“These Conversations Shouldn’t be Easy … You’re Going to Have to Shift. It Means Reflection … It Means Change”: Moving Anti-Oppression Beyond Incremental Changes in the GBV Sector

Abstract

Little is known about racialized women's work experiences in EDI/AO policy-led Canadian women's organizations in the gender-based violence (GBV) sector. Twenty-three racialized and white GBV workers participated in a critical qualitative study. Five themes emerged illustrating that racialized women workers are experiencing systemic violence through acts of racism and discrimination. The two themes examined in this paper: a culture of silence and shifting the needle forward reveal that the GBV sector is primarily an affirmative space. Creating greater safety for racialized women workers means moving toward transformative approaches that challenge the system's responsibility in creating and supporting anti-oppressive efforts in the elimination of violence.

Introduction

In 2021, our women's research collective, which included the Sexual Assault Centre for Hamilton Area (SACHA), a nurse researcher, and three research assistants collaborated to understand the work experiences of racialized women workers within equity, diversity, and inclusion and anti-oppression (EDI/AO) policy-led work environments in the gender-based violence (GBV) sector in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The purpose of completing this study was to create contextual information that could support the enhancement of work environments for racialized women who are often the only employee or one of few in women's organizations focused on GBV. We document these stories to resist the colonial project of erasure, to center the voices of local women as the starting point for change within their workspaces, and to contribute to a body of knowledge that is shared and used globally to improve the GBV sector with the end goal of eliminating violence.

At the time of this study, the world was in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic. The disproportionate impact on health outcomes for equity-deserving communities from the pandemic brought to the fore a reckoning with systemic and structural inequities that could not be ignored (Etowa & Hyman, 2021; Jenkins et al., 2021). Notably, public health protocols implemented to reduce the spread of the virus had the unintended effect of creating the “shadow pandemic,” which referred to the increased risk and incidence of GBV (Mlambo-Ngcuka, 2020). Women's organizations and allied social services (who continuously operate on limited and decreasing financial budgets), were inundated with increased caseloads in 2021 that have yet to decrease (Nickerson, 2023). These realities became further complicated in a city that was known to have the highest rate of hate-reported crimes across Canada and an intimate partner violence rate five percent higher than the province of Ontario (Safe Cities, 2020). Community organizations and leaders in Hamilton have also cautioned that numbers could be even higher given the incidents of hate crimes and GBV that go unreported (Nickerson, 2023; Rosas Carreño, 2023). Therefore, co-creating this study was critically important to the community given the lack of contextual information on this issue.

In total five themes emerged from speaking with women workers. The five themes are: (1) culture of silence; (2) shifting the needle forward; (3) EDI/AO purpose versus application; (4) shouldering the burden; and (5) advocating for what should already be. This paper focusses on two key themes, namely: (1) the culture of silence; and (2) shifting the needle forward. To engage meaningfully with women's stories in each theme, it was necessary to organize the results into two papers. Although all themes are interconnected, the themes of a culture of silence and shifting the needle forward work in tandem and are therefore presented together. A brief summary of the remaining three themes is provided in this paper and will further be discussed in a forthcoming publication. The theme, EDI/AO purpose versus application, explores how participants experienced inconsistent implementation of EDI/AO policies specifically within hiring practices, workplace safety, and conflict resolution which challenged the purpose of the policies. The theme shouldering the burden, examines the mental and emotional toll of racialized workers within their organizations and explores the strategies they used to protect their mental well-being. The fifth theme, advocating for what should already be, focuses on participants’ recommendations for ideal work environments that include enhanced allyship, evaluation of EDI/AO training initiatives, and the need for increased conversations and safe spaces to engage in EDI/AO-related issues.

