As part of the U of M’s public health institute class on framing health disparities, we are
using this blog post to inform our collective effort to send the “right”
message.
Every time I read the communications research (see previous blog post) on this
subject, I’m always left thinking about the recommendation that the “right”
message means NOT talking explicitly about racism or even emphasizing racial
differences when talking about disparities.
I get it. I believe their analysis. As an ex-advertising
exec I should be all over it.
But I just can’t buy it. Not naming it renders it invisible,
insignificant and enables the systemic status quo. I get that ultimately it
works toward the same social justice goal, but I think there are other
implications of prioritizing this frame: particularly for us folks that work in
or with systems. I’ve observed and participated in too many health disparities
discussions, workshops, conferences, etc where racism is never named or
discussed. Doesn’t that make us complicit in perpetuating it?
“We need to illuminate racism in order to eliminate racism.
By consciously addressing racial equity, we can stop unconsciously replicating racism”
~Terry Keheler, Applied Research Center
We can do both. I don’t have a communications report to
support my assertion, but I continue to believe that by talking about/telling
stories about how systems and structures impact health outcomes – and showing
how structural racism contributes to those systems, structures and policies –
we are sending the “right” message.
Easier said than done. We’ve got tons of data and talking
points about our health problems and our efforts to impact individual behavior.
Where’s the data, research, stories, insights, talking
points that can support the “right’ message?
Why, it’s right below – in the comments section!
Courtesy of the University of Minnesota’s PubH 7200, Section
114 class.
Check out our write-ups of the evidence we found to support
our message.
