Inclusion in American Politics | Up for Discussion with Brian Sims

On the eve of the US elections, we have an exciting episode discussing the ins and outs of US politics and its impact on diversity, equity and inclusion around the world. In this episode of CB Up for Discussion, we’re thrilled to welcome Brian Sims, a former Pennsylvania legislator and passionate civil rights attorney. Join us as Brian shares his journey from disability law to becoming a leading advocate for LGBTQ+ rights, providing a unique perspective on the shifting landscape of inclusion across different political administrations.

As we approach the upcoming elections, Brian emphasizes the critical role that local politics play in shaping our everyday lives and the importance of civic engagement. We also discussed

• The evolution of LGBTQ+ rights under the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations.
• The significance of local elections in influencing civil rights.
• Insights on the future of affirmative action policies.
• The role of social movements in reshaping political conversations.
• The importance of active participation in democracy.

Tune in for an engaging conversation about advocacy, empowerment, and how each of us can contribute to a more equitable society!

[Introduction] (0:00 - 0:27)

This is CB Up for Discussion, a podcast series from Community Business, where we tackle DE&I and wellbeing hot topics with special guests from across Asia.

 

[Janet Ledger]

 So Brian, welcome to Up for Discussion, which is CB's podcast. And we're so honoured to have you as a guest this morning, or this evening, where you are, on the call.

 

[Brian Sims] (0:28 - 0:30)

I'm very grateful to join you.

 

[Janet Ledger] (0:30 - 0:36)

Thank you. It would be wonderful for the audience if you could introduce yourself and your experiences.

 

[Brian Sims] (0:36 - 1:53)

Sure. As you said in the introduction, my name is Brian Sims. I am a retired legislator from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in the United States.

 

I am a civil rights attorney by trade, and worked first in disability law and then in civil rights work for a number of years, and it sort of led to work in LGBTQ plus civil rights. And I, at the age of 32, ran for the House of Representatives in the city that I was living in, and won by a very small margin against a very long time incumbent. And I served for the next 10 years in the House of Representatives as sort of the point person on civil rights in the legislature.

 

LGBTQ civil rights, women's and reproductive rights, certainly racial and ethnic justice work. I retired from the House about a year and a half ago, ran for higher office and lost that, but that's politics. And I retired from the seat that I had, and I've spent my time since doing a mix of working with LGBTQ plus candidates, or people that I hope become candidates, and working with large companies that are very nervous about how to sort of stay in the game with respect to equality, without making themselves the sort of targets or the center of attention.

 

[Janet Ledger] (1:54 - 2:09)

Yeah. Yeah. So that leads us to, I guess, the first question that we've got, which is how would you characterize the climate for inclusion during the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations?

 

So what are the really key differences you've observed?

 

[Brian Sims] (2:11 - 5:49)

There are the obvious key differences, which are of course, the fundamental ideology, fundamental support for LGBTQ equality. It's interesting within the Democratic Party, I'm struck by how much diversity of opinion there is about LGBTQ plus equality. And among my Republican friends, there is certainly a greater breadth of diversity about opinions on LGBTQ equality.

 

None of that is reflected in the current Republican Party. And that's really been the case since the Trump era. Not that it hasn't been true of the party at large, but during the Trump era is when we noticed the most stark difference between the, we'll call it the top of the ticket, as you said, you pointed out in the presidential candidates and their particular views on equality.

 

There's maybe no better example than the office of LGBTQ plus civil rights. The Obama administration had a very robust connection to the LGBTQ plus community, but also had staffers within the White House, staffers within the larger Washington DC plus community, whose job it was specifically to focus on LGBTQ plus equality that did not exist during the Trump administration, but then were reformulated during the Biden administration. It's a falsity to say that the Biden administration is an extension of the Obama administration's policies, in part, maybe because of some of the more technical differences between the administrations.

 

The Obama administration was the beginning of a very expansive view of LGBTQ plus equality in the United States. The two major vehicles, if you will, for civil rights in the United States have often been what we call Title VII and Title IX, sex discrimination laws. Under the Obama administration, that administration and their department of justice viewed LGBTQ plus discrimination or LGBT discrimination largely at the time, the same way that sex discrimination was seen under Title VII and Title IX in a way that many states had seen it in their jurisdiction and jurisprudence.