Background

Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) and/or anti-oppression (AO) policies have been adopted and/or reaffirmed in some workplaces given greater awareness of racism and discrimination across various sectors (Antecol & Cobb-Clark, 2009; Nelson et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2023; Welsh et al., 2006). While it is beyond the scope of this article to document a complete history of EDI/AO policies globally, Canada's EDI policy development is important to our discussion of women workers within the GBV sector in a Canadian city. Current EDI policies in Canada arose from multicultural policies implemented by the Federal government in the 1970s and later adopted by provincial governments (Berry, 2013; Garcea, 2006). Saskatchewan was the first province to adopt multicultural policies in 1974 with other provinces following suit by enacting, revising, and/or repealing their policies in some cases (Garcea, 2006). The focus of the initial multicultural policy by the Federal government in 1971 was to ensure that Canadians had freedom to maintain their cultural heritage, share and learn from other cultures, and integrate these two facets through the use of Canada's two official languages without experiencing discrimination (Berry, 2013; Garcea, 2006).

However, multiculturalism is a problematic starting point for EDI policies as it provides a false narrative that Canada supported and valued all racial and ethnic groups of people which contradicts the forcible destruction of Indigenous communities, cultures, and land since initial contact with European settlers (Alfred, 2009; Simpson et al., 2011; Thobani, 2007). Multiculturalism decontextualizes issues from a historical perspective and refuses to engage the role of institutions (Simpson et al., 2011). As Simpson et al. (2011) further indicated, “Canada benevolently and magnanimously acknowledges cultural difference and at the same time rejects the significance of race and power” (p. 288). The refusal to grapple with race, power, and colonization in multiculturalism (the grounding for EDI policies) is why some scholars and activists indicate that EDI policies have been packaged into more digestible language that absolves Canada and its institutions of responsibility and accountability with regard to how the country became known as a “cultural mosaic” (Allan & Smylie, 2015; Coen-Sanchez, 2023; McGibbon et al., 2014). In essence, EDI policies are critiqued for becoming institutionalized in ways that are performative and reproduce harmful systemic and structural inequities, rather than challenge them. Those who question the usefulness of EDI policies encourage the use of anti-oppression and anti-racism (AR) discourses. AO/AR policies and approaches center colonization and forefronts its legacy in the current everyday realities of racialized people (Allan & Smylie, 2015; McGibbon et al., 2014).

As an example, several writers have discussed how the State approaches and responses to Indigenous communities in Canada have reproduced harmful relations between Indigenous communities and the State as well as with each other (Alfred, 2009; Coulthard, 2007; Simpson, 2016). Coulthard (2007) details the decades long struggle for self-determination by Indigenous communities that has been defined through “recognition-based politics” where some Indigenous communities have connected their self-determination to being acknowledged or included in laws, policies, and land agreements that essentially continue to perpetuate hegemonic relationships between Indigenous communities and the Crown, leaving the power in the hands of the State.

Coulthard (2007), Alfred (2009), and Simpson (2016) argue that the colonial legacy will remain steadfast if Indigenous communities do not reclaim their culture and use it as the foundation to resist colonial relations and pressures that relate to land as an “object” to be exploited, define their self-determination through recognition-based relationships with the state, and center the human species over others. Importantly, the human-centered focus of colonial relations represents what Thobani (2007) has described as the exalted subject—an “ideal” Canadian citizen synonymous with whiteness that is not meant to include Indigenous, Black, or racialized communities. These writers, along with others, argue that we will remain in a cycle of coloniality that reproduces itself in ways that are invisible if we do not question and challenge how we seek our own liberation (Alfred, 2009; Coulthard, 2007; Fanon, 1967; Simpson, 2016; Thobani, 2007). Therefore, anti-oppression and anti-racism policies grounded in an anti-colonial framing recognize the importance of cultural knowledge, practices, and values that offer a framework or guide to situate the examination of systems and structures through a politic of collectivity and care. Nevertheless, the implementation of EDI/AO policies are thought to contribute to the creation of equitable work conditions that may also attract and retain a diverse workforce, better reflecting the communities being served (Gill et al., 2018; Reitmanova & Spitzer, 2014). Moreover, EDI/AO policies are viewed as a useful tool in addressing workplace racism and discrimination, which can affect the mental and emotional health of workers decreasing job satisfaction and overall commitment (Hughes & Dodge, 1997; Ensher et al., 2001; Antecol & Cobb-Clark, 2009; Nelson et al., 2019; Monchalin et al., 2020; Deitch et al., 2003; Godley, 2018). However, limited research has examined the effectiveness of these policies as perceived and experienced by workers themselves. More specifically, even less is known about the experiences of racialized women workers within the GBV sector, a sector that primarily employs women in leadership and frontline positions in a Canadian context (Boucher, 2018).

