The Ladipo Group is a premier provider of Therapy services and Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion consulting. We work with individuals and organizations to elevate the Black experience at home, at work, and in the world.
Being the favorite…at the expense of others is one of the grossest feelings I’ve ever felt. I quickly fell from ‘grace’ when I called it out, however. 😂 Either, Everyone is the favorite…or no one is the favorite. There really is no grey area.
I got great work reviews raises every where I worked that I was told anyway. I've been a victim of this my entire career with steroid men fighting with each other with workplace women. Which affected me when their side transactions got my apartment door kicked in when they hugged and flirted with each other in front of me in every environment i ever worked in since 1995. Apparently they were the disgruntled employees when the preferential treatment of their work buddies didn't last. They attached perverted voyeur istic pictures to my resume.
Brilliant talk. I was so moved by your story. I had to stop the video. It NEVER goes away. Civilian or Military. Young and now, older. Workplace or Doctor's office. I have worked HR all my life in some fashion. I can't tell you how this never fails to be a factor for me. It's a loop that's maddening. Whether it's being passed up, or asked to do task which no one else would have to, or presenting awards to derelict co-workers, I remained professional. Courteous. Fair. Advocated for disenfranchised and undeserved. When it came to me, no one helped, stood, or remembered me. My code, morals, and ethics are my greatest regret. I could and would of if I were White. Truth be told it was ALWAYS my own who hurt me. The ones I made every effort that they were heard and seen. If it can't be me, let one of us? Good deeds. Good intentions. Added up to nothing and nowhere.
Being white, I definitely recognise my privilege in a predominately white society and I've seen these issues with my own eyes in the workplace. I have noticed differences in gender treatment as a female. As females, we are branded as "emotional" whereas males would be "strong" for bringing up the same thing. The personality thing is totally a bias too. Currently experiencing this. The only real solution is to leave and find better employment, which I'm in the process of doing.
I've been mobbed and gaslighting at work for over 12 years till present. Full of NPD cowards at work and will end up exposing themselves.. I'm a top worker, jealous of me big time and of my money and condo too. Defamation of character. Saying I'm a stalker, I drink, I'm crazy. All bs. Managers are scared of the bullies, they do nothing, union, police are all totally useless too. Toxic workplace in healthcare. Been working 38 years and never been suspended. Action speaks louder than words. But this crap never ends trying to scare the women at work, all the insecure and toxic women. I will never quit due to these lazy bums with no life. These 2 guys should be locked up and have the manager fired.
Wow I look just like you (the only difference is I have a hijab on my head) and I feel like you’re talking about me and my experience!!! Unbelievable. Thanks for having the courage to share this information. Stay blessed 😇
Thanks @The Ladipo Group for posting this video about affirmative action / supreme court. Here are the viewpoints expressed by Supreme Court justices regarding affirmative action. 1) This case is about a group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) who sued Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC). They said that these schools were not fair in their admissions process because they were using race as a factor, which they believed was against the law. The law they referred to is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment*. 2) The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. The SFFA believed that by considering race in admissions, Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally. 3) The Court looked at the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and how it has been used in the past. They also looked at how other cases involving race and college admissions were handled. They found that while diversity in a student body can be a good thing, it must be handled in a way that treats all applicants fairly and equally. 4) The Court also looked at the idea of "strict scrutiny*". This is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional. 5) The Court found that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC did not pass strict scrutiny. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear or specific enough, and it resulted in fewer admissions for certain racial groups. They also said that the schools' use of race in admissions seemed to stereotype certain racial groups, which is not allowed. 6) The Court also said that the schools' admissions systems did not have a clear end point. This means that there was no clear plan for when the schools would stop using race as a factor in admissions. This was another reason why the Court said the schools' admissions systems were not fair. 7) The Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear, specific, or fair enough to be allowed. 8) However, the Court also said that schools can consider how race has affected an applicant's life. They can look at how an applicant's experiences with their race have shaped them and what they can bring to the school because of those experiences. 9) In the end, the Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the law. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not allowed because it was not clear, specific, or fair enough. 10) So, the Court decided that the SFFA was right. They said that Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally in their admissions process, which is against the law. They said that the schools needed to change their admissions systems to be fair to all applicants, no matter their race. *The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. *Strict scrutiny is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional.
Thank you for sharing your experience and insights! Very relatable and incredibly helpful. ✨ It really is a great feeling to revisit a challenge with an improved process. Thank you for sharing what helped to improve yours.