 

That was the track that LGBTQ plus equality was on federally on a civil rights track. That, of course, stopped entirely under the Trump administration. Then began again under the Biden administration, there was another key difference.

 

That is that under the Clinton administration, there had been signed this bill that was an attack on marriage equality that for the first time said that states in the US didn't need to give full faith and credit to the laws of neighboring states, specifically as they had to do with marriage. Of course, Joe Biden actually jumped the gun as the vice president for President Obama about his support for marriage equality, which led, of course, to President Obama's support for marriage equality and the subsequent laws that surrounded it. It was the Biden administration just last year that signed into law the Respect for Marriage Act, which really undid the wrongdoing of certainly the Clinton administration, but it had been carried through for three presidencies since then.

 

There are very stark differences with respect to the top of the ticket ideology. Of course, there's just no question about the rhetoric from the Trump campaign. There's also very real-world substantive sort of differences with the Department of Justice with how LGBTQ plus discrimination could be treated legally.

 

There were stark differences between them as well.

 

[Janet Ledger] (5:54 - 6:03)

What potential legislative changes that relate to diversity, equity and inclusion should voters be aware of as they're heading into the election in November?

 

[Brian Sims] (6:04 - 8:33)

Sure. First and foremost, and I think a lot of people know what I'm about to say, but they may not know the sort of technicalities behind it. Every single state in the United States and of the federal government protects certain categories of people from certain categories of discrimination.

 

We know them. They feel sort of a part of the fabric of Americana, certainly of our laws and our rights. You are generally protected because of your race, your ethnicity, your nationality.

 

You're protected often because of your religion, a disability. You are certainly protected because of your gender. You're sometimes protected because of your sexual orientation, sometimes protected because of your gender identity.

 

Those laws all really began in the 1950s and 60s with our original civil rights laws that were expanded throughout the 70s and 80s to then include religion, to then begin to include all of the protected classes we have. They protect you in very specific ways. Generally, discrimination that involves housing, employment, public accommodations, places that you get to go as a member of the public, insurance, and education, which are all deeply important to the sort of everyday experience of the average American.

 

Those are decided at the state level, in part because the Equality Act at the federal level has not passed. Unfortunately, given the nature of our current divided government in Congress, it's not likely to pass soon. Most people, the rights that they enjoy, the civil rights that they either have or in many cases do not have, stem from their local legislature.

 

There are millions, billions of people around the world that wish that they had the capability to change their government or their representatives in the way that the average such a thing American exists can do and with a very simple vote. There are elections in Florida, in North Carolina, in Oklahoma, in Pennsylvania, that will decide the power of legislatures. Maybe to answer your question is, I know a lot of people feel very frustrated with the top of the ticket with presidential politics and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, billions now, or over a billion is going to be spent on this election.

 

Those races that happen in their backyard, their city council people, their state representatives, their state senators, those races have such a huge impact on their day-to-day lives that they should look to those races for inspiration, either inspiration to look for change or inspiration to support the people that are supporting you. Get out and vote.

 

[Janet Ledger] (8:34 - 8:35)

Get out and vote.

 

[Brian Sims] (8:35 - 9:11)

So many places can't, so many people can't. On an average day, on an average election day, the amount of people that can't vote because they have to work, because they're ill, because they have an inability to get transportation, because they're just otherwise incapable is actually significantly higher than most people think. We try very hard to overcome those barriers, but if you don't have any of those barriers and you still don't vote, you are robbing your ancestors and your heritage and your children and yourself of a say in a life that is currently very impacted by politics.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Janet Ledger] (9:11 - 9:21)

I don't live in Australia, but we have compulsory voting and a lot of people complain about it. I think the least you can do is participate in your society when you've the right to do it.

 

[Brian Sims] (9:22 - 10:17)

The literal least. It's funny, I think a lot of people don't want to vote, or I think a lot of non-voters don't vote because they don't feel informed enough about the issues. I understand that and some days I even appreciate that, but the truth is every voter is informed about their own issues and every voter has things that impact them.

 

I don't need for voters to become experts in every candidate up and down a ticket. In fact, I appreciate when people will skip voting for a particular place on a ticket because they just don't know enough about it. They come from a place where we elect judges and we shouldn't do that, and a lot of people don't vote in those judicial races.

