In its 105th year, the Planned Parenthood of Greater New York (PPGNY) sharply turned its large ship in a different direction when it publicly disavowed its founder, Margaret Sanger and reckoned with its white supremacist history.
Over the prior 104 years, Conservatives have weaponized Sanger against Planned Parenthood by exposing the holes within white feminism. While liberals (defensively) hailed Sanger as the feminist pioneer of the Reproductive Rights movement who was a woman of her time.
If you are confused about Sanger, I am here to help clarify
For a heavily researched, in depth understanding of Sanger, I urge you to read Killing The Black Body by scholar and professor Dorothy Roberts. It refutes the “woman of her time” argument because as many know, Black and Indigenous women were purposefully not heard, despite their pushback, during Sanger’s time.
Roberts also unpacks the maternal colonialism endemic to Sanger’s work. For example, in her 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble (heir to Proctor and Gamble), she said, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” When Sanger coined the term “birth control”, it was couched in the language of eugenics, which was defined by race and could never be understood apart from race.
Similarly damning to Sanger’s legacy is how the Germans learned from and modeled their sterilization laws from eugenicists (including Sanger) in the USA. Yes, it was those in the US who provided the framework for the Nazi compulsory sterilization law of 1933 which was eventually implemented during the Nazi Holocaust. Again, read the book.
Before I go on . . .
I want to underscore that I am indubitably grateful for Planned Parenthood and the services it has provided to me. And, as mentioned in my abortion story, during my process of decolonization, I have come to understand the deep chasms that have historically prevented Planned Parenthood from evolving, innovating and leading communities it serves in an equitable way.
Therefore, I was curious to learn what happened, internally, at PPGNY to finally turn the proverbial ship towards equitable reproductive freedom
So I reached out to my contacts at PPGNY and sat down with Merle McGee, Chief Equity and Engagement Officer and Fiona Kanagasingam, Chief Equity and Learning Officer to discuss everything from Sanger’s name removal to the expansive and bold future that they envision for the NY affiliate.
I am so excited to share with you the delicious and inspiring conversation that I had with these two fearless leaders responsible for steering the wheel towards equity at PPGNY. In the words of former Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, “listen up”.
I am so excited to be in conversation with you both . . . How did PPGNY get to this point?
MM: I’m super excited to be in conversation. I do think it’s important for people to understand how you get here to this point.
So, the first thing to note is, this work began when we were Planned Parenthood of NYC (“PPNYC”). This is not new. We have been on this journey of expanding the lens beyond ‘pro-choice’ and ‘birth control’ for some time. And the Federation has been on that journey for some time too. Efforts have been made to pivot away from a very narrow institutional focus. We had to get up to this moment.
Our journey really began in 2014 or so. The backstory on that was that a group of folks within the former NYC affiliate (PPNYC) decided to form a Sexual and Reproductive Justice workgroup because they were recognizing that there was legitimate critique, direction, directive and opportunities that people were making known to them that required that they had to think about the work a little bit more expansively.
That group started internally to understand the principles of Reproductive Justice as the beginnings of the work that led to expand policy so that PPNYC was in support of the Fight for 15 at the time. The goal here was that through that work they started expanding their lens.
The Equity and Learning Department then launched in 2019. Reviving Radical was also in 2019. The work of Reviving Radical made it known to other people, outside of the organization, what our (internal) commitments were.
Who was behind the organizing for Reviving Radical within PPNYC?
MM: It wasn’t a line staff initiative. It was a group of leaders, primarily out of the Education and Training Department. I think they were responding to real issues and concerns that were being raised as getting in alignment (with community).
Did the Reproductive Justice movement inspire this change?
MM: Absolutely. It’s not an either or situation.
When you try to move institutions which have historically operated one way, it’s like turning a ship. It takes time, effort and lots of engagement around why [change] is important and how it can be done. I think a critical incident on the national level was the letter that was published… You know about that letter, right?
Yes. And the one written by Loretta Ross.
MM: As you have more people in institutions that are not seeing themselves reflected or are not seeing the issues in the way that they see them, they create the urgency and importance of addressing things and institutions either come along or they don’t.
On that note, can we discuss the Equity Report?
FK: Yes. There is a lot in it that relates to the institution taking more of a Reproductive Justice lens even as we remain a Reproductive Rights organization. This was made possible by Reviving Radical.