Examining power differentials in workspaces has considered women's leadership in relation to other women (Abalkhail, 2020; Hurst et al., 2016). Hurst et al.'s (2016) work illustrates how women's working relationships with each other are unique in its relational nature where a “deeper understanding of workplace hierarchical relationships between women, situated within the broader context of their lives, will enable more focused personal and organizational strategies to be developed that better respond to the relational opportunities and challenges encountered by women in hierarchical relationships” (p. 70). While Hurst et al.'s (2016) work does not specifically address race, it provides a context for women's working relationships that can either condone or prevent systemic and structural violence in workplaces that impact women's careers. Moreover, the gendered divisions of labor that classify care work as a taken-for-granted expectation of women workers, normalizes women's exposures to violence and low wages as a part of their job, particularly in non-profit sectors that utilize the work of voluntary social service workers (Baines & Cunningham, 2011). Sectors such as GBV, that offer a range of services through the non-profit sector, where hierarchical working relationships with women are also common, are therefore complex spaces where gender, race, disability, class, experiences of violence and secondary trauma intersect and require greater safety and care that can be defined as a trauma and violence informed approach (Anyikwa, 2016; Ford-Gilboe et al., 2018).

Race and gender also become particularly important in understanding women's work experiences, as inequitable work conditions for racialized women are further heightened by disability, class, and immigration, which can lead to greater workplace discrimination (Monchalin et al., 2020; Filut et al., 2020; Tomlinson et al., 2013). For example, Metis women working within a health sector in Canada experienced unsafe work environments through co-workers misidentifying them as white and speaking about Indigenous patients in racist and discriminatory ways (Monchalin et al., 2019). Other Metis women within the same study felt that they needed to “absorb the racism or judgement” directed toward Indigenous patients (Monchalin et al., 2019, p. 254). Filut et al. (2020) review on discrimination toward physicians of color found that Black physicians experienced more racism and discrimination than other racialized care providers and that Black women physicians were further impacted. Racialized physicians identified decreased institutional support, experienced greater scrutiny, and being held to higher standards as some examples of the ways their work conditions were inequitable and discriminatory (Filut et al., 2020).

While the examination of diverse work environments has discussed GBV in relation to bullying and sexual harassment (Bruckert & Law, 2018; Jafree, 2017; Natalier et al., 2020; Welsh et al., 2006), recognizing that there are also differences in responses to violence in sectors predominantly employing women compared to men (Baines & Cunningham, 2011) and the GBV sector has addressed exposures to violence from clients (Natalier et al., 2020), and neoliberal funding arrangements impact on the GBV sector and AO policies (Boucher, 2018; Mehrotra et al., 2016), no study has advanced the discussion on women's work by examining the intersections of racialized women, the GBV sector and experiences of racism within EDI and AO work environments in Hamilton, Ontario. Without an analysis that details the impacts of racism and discrimination on Indigenous, Black, and Women of Color workers locally, organizational leaders and the overarching GBV sector may perpetuate harmful practices that create and/or sustain unsafe work environments. Given the high prevalence rates of GBV in Canada and globally (Government of Canada, 2021; Sardinha et al., 2022; National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, 2019), it is reasonable to assume that some women workers within the GBV sector, may also be survivors of violence which further supports the need to ensure racialized women workers are not experiencing structural violence while working to support their communities.

Methodology

The overall goal of our project was to support Black, Indigenous, and Women of Color workers by documenting their experiences of racism while working in EDI and AO policy-led women's organizations within the GBV sector. To achieve this goal, our objectives were first to understand the factors that impact how/if organizations implement EDI and AO policies within their organizations and second, to identify how racialized GBV service providers experience work environments, and the impacts of being in these work environments when EDI and AO policies are in place as well as the ensuing practices, if any, within the GBV sector. To this end, it was important to include the perspectives of racialized and white workers.