 

I'm often glad that they don't, but more importantly, I think a lot of people think that they need to have expertise in a current election in order to participate. Don't let expertise be the barrier to your participation because you're elected officials or not. Yeah, absolutely.

 

[Janet Ledger] (10:21 - 10:36)

Just with the upcoming elections, to continue on that note, what perspective do you have on the future of affirmative action policies and how do you think that the changes in leadership might impact on those initiatives?

 

[Brian Sims] (10:36 - 14:17)

This is probably the easiest kind of question to answer because we're facing very, very stark, very different approaches to affirmative action, approaches to inequality. I think one of the misunderstandings that people have about affirmative action is that affirmative action is largely rooted in the understanding that inequality has been so pervasive that it works itself into all systems. Simply recognizing inequality, simply saying, I don't even believe in that type of inequality, that you have to take affirmative steps to undo inequality.

 

If you can recognize that inequality is wrong, you must also recognize that the steps it takes to get to equality are right. Affirmative action are those types of steps. It has unfortunately become a buzzword for a very hardline right opposition to equality, in part by people, I think, who feel left out.

 

I think what they often forget is that affirmative action includes people who've been marginalized, not just because of their race, not just because of their religion or their nationality. Oftentimes, economic marginalization is just as devastating in different parts of the country. That's the kind of affirmative action I think that I'm so excited to talk about with respect to the Harris campaign.

 

For me, what I see in the Harris campaign is a presidential candidate and a running mate and an overall ideology that really does understand that the answer to America's problems are largely in rural and suburban areas. If the answer to all of our problems were in major cities, we'd have those answers by now. They're everywhere else.

 

As someone who's lived everywhere from Alaska to Kansas, I think people don't really realize how similar we all are, all over the country and all over the world. I like to joke that everyone calls soda and cola and pop and Coke something different, but everybody is sort of doing the same things, looking out for the same things, caring about the same things in this world. The closer you get to recognizing that, the closer you get to understanding that when people have been deprived of that, you have to take the steps necessary to fix those things in a way that doesn't rob qualified people of experiences, but in a way that makes sure that people who are qualified, who have been robbed of those experiences, are included.

 

That's all that I really see stemming from the Harris campaign. On the opposite side of the spectrum, of course, is we see every day in the Trump campaign a real heavy degree of racism, a real latent sexism and misogyny that go along with the transphobia and the very small-mindedness of thinking that you are one thing and are right, and everybody else is a different thing and therefore wrong. I care deeply about civil rights.

 

It's the thing that motivates me the most. I cannot imagine an era where civil rights will be more impacted than in these coming years. It depends on this election that we're seeing.

 

We saw with the Dobbs decision at the US Supreme Court overturned 50 years of jurisprudence about abortion rights. Within a year, you saw France, where 93% of the French population supported adding abortion rights to their constitution, regardless of their faith or political party. We're doing something wrong here.

 

Unless we correct it now, it's going to be even more harrowing in a year or two.

 

[Janet Ledger] (14:22 - 14:50)

We saw massive social movements during the last Trump administration around Black Lives Matter, and Me Too. How has that shaped the political discourse? How do you think that's going to shape what's going to play out in the elections?

 

How do you see the recent social movements that came up through the Trump administration shape political discourse? What role do you think that they will play in the upcoming elections?

 

[Brian Sims] (14:51 - 17:24)

First and foremost, what they did was reshuffle how we are all willing to approach matters of serious injustice in the country. America has had many notable waves of civil rights from our traditional civil rights movement, the first wave of women's rights, the second wave of women's rights and reproductive rights. Certainly, a wave up until recently of LGBTQ plus equality.

 

That kind of equality has been very elusive for lower class Americans. It's certainly been elusive for first generation Americans, immigrant Americans. Part of that was because we learned in the 60s and 70s in America that we really have to fight back when injustice is happening in our own ranks.

