To Be Black and Female]", where she's thinking about the very specific condition of being a Black woman, being a Black activist, and how Black women are experiencing patriarchy at the hands primarily of Black men, but also white men, AND they're experiencing white supremacy at the same time. Yeah, a Black woman end up in a very peculiar kind of position in society, and what she calls it is "double jeopardy". 1988, Deborah King writes an essay—that's a year before intersectionality is termed, she calls the phenomenon "multiple jeopardy".
Enrico 17:15
Yeah, I remember learning about that.
Dr. Lane 17:17
Okay, so that's 18—that's 1988. A year later, intersectionality comes out. There's a reason—I mean, look, we don't talk about multiple jeopardy. We don't say multiple jeopardy, but we say intersectionality. There—it could have gone the other way.
Enrico 17:31
Sure.
Dr. Lane 17:32
You know, it just didn't. It didn't take off in the same way. But what I want to—but what I like to impress upon people is when I'm explaining intersectionality, is that intersectionality is one way to describe a set of theoretical interventions that Black women have been making since the 1800s.
Enrico 17:52
Yeah, so I mean, thank you for walking through—us through that so quickly, because I think what's evident is there's so, so much behind the term. And when people kind of go off thinking they know what they're talking about, it's like it totally misses the mark. And then we end up in these spaces where we're actually not talking TO each other, we're talking PAST each other, right? And each side ends up bewildered, right? It's like, "what is happening?" Like, "I think I'm making sense." But as we know, you can proceed rationally from a faulty premise. And this is where science and social science—yes, that's "real science" too—comes in, and says, "hang on, what are our assumptions here? Let's check these things, somebody check my head, peers review me," right? We don't have that in the public sphere, right? Because it just goes back and forth. "This is what 'this' is", "nuh-uh", and it's like that "kiddie stuff" all over again.
Dr. Lane 18:50
You know it's really hard to have dynamic conversations in public spaces, which is why I tend to shy away from it because it's really, um, some people do it with with class and flair and I'm always just so like, "wow, how can you do that?" You know, but the truth is, is like just—you know, when people ask me questions like that, where they want like a simple, watered down answer, I simply choose not to provide it.
Enrico 19:18
Yeah, you know, that's—a lot of DEI practitioners talk about, like when people need to intervene, right, how to account for the bystander effect. However, there is another part of this too, that often we can't really see until the moment has passed, like, maybe it's better not to engage at all. And sometimes that can feel like "I'm just being a coward, I'm being a part of the problem", but this is part of the difficulty of navigating racism, you know, because like sometimes, we react and we bring a lot of stuff with us, right? And that's what people respond to, rather than the content of what we're trying to get at, right? And frankly, not a lot of people have been trained or have much practice in dealing (in healthy ways) with criticism, right, those defenses come up, and then their emotions come up and then again, what happens? Not a whole lot that's productive.
Dr. Lane 20:18
Mm hm.
Enrico 20:20
So we got a couple of comments coming in. Let's see. So, Kristina says, nice to see you again, Kristina, "Such an important point of defining our terms when we work with others so that we can assess if we are all on the same page." Oh, yeah, absolutely. Quinten says, "love when academics argue back and forth at each other in journal article form." Yes. And this can go on for years or even decades, I have to say. "So many terms and concepts get watered down in that way." That's Quinten, again. Tahseen's chiming in, "So important to remember that even people in pursuit of the same goals do not agree all the time." Yes. And this is why we have this experiment of democracy, right? We—it's hard to do that, so we're trying in our various ways to accomplish that equitably. And we don't always succeed. Quinten back again, "I tend to start with Dr. Crenshaw's work and definition first, depending on the audience, we either talk deeper about oppression or identity. There is no one sentence answer to be honest." Yeah. That is definitely true. So we've been talking a little bit about the impact here, right, and of DEI, of, of social science and scientific scholarship in some respects. But there's also like this thread of ethics, right? So, I mean, if we're thinking about the ethical dimensions of DEI and social change, does that in your mind, maybe have something to do with—you know, people have a lot of expectation around what we're going to accomplish with DEI. But then there's also this kind of "what happened, we had so much energy, and where did that all go?"
Dr. Lane 22:12
Yeah, you know, I think that, um, I think the, you know, I think doing DEI work as, especially as someone who also, you know, studies race, gender, sexuality at the same time, I find that I'm often asked to do things like, "can you just come and talk to us about intersectionality?" And I'm like, "Well, why?"