We asked ourselves, ‘What is the organization that we need to be in order to be in right relationship with communities?’ It’s not possible for us to work with patients in a way that is equitable if we are not turning the lens inwards. And looking at all of the different ways our systems, our staff, are equipped to implement equitable practice.
We have a very clear institutional change framework that comes from organizations that have been doing this for a long time. Race Forward talks about normalizing, operationalizing, and organizing as a framework for institutional change, which is what we have used.
Part of normalizing is creating spaces where it’s possible for disruptive conversations about racism and other systemic inequities to happen. Because often there are fears of retaliation and people are not necessarily engaged in dialogue in a way that makes change possible.
Yes. The fear and reality of retaliation in nonprofits is very real.
FK: The work that is less understood is the work related to operationalizing. The rebuild of systems is the difficult and unseen work of institutional change but it really is about shifting practices through new systems of accountability. Because we can’t train our way out of racism.
How do you put into play systems of accountability regardless of where staff might be on their learning journeys? Our answer is everyone has got to do some things regardless of whether one agrees with the work or not. We have protocols built into the system that allows us to hold people accountable.
For example, the hiring protocol includes elevating equity competencies as any other measure of performance that you would measure a candidate on. What is a candidates’ understanding of structural racism? What are some ways in which they have put in place integrated racial equity considerations in their day to day role? We now have a requirement that the pool of candidates must be racially diverse. We cannot just post in a few places and expect a different outcome.
Similarly we use equity competencies as a starting point for thinking about promotions. If someone scores high on various competencies but there is a significant gap on racial equity, they may not get promoted. These are the places where I think institutional change happens.
Has this been well received?
FK: Not everybody likes it. You can imagine in an institution that has done things a specific way there are people who say, ‘In the past I would have promoted someone but now I can’t hire whoever I want even though I think this person is really qualified. Who are you to gatekeep this process for me?’ This is the type of resistance we have been dealing with. Some people leave because they don’t like it and that is part of institutional change too.
How did you convince the organization that the namesake of the organization, Margaret Sanger, was problematic?
MM: I think what is most important to start with is that we centered the community.
Which community?
MM: Communities of color, specifically. We really engaged them. That is what Reviving Radical was about.
Are PPGNY patients primarily from communities of color?
MM: Yes, the majority of our patient population is majority people of color. When we engaged with the community we asked, “What [did] the community need to reckon with in order to transform our relationship?”
The internal organizing of our staff indicated that we really needed to center patients in a different way than we had. This includes [our patients’] concerns, leadership, opinions, solutions. So, we asked.
We went out and had a series of public conversations with communities. That was Reviving Radical’s initial start. And out of that came the community mandate. The very first mandate was that we needed to reckon with the legacy and history of this institution and the founder. It came about through the series of 4 gatherings, where we gathered in 3 different boroughs.
We didn’t have to convince people to do it. There was already an understanding that there was an unanswered question out there that the opposition used to really radicalize an evangelical base of Black and Brown communities. And they used that (to our detriment) and we hadn’t efficiently responded to it.
Before you can reconcile, you have to tell the truth. And then you reckon with that truth. And then you create the pathway to repair so that you can reconcile and people can heal. It’s not truth and reconciliation. It’s truth, reckoning and then repair. This is where the work really intersects with the internal equity work.
Why 2020? What took so long for this to happen?
MM: The essential point is that we were in a position where the organization’s leadership was ready to hear that we needed to transform the ways in which we engaged our communities and that it was going to be essential for us as we begin to look around.
People are thinking about #BlackLivesMatter 3.0 and the 2020 racial uprisings. But there has been BLM 1.0 and 2.0. I think with each one of these uprisings, the nonprofit sector particularly had to begin to yield to understanding that it is going to be essential to transform relationships if we want to be in partnership with communities.
Removing Margaret Sanger’s name was just the first mandate. There are five mandates and now we are working to transform relationships in care and partnership and we are doing this by engaging with the Reproductive Justice movement.
Is the national Planned Parenthood Federation following PPGNY lead?
MM: We offer a blueprint for what other affiliates could do if they wanted to. I will say that we received financial support to do Reviving Radical from the national office. Also, when the New York Times interview was happening, I personally received a call of support from the national office.
FK: I think it is important to note our affiliate’s particular history and significance given that Margaret Sanger started her work here in NYC. So this is also particularly local, symbolic and relevant. Internally, there was a good appetite for this equity work. The real work is in transforming the institution.