 

When hoping for better, wanting better, believing in better doesn't make better happen. What I hope we have learned in the second summer of civil rights in America, what we've learned through Black Lives Matter, we've learned through the women's marches, through our marches to end gun violence, is that it really takes a very heavy, engaged degree of political involvement by everyday Americans to get our government to behave better. As someone who's been on both sides of this issue, as someone who is a civil rights advocate, has fought for equality my whole career, and then got to serve for 10 years inside the legislature, one of the things that I am deeply aware of is the fact that a lot of people, their advocacy for equality stops online, or it stops at the dinner table.

 

Really, the places where that advocacy can be the most poignant is with our political leaders. I hope that Americans were reminded of the lessons of our civil rights past, and that is that in order to have change, we have to make change. That comes from political unrest.

 

It comes from changing the change makers, electing different people, electing new people, electing better people. In the last five years, America has done a better job of electing women, electing LGBTQ plus people, BIPOC people, second generation Americans to roles in government than we had in a decade or more before that. That gives me a lot of hope for what is to come next.

 

[Janet Ledger] (17:29 - 17:47)

You touched a little earlier on marginalized communities and how that's playing out in different ways within the US. How do you see the elections influencing voter engagement, and participation, more importantly, in those marginal communities?

 

[Brian Sims] (17:48 - 19:39)

Well, I'm happy to say that as we've seen the rise of the Harris Walls candidacy, we've also seen a dramatic increase in engagement from identifiable, often marginalized communities all across the United States. What started as women for Harris and then LGBTQ people for Harris became Black men for Harris, Hispanic men for Harris. It became night shift workers for Harris and nurses for Harris.

 

One of the things that I've always known, and I've talked about this often with respect to the LGBTQ plus communities in America, which are massive, that were any identifiable, very identifiable, marginalized group in America to vote en masse, and none of us are monoliths, but were we to vote en masse, we would have a dramatic impact on whatever election we were participating in. We've seen data recently that 70 to 80% of LGBTQ plus Americans that are voting are going to be voting Democrat, which means that 25, 30% are going to be voting for a party that has in their official platform that our marriages should not exist. That's a real problematic thing.

 

The way I see marginalized communities impacting this election is that they are stepping up in record numbers. They are registering to vote in record numbers. They're participating and campaigning and getting out the vote in record numbers.

 

Maybe once again, it will be women of color that are saving democracy. Once again, it will be second and third generation immigrants who have a deep understanding of what fascism looks like, what discrimination looks like, what a caste system looks like, and why those things are so damning that will be stepping up to save us. As a part of the LGBTQ plus communities, I hope and see that for our communities as well.

 

[Janet Ledger] (19:43 - 19:52)

Just on the outcome, if Trump were to win, what do you think the effects would be on DE&I initiatives and policies?

 

[Brian Sims] (19:54 - 22:31)

DE&I in the United States is an interesting thing. It's been about 20, 25 years that we've seen the modern DE&I movement at the corporate level in the United States. I'm someone that believes that the rise of that movement was largely because consumers, clients, customers began to demand from the companies that they were doing business with that their pink dollars, if you will, be spent in ways that were supportive of them.

 

Just simply recognize that women were a part of companies, that LGBTQ people, that people of color were a part of companies. That DE&I motivation early on, I think the corporate motivation was derived from their clients and customers wanting to see themselves reflected in their business. 20, 25 years later, those of us that are a part of those various ERGs, the women's groups, the people of color groups, the LGBTQ groups at most companies, we've been hearing for 20, 25 years about how our presence, our involvement, our engagement is good for business.

 

It's good for culture. It's good for community. It's the right thing to do.

 

All of those things are true, but it's also good for business. Wider perspectives, deeper understandings of other communities, abilities to code switch and understand being like polyglots, being people that intersectional identities and how useful those are in a corporate space has been long proven. We spoke earlier about how companies that have diversity policies do better.

 

And now I think what's happening is in this era where you're seeing attacks from the far right on DE&I and it's effective attacks, companies like Ford and Tractor Supply and removing their DE&I policies and their approach to DE&I is dangerous. And it's something that's been fueled by the rhetoric of the far right, but it is bad for them as companies. It is bad for business.

 

And if Trump is elected, I think we will not only see more of that. I think we will see a line in the sand that is drawn. And those companies that understand and believe in themselves, their employees, their customer bases, and the places they do business will thrive, but they will fight a federal government that thinks that what they are doing is wrong.