This was a community-based qualitative study guided by decolonizing theories and methodological approaches to research (Archuleta, 2006; Crenshaw, 1990; Mohanty, 2003; Tuhiwai Smith, 2012). Specifically, our engagement with community and motivation to work on this research project was informed by our own positionalities as racialized women (Black, Indigenous, Central American, South Asian), our varied experiences working within the GBV sector in differing capacities and for some team members, our experiences as survivors of GBV. This project was a collaboration with the Sexual Assault Centre Hamilton Area (SACHA), a feminist organization servicing the Hamilton community for 45 years. SACHA identified the need for data-driven analysis that was based on the lived experiences of racialized women workers in the GBV field and the working dynamics within the sector. We explore in greater detail the motivations for this study and key methodological decisions including the development of the research question, creation of the research team, and initial recruitment strategies in another paper (Rodney et al., 2024).

We understood that to engage in this research could (re)traumatize racialized research team members who came to this work with their own experiences of racism and discrimination in workspaces. To create safety in the research process and in keeping with our intentions to honor our ways of knowing, our project was supported by a Community Advisory Board of elders. They were instrumental in holding us accountable to the community by providing feedback on our interview guides and recruitment materials, analysis of our research results, and the development of our community report and peer-reviewed publications.

This study received ethics approval from York University's Research Ethics Board.

Recruitment and Participants

A total of 26 participants were recruited for this study and 23 workers were interviewed. Three participants did not respond after showing initial interest, despite multiple attempts to schedule interviews. Participants interviewed were white (n = 11) and racialized (n = 12), predominantly women with most participants between the ages of 30 and 39 years. They reflect organizational leadership, part-time and full-time frontline workers, and volunteers.

We utilized a combination of purposeful and snowball sampling strategies (Creswell, 2018; Merriam, 2009). Initially, we began the recruitment process by attending a meeting and presenting our research in Spring 2021 to the Women's Abuse Working Group (WAWG), a network of organizations in the City of Hamilton that focus on GBV. Organizational leads had the opportunity to ask questions about the research and agreed to share the research flyer through their email listservs. The distributed flyer included a link to our study website which provided information on the study, the research team, and an electronic participant registration form. Given that not all organizations attended WAWG meetings, we also sent out introductory emails to individual organizations and presented our research at two organizations’ staff meetings.

The Covid-19 pandemic was challenging to the snowball sampling technique, as many people were working from home and organizations were experiencing high turnover rates among employees. This meant that informal interactions within workspaces (i.e., running into a co-worker in the hallways or on break) were no longer available for workers to discuss the research with other colleagues as a form of snowball sampling. Additionally, our recruitment began during the summer months when most organization leads took vacation, which also impacted response rates. Despite these challenges, seven organizations are represented through participants in this study. All participants received a $50 honorarium at the beginning of interviews to ensure they did not feel pressured to stay or answer questions to receive the honorarium at the end of interviews.

Method

Semi-structured interviews were completed and audio-recorded using the Zoom platform. Interviews ranged from 30 min to one hour. Interview guides focused on five key areas after an initial introduction to establish rapport. Given the semi-structured nature of the guide, interviewers adapted the guide by including additional questions and/or probes given participant responses in the interviews. However, to provide an example of what was asked in each category, some questions are provided: (a) knowledge of EDI and AO policies within their organization, e.g., Can you tell me a bit about the EDI/AO policies in your organization? How long have the EDI/AO policies been in effect; (b) experiences working under EDI and AO policies, e.g., have you always worked in your organization while it has had EDI/AO policies? If yes, how do you feel they are working? How does it impact your work experience? If no, how has the introduction of EDI/AO policies changed your work environment for workers? Can you give me any examples of how these policies have helped to resolve an issue; (c) how policies impact services provided to racialized women, e.g., we have spoken a bit about how EDI/AO policies impact you as workers, but how do they impact racialized women who access your services? Have the implementation of EDI/AO policies improved your ability to serve them? If yes, how so? If no, why not? What would need to be considered; (d) recommendations to improve implementation of policies, e.g., sometimes there are gaps between policy and practice, how do you feel EDI/AO policies are being implemented? How do you think the implementation of these policies can be improved; (e) racialized accountability framework for EDI and AO policies—what is needed, and what responsibilities should it have, e.g., How would you describe your ideal work environment as a racialized worker? How do you see EDI/AO policies contributing to this ideal? What do you need from your employer to feel safe and to support your communities in a meaningful way?