Some of the difficult conversations our development team has had was in speaking to donors. So for us, getting clear on why we do this and why it is situated in a wider context is important. Reckoning with Margaret Sanger’s legacy is not only right, it’s practical. If we were to not take action, our mission gets weaponized. This has been largely accepted and effective with our donor base.
So after Reviving Radical and removing Sanger’s name, what has changed?
MM: There has been a willingness of new partners to engage with us. Transformation is happening internally and externally. We have a whole equity approach to our engagement work which is rooted in centering the most marginalized and impacted in how we focus on doing our engagement work. We are not just removing barriers and obstacles but we are creating pathways to engagement and connection and partnership with the institution.
For example, we move resources into small community organizations. We build and convene networks so that we can amplify those voices and perspectives. We learn to get out of the way! The 5th mandate on community engagement is about really learning when to follow, when to partner and when to lead. One of our primary goals is to really be invited into spaces as opposed to going to spaces.
Have you been invited into new spaces?
MM: One of our most recent invitations has focused on supporting people with physical and intellectual developmental disabilities. We had not been invited into that conversation before. But they see the work we are doing. They see how we are transforming our sex education trainings and messaging in community to be more inclusive.
We are now invited into community with TGNC groups of color to partner and to bring what we have to the table and learn and explore and build collaboratively and collectively with them.
What we have seen is the quality of relationships are deeper and more expansive than they have been in the past. It’s been really quite remarkable because our strategy is to show up not when there is something in it for us or when we want you to do something for us.
I call our strategy the Aunty Table Strategy. Who are the hyper local folks doing the work that we need to leverage and support so they can get it done? And it all works for the community good. So that’s our work in equity and engagement.
Yes! I remember someone once said to me, ‘Who are the people organizing the Iftar meals for community during Ramadan? THEY are community organizers’.
MM: What I love about that idea is that every community has an aunty (uncle/they/them) circle. These are the people young people go to when they are trying to figure out how to navigate institutions, resources, community, relationships. They go to that circle and that’s really who people trust and that’s where we wanna be and that’s who we wanna be validated by.
This is so exciting to hear. You don’t hear this often from large nonprofits. So what is your north star?
MM: (Laughing) It’s always about gettin’ it right! Those who are supposed to benefit from the institution are the people whose mission the nonprofit is supposed to address. For me, that was the challenge . . . Getting that relationship in right balance. You dig what I’m saying?
I think you are breaking down the nonprofit industrial complex. I recently read White Tears Brown Scars, which elucidates how White Feminism betrays Women of Color, especially in the nonprofit sector. I’m hearing some parallels.
FK: There are so many things I want to say . . . The north star is quite simple. We want it to be an organization where all staff and community can thrive. Where identity, in particular racial identity, doesn’t determine a different experience. Because we know right now, our data absolutely shows, that there are disparities in staff and patient experience that are directly related to race.
So the north star is that everyone is better off and disparities are closed. The work that is exciting to me and that I have no illusions about is understanding the organizational context and the identity of the institution we are trying to do this work within.
It is everything you have described. We are a reproductive rights organization with a very particular history. If we were to do this work in a grassroots community organization it would be very different. We are trying to turn a ship that is very large.
What excites you about this work?
FK: For me, what is exciting is to see the early indication of those shifts. We have a long way to go. But within a short period of time, we have seen those shifts.
I do think the changes at the leadership level feel significant. This is really much more than representation. We have a transformed leadership team. Of the 10 people on it, 5 are Black, 2 are White, the other 3 are non-Black POC. This is very different. Why that is significant is not just because of the identities, but because the quality, level of analysis, and what is possible has changed.
Now leadership can say, regardless of the resistance, ‘Here are some things we are just going to do’. Those things are possible now because of who is at the table. That really was not possible before. So for me, that is exciting.
I (also) feel excited about our Equity School. We launched this in April 2020 and it’s been close to a year now. Equity School is a learning pathway around what it means to work with equity competencies at PPGNY and it is mandatory for new staff during onboarding.
Over this past year there has been an absolute shift in the level of analysis that staff show up with. There is also a difference in who we hire. This is much more than simply diversifying. It is about making sure that equity competencies are standardized on who we let into the organization. Within a year we feel the difference in our day to day interactions.
MM: (nodding head) Mmmmmhmmmmm.