 

There's this idea that it's like somehow reverse discrimination, which does not exist. There is no such thing in this world. Every single person can be treated badly.

 

Every single person can be wronged. But there is not reverse discrimination in DE&I spaces that somehow would validate removing the modes and mechanisms that DE&I have given to all of us and proven themselves over and over again.

 

[Janet Ledger] (22:33 - 22:39)

Yeah. So do you think that there will be more of a backlash? Not only do I.

 

[Brian Sims] (22:39 - 23:25)

I think it's sort of understood that in a Trump presidency, not only could all of those companies that don't believe in their own commitment to DE&I, for whom it is performative, they would stop performing. But I also think that we would see attacks from, for example, maybe a very politicized Department of Justice against those companies that are maintaining their DE&I policies. I have heard rumblings that there are companies that are afraid to maintain their DE&I policies because they're afraid that people who fall outside of those DE&I policies will somehow gain standing and sue them for discrimination.

 

And that's the kind of sort of backward thinking that also leads to thinking that DE&I policies that help all people be their best selves at work are somehow wrong.

 

[Janet Ledger] (23:26 - 23:40)

So in terms of the performative nature, what are you seeing in the U.S. now in terms of companies that are continuing to maintain their practices?

 

[Brian Sims] (23:41 - 26:02)

I see a couple of things. First and foremost, I see those that are are doing it because they understand that is a part of their core values. It's one of my favorite things right now when I see companies that are continuing their commitment to equality, continuing their commitment to DE&I.

 

It's because it's a core part of their values, often because they are their values, because those companies that are the most diverse understand and see every single day they live why diversity, equity, inclusion are important. And so for them, it is a core principle. It is a part of their mission statement.

 

It's a part of their understanding of how they're going to succeed. I also see that companies are nervous. They're afraid of being victimized.

 

They don't want to be attacked. No company wants to be the next bud light or the next target. And so they're questioning how they move forward.

 

And there are lots and lots of ways that companies can show their support for LGBTQ employees and for diversity, equity, inclusion, for diversity as a whole. A lot of those have to do with places where they have power, like legislatures. Some of the world's largest companies find themselves in places that don't have a lot of equality, even though they themselves do.

 

Fortune 100, Fortune 500 companies in America notoriously have inclusive HR policies. And yet a lot of them are based in places that do not. And they have a lot of power there.

 

And I ask of those companies, if you don't feel that you can safely put pride flags on your banners or that you can put pride flags in your logo or that you can do pride events, that's okay. Those things are in many ways are performative. We want that performance because sometimes it shows us where your values are.

 

But if right now that feels risky, that's okay. Tell your government affairs division, tell your lobbyists that while they're talking to the legislatures and the policymakers that they deal with every single day, and they do so with authority about supply chain management and taxes, that you also mentioned that you support an inclusive non-discrimination policy because you want to attract and retain the best talent, period, end of story. And leave it at that.

 

And those are the things that I want to see these companies updating their HR policies. I want to see these companies updating their medical policies and their healthcare policies. Those are the kinds of things that are putting you at risk with very angry bigots who are afraid that the companies that they like might like people that they hate.

 

[Janet Ledger] (26:03 - 26:20)

And we see all the time through our work with the index that we run here in Hong Kong and also in Singapore, that the companies that do have the right HR policies and practices are attracting the best talent. And they also become a safe haven for the community.

 

[Brian Sims] (26:21 - 26:56)

It's always been true. When we are respected and protected, we perform our best. And it's not any deeper than that for a lot of companies, but it is also much deeper than that for a lot of companies.

 

Companies that are run by people that understand how adversity and marginalization can create in people knowledge, skills, abilities that are deeply fundamental to who they are and can help overcome barriers to success. Those are the companies that people gravitate to and stay at. Absolutely.

 

Yeah, absolutely.

 

[Janet Ledger] (0:03 - 0:16)

Okay, so if Kamala Harris wins, she would be the first woman and the first person with Black and South Asian heritage in the White House. What impact do you think this would have globally?