Enrico 22:40
"What are you gonna do?"
Dr. Lane 22:41
"What are you gonna do with it?" You know, like, what's, what's the end goal? And I think that the—I actually think that that's an important kind of question to prompt the people who we work for on. Like, they may not know that they—they really do need to think critically about why they want to bring this in. Are you just bringing it in because you just want people to know this term that you learned that one time when you were at dinner with somebody and y'all were talking about it? Because they saw that podcast that one time and they saw that—you know, like, is that it, or is there something that you think that this can do for the people who you work for? Is there something that ya'll see is a need? Is there something at work or at play, that you want this term to be in circulation with the people who you work with or for, to some specific end? Right? Um, and so to me, I think there's a—there needs to be some kind of like, ethical there needs to be like an impulse to be ethical in that way to think about why you want to do these things. And whether or not that actually shifts or changes the culture, I don't know. But I do think that there's a way that we can be present as people who are doing this work to be—to be the folks to ask, like, "why do you want me to come here? I mean, I'll come because you're paying me money. But also, why do you even talk about this thing specifically?"
Enrico 24:10
Yeah.
Dr. Lane 24:10
What—what's the utility here? Because for me, I—I mean, I think all of us take our own forms of "Hippocratic oaths", right, in relationship to DEI, we don't want to do any harm. I don't want to go there and do harm. Especially—importantly (at least for me) to the Black women who are working there. I don't want to come here and bring this term in and then have ya'll using this term all wrong at the next meeting, and that she has to sit there and not be—and not be spoken to at all, and have her ideas not brought to the fore. But y'all know about intersectionality now so y'all feel like y'all know stuff.
Enrico 24:45
Yay [sarcastically].
Dr. Lane 24:45
So that to me is really important, right? Bringing things in, is it just so that people can have a particular kind of "vocabulary" so they can perform knowledge? Or is it because they want to actually do something different?
Enrico 24:59
Yeah, because there's a lot of things that we can do like, you know, you were talking to us before, like before the term "intersectionality" was even coined people were calling the same thing, different things, or maybe they didn't even have a specific name for it. Sure, like, if we have a name for something, then it's easier to talk about, but it doesn't necessarily make it easier to DO. Right? If the point is "doing" than knowing the name of it, who cares? Frankly, just do the thing.
Dr. Lane 25:28
You need to do it like, you nee—you know, you need those —yeah, I mean, and that's the thing. Like, it's interesting to think about what, like I said, I don't know, what intersectionality does in the context of the corporation or the company, right? But what does it do? I don't know, I don't even know if it belongs there, right? And I think that, um, I don't think it belongs there, if it's going to be used against Black folks.
Enrico 25:55
Right? For one.
Dr. Lane 25:57
You see what I'm saying? Like, I don't know if that's—like that, to me seems a little like "suspicious". And I—but I sometimes go into these places where, you know, they have a bunch of business resource groups, right? And like, part of what they're interested in—and this is important to say, like I've worked with people who I think are, are really trying to do something different, right? Like, they really want to BE different, they really want to BE ethical. And they're genuinely interested in doing better, and they want their organizations to be better, and they want them to be more accountable. And they want that—like, this is what they brought me there for, right, this is what they want. And, and so they just don't know how to do it. And so they'll say something like "intersectionality". And they think that it's like sexy, and other people are doing it. And it seems like a new word to throw in the mix. And it might get more people at the event. But, you know, the truth is, is that once you throw it in the mix, it becomes really difficult to ignore all the ways that your company might not be able to do it.
Enrico 27:00
Yeah. Yeah, that's certainly true. And I mean, you know, not for nothing here. But like this is also entering—like it's being weaponized at the political level in political discourse, right? And in that way, it's yes, often weaponized against Black people, but also against anybody else, right? And it's like, now we it's even harder to do "the thing", which is simply to vote for the things that improve our lot in life. That's, that's what voting is for. And yet we've all you know, we're continuing under this paradigm where again, and again, people are being misled by fancy language, new terms, new outrages, and for what? Right?