DEI is so hot right now and it seems that orgs are just checking that box. They hire Black and Brown people for diversity purposes but don’t necessarily care about their politics for equity purposes. This sounds different.
FK: Yes. It starts with analysis and a common language. When staff go through our trainings we are clear that diversity is not the same as equity. Diversity is who is in the room. Equity is about an orientation and lens to the work. It’s for White people too. It is about equitable practice.
We are recalibrating and we have been clear that you need diversity to get to equity. It does matter to see providers who look like our clients. And it is absolutely right that people of color can cause harm as well. So this is why equity competencies are built into multiple systems. It’s a work in progress to get everyone up to speed regarding what this means for sure.
MM: Let me add something that I think is important. The journey to get to this point required folks to understand that equity is a necessary condition to actually meeting the mission of the organization. You must have it if you are going to effectively and honestly meet the mission.
During my time here, this organization has changed its mission statement to explicitly name equity. The work began externally. The first equity role in the institution was mine because it is a community engagement role. I said we need to do this with an equity lens. That was the opportunity to use the external pressure to say that we could not effectively do the work and be out in community and then have people come inside PPGNY and have a whole other experience where they recognize that the organization cannot deliver on its promises.
A lot of times this is how it happens, right? This is how the work goes down.
Whew. Yes it does. So to shift gears, what sustains you to keep doing this work?
FK: My role is quite internal facing and internal change is pretty thankless work. The work of internal change is that everyone expects that racism should have been solved yesterday. So you know that is the real pressure of the work.
And there have been moments that have felt significant. One example that comes to mind [was] when a staff member shared that they never thought it would be possible in their time at PPGNY to be having the kinds of conversations and seeing the changes they have seen.
This comment came from someone in a legacy affiliate in the Southern Finger Lakes who has been here a long time. As you know we merged from 5 affiliates to 1 (in 2019). It’s been a challenging process. We had 5 legacy affiliates with different cultures and legacies.
The staff member there said that one of the best things that has come out of the merger is that the equity work being led out of NYC has become available and has permeated. That has been a helpful reminder for me that we have a real opportunity with this work. I truly believe that it is the work that will transform the organization in general, beyond equity.
Thanks Fiona! What sustains you Merle?
MM: For me, when I hear from Reproductive Justice leaders . . . the ones that are household names, say “Ok, that was alright, that was good… That was a good thing . . .”, in particular around the Sanger name removal work, those are the moments that I’m like, “Phew, ok so that was a good thing”.
I say Reproductive Justice leaders specifically because I think it’s important to note that my work is done through accountability to community and to community leaders on whose shoulders I rest. They have been having this conversation f.o.r.e.v.e.r and are like, “Thank you, thank you for getting it done”.
Because initially when I discussed [removing Sanger’s name] with some they were like, “It’s never gonna happen. People like you have come and gone out of this institution. What’s your title again? Because I think somebody had that title” (laughing).
I can see how they were like, ‘How are YOU going to do it?’
MM: Yeah (laughing). So I think any day there is alignment and support on the work we are doing in community is a good day. The expansive nature and the deep relationships that we are building within communities means folks wanna come and work with us as community partners because they see there is a place for them and a place to build and expand their work. Those are all momentous days for me.
When our leadership adopted the community mandates publicly and said we will follow through with them was also a pivotal moment for me. What that meant was PPGNY is now saying to the public we are now ready to grapple with some of the hardest things that we have struggled to grapple with in the past.
Merle, I love how earlier you said your north star was gettin’ it right. I wonder if there would have been a need for the Reproductive Justice movement had the Reproductive Rights movement listened and got it right.
MM: I really just want people to understand that this work is not easy work. There isn’t a blueprint as we know it. There has to be a level of grace and compassion as we try to do it. It’s not going to roll perfectly. We are grappling with systems that are working exactly as they have been designed to act.
Right, a 104 year old system . . .
MM: Try 1493. The Doctrine of Discovery.
Oh, now you are speaking my language!
MM: You know what I’m saying? That is also some of the challenge in doing this work as leaders of color. The hopes, dreams and aspirations are resting on your being able to do this work right, well, enough, effectively . . . And that’s heavy. So every now and then people just need to check on somebody. Check on people. Check on your equity leader if they are a POC. Because it really is difficult.
Merle and Fiona, thank you so much for steering the ship and leading us towards an exciting future filled with equitable reproductive freedom!
If you are interested in updates on Reviving Radical, join the mailing list here.
No Comments