 

[Brian Sims] (0:19 - 2:11)

In thinking about this question, I'm reminded often of how the world responded to President Barack Obama. Barack Obama was received so well by the rest of the world, in part because he was a Black man, in part because he looked like parts of the world where they had never seen themselves reflected in American culture before, for a culture that prides itself on being so diverse, for a culture that, although it prides its heritage on being very immigrant-based, it somehow attacks its current immigrants as though they somehow aren't a part of America's heritage. As I reflect on Barack Obama, I think I'm reminded that America is seen outside of our borders very differently by very different populations. It's important for us always to put not just our best foot forward, our most inclusive, our most thoughtful, our most poignant, our most experienced foot forward.

 

We have that. We're a country of great values, we're a country of great education, we're a country of great experience, and we have hundreds of millions of people here. We can elect a leader that is deeply experienced, that is deeply rooted in her values and her morals, that derives those core values from her family and her parents, and that the immigrant story is as much a part of American culture and heritage as any story.

 

I really, truly hope that the world sees her and sees a bit of themselves in her, and that they understand that she is more like the average American than most presidents that I've seen in my lifetime. As they relate to her, I hope they know that we're relating to her in that way as well.

 

[Janet Ledger] (2:12 - 2:24)

Yeah. Wonderful. In terms of international relations, and specifically the Asian region, how do you think that will adjust based on who's or how that will land depending on who's elected?

 

[Brian Sims] (2:25 - 3:17)

I'm happy to say, as I look through at least America's democratic presidents, that relations with Asia, where they can be, have been strong under democratic presidents. The blanket statement is, of course, I would expect them to stay strong. I think of a Trump presidency as sort of an anarchistic presidency.

 

I don't think of it as having diplomacy or bureaucracy, and so while I think that is bad for our relationships with Asian nations, I think that's bad for our relationship with all nations. But maybe to the particular point that you're making about her having Asian heritage. I hope, in fact, if history is any teacher, that means that she will have a better understanding, maybe a better cultural understanding than any president we have ever had before, and that has to be a good thing.

 

[Janet Ledger] (3:18 - 3:30)

Yeah, absolutely. Look, so finally, this is a question we ask all of our guests. What do you think is the biggest way that we can make a ripple of change throughout society?

 

[Brian Sims] (3:32 - 5:31)

I think that the biggest way that we can make a ripple of change throughout society is to step up, to stand up, to use your voice, and to use it in small situations that have big impacts on other people, and I'll tell you what I mean. We all think about microaggressions when we talk about the D, E, and I space, all those little things that people say to make you feel excluded. Microinclusivity is also a thing, and there are lots of little ways of making people around you feel included.

 

There's lots of ways when you're giving examples of not always using white people, not always using straight people, not always using able-bodied people in a way that is just as effective, maybe more effective, but also is really inclusive, but it usually starts with people who have a particular type of privilege using that privilege to combat the problems of that privilege. It's not enough to not be racist as a white person. You need to tell racist white people why they are wrong.

 

It's not enough to not be sexist as a man. No woman in my life has ever needed to hear that I'm a feminist. They need to hear me say to men who are sexist and misogynist why they are wrong.

 

Allyship is the answer. Allyship is the future. Allyship is when and how we all come together.

 

It's cowardice to require the victims of discrimination to also have to be the people that fight back against that discrimination. If you share characteristics with the discriminator, they're more likely to listen to you than the people that they're attacking. It's our job.

 

It's incumbent upon us to step up and use your voice. Stop the sexist joke. Stop the racist joke.

 

Stop the person around you from going down a rabbit hole that you know is wrong about people with disabilities or about immigrants. Don't just ignore it. Don't just walk away from it.

 

Use the power you have situationally to stop it. The people around you will not only see that you live your values, they'll also know that when they're not there, that you wouldn't allow them to be talked about that way. It's a really important way to show character and to be character.

 

[Janet Ledger] (5:33 - 5:36)

That's absolutely wonderful, being an upstander and not a bystander.

 

[Brian Sims] (5:37 - 5:39)

Being an upstander and not a bystander.

 

[Janet Ledger] (5:39 - 5:48)

Brian, it's just been absolutely fascinating, wonderful conversation, so topical. I just wanted to thank you again for joining Up for Discussion.

 

[Brian Sims] (5:48 - 6:02)

I am grateful that you asked. These are very important, very poignant times. Thank you for asking me some very deep, thoughtful, interesting questions about where we are and why we are.

 

Thank you.