Dr. Lane 27:44
It doesn't really get at the heart of what we're, you know, what, what we're doing or what we're trying to do. But I think, you know, some in some ways, there's this—I think that in some ways, there could be a really practical use of doing at least—in the context of—in the context of like a company or corporation doing it thing that I often teach my students to do around what I call an inter—you know, if you want to do an intersection—intersectional analysis, these are the three things you need to do, right? And I tell them that you need to first ask primarily, which group of people are you talking about. Which women, which men are you talking about? Which Black people? Which disabled folks, are you talking about, right? There's a very, there's a very practical way to actualize this right? You can just ask "which folks you're talking about", right? Rather than assuming that this block of people are all the same, but trying to—trying to think across the difference, right? I think what sometimes can happen to us also in political discourse, is we like to lump everybody together, and we assume that everyone has the same needs, desires, wants, even within that particular block or in that particular group. I don't think that's true. And I think any—if you ask enough people, you'll notice that, "oh, there's grade—there's gradations, there's ways that people come to these things in different ways." And I think that that's, in my opinion, part of what an intersectional approach can, like, offer us is like, if you're thinking—if you're not approaching lumps or groups of people in this way, where you think like, "oh, all x people want this particular thing and therefore they'll want to do it this way". Well, maybe, but maybe not. You know, like, you know, we have to be able to pivot and think about the specificities of people, but also know that those things may be linked to things like their socioeconomic status, it might be linked to their gender, it might be —you know, it might it might be, but sometimes it's just idiosyncratic.
Enrico 29:52
So if I hear what you're saying correctly, and please do correct me if I'm wrong, but it's like if we want to get better at serving the general public, like everybody or as many people as possible, then we really have to drill down to a much finer level of detail so that we can really see what's going on. Because we make a lot of assumptions when we're just lumping people together. Is that fair?
Dr. Lane 30:14
There it is.
Enrico 30:16
So, we are running out of time here. But do you have any kind of parting thoughts for people tuning in as we—as you and I know—day in and day out, the world is just getting more complex, right? There's more things that are dog whistles and distractions and how do we deal with that?
Dr. Lane 30:35
You know, if I had to—you know, if I had to sum things up, I would say that, um, I think it's really important to engage in some serious self-study about these terms that come out, these new things that come out. And you can do what I do, which is to try to put a little bit of critical distance between yourself and the thing. I study pop-culture. So I study the stuff that's happening right now all the time. And yet, I'm still sensitive to immediately commenting on something, you'll—you'll almost never see me watch something or see something on TV and immediately have a thought piece that comes out afterward, six hours after it came out. You know what I mean? That doesn't allow you to sit with a thing, to study a thing to go walk back and watch that clip again. "Does that clip sound like it was spliced? Does that sound like a whole sentence? Someone would say? Where's the full clip?" Where's, you know, like, if you say you're interested in a thing, then do the work to actually figure out the thing. That's a me, I'm always very much a fan of doing self-study. That does not require a PhD, that just requires an internet connection and a willingness to sit with a thing and put some distance between what other folks are saying, and how you might actually be able to approach that thing.
Enrico 32:01
Right. And yeah, to bring up something you were saying earlier, I highly doubt that Ida B. Wells was out there, just releasing her thoughts into the ether immediately after witnessing all that she must have sat with that, and really combed through her thoughts reflected on how she felt about it, and how she wanted to say it.
Dr. Lane 32:21
Exactly. You can't get that—you can't get her level of analysis without sitting. She sat—she must have, she must have been surrounded by newspaper clippings. The project is about she looks at news—the way the news talks about lynching. And it was—it's absolutely brilliant. You can't do that kind of work without just sitting there for a REALLY LONG TIME and seeing and noticing the patterns.
Enrico 32:45
Yeah.
Dr. Lane 32:46
So to me, it's all about pattern recognition. Humans are very good at that. But if we don't give ourselves enough time to actually sit with things, then we won't be able to recognize the patterns.
Enrico 32:57
100% If you're interested in finding out more about what Dr. Lane is up to please go visit her website at www.TheDrLane.com. And you can also find her on Instagram @thedrlane or on Facebook at the same handle. Dr. Lane, thank you so so much for joining us today. It was a real pleasure. I really wish we had more time but perhaps we can do a part two or something.
Dr. Lane 33:24
Part two, all right, ya'll.
Enrico 33:26
Thanks everyone bye.
Enrico 33:28
Enrico here. Thanks so much for tuning in to The "DEI is:" Podcast. If you're walking away from this episode, feeling like you've learned something, saw something from another angle, or if you just enjoyed it, give us a like, share it with your friends and please subscribe. Building a diverse equitable and inclusive organization is hard but finding DEI expertise and services shouldn't be. If you're looking find us at diverity.com That's D-I-V-E-R-I-T-Y dot com. Till next time, this is Enrico E. Manalo. See you soon.
DEI is: “Intersectionality”, Organizational Progress & Political Impact