Rigor and Trustworthiness

Reflexive practice of all team members was instrumental in ensuring a rigorous study. Research team members met regularly and kept their own memos and reflexive journals. The Community Advisory Board's insights and recommendations, research team members’ perspectives, contextual knowledge, and literature on GBV were considered and consulted regularly throughout the research process. Trustworthiness was achieved through source triangulation by speaking with different groups of workers within the GBV sector and from differing organizations. A comprehensive audit trail detailed key methodological decisions and the data analysis process.

Data Analysis

Data analysis was an iterative process guided by our theoretical lens of Indigenous Feminist discourses and intersectionality (Archuleta, 2006; Crenshaw, 1990; Tuhiwai Smith, 2012). Analysis occurred throughout the duration of data collection and became more focused once data collection ended. Recordings were transcribed by three research team members and transcripts were checked against the recording. Coding was utilized as a method to begin organizing the data in new ways using Dedoose software. Team members coded a combination of their own interviews as well as interviews completed by other team members. The principal investigator acted as the second coder on all transcripts. The research team members met regularly to discuss their coding, expanded and reduced codes until a coding system was created in Dedoose. Memos were used to document analytical notes and questions and were stored in Dedoose. The Community Advisory Board was also consulted throughout data analysis and met twice formally to provide feedback and input on the codes and emerging themes. Community Advisory Board members also offered further insights by directing the research team to certain literature that would be helpful to analysis and sent further reflections through email after our meetings. Once the Community Advisory Board had no further questions, the categories and themes were finalized and became the main results of this study.

Results

This paper discusses the themes culture of silence and shifting the needle forward. Due to the low numbers of racialized participants in each organization and in leadership positions, we have not identified which racialized participants are in leadership positions to protect their anonymity in the results section. Further, racialized participants include all participants who self-identified as racialized within this study. However, we have not specified race or ethnicity to protect their identities. To contextualize these emergent themes, we provide a brief overview of EDI/AO policies given to the research team by some organizations in the sector that mobilize or institute some form of anti-oppressive policy. Anti-oppressive policies included policies that solely or wholly addressed various oppressions including but not limited to racism, sexism, ableism, classism. Each organization has their own policies and procedures, and the institution of the policies is considered a commitment to being guided by them—even though what this might mean for each organization may differ.

Overview of EDI/AO/AR Policies

Not all organizations responded to our request to provide their EDI/AO policies. However, of the seven that did respond, key findings emerged. First, all organizational policies had clear harassment and discrimination policies based on prohibited grounds as identified by the Human Rights legislation, with three organizations having separate EDI/AO policies. Second, of the three organizations that had EDI/AO policies their EDI/AO frameworks, statements, missions, and/or visions varied. In cases where there were clear statements on EDI/AO, they tended to hold individuals accountable, rather than systems and histories of racialization and inequality, and often do not encompass a language or understanding of the unspoken nature of microaggressions and a toxic work environment. Lastly, although all policies indicated clear definitions, procedures, and guidelines for reporting incidents of racism or violence, there was no standard procedure on how these incidents were handled across the organizations. From the policies that were reviewed, there is an effort to address discrimination and harassment which does include race, religion, and gender, as indicated in the Charter for Human Rights, but does not necessarily provide a clear trajectory to hold workers accountable and track changes within organizations to transform organizational culture.

Culture of Silence

The culture of silence was explained by participants in three distinct ways. First, silencing was observed within the governance structure of specific organizations and the sector's organizing body, WAWG. Second, white workers spoke about their discomfort with bias and being unaware. Lastly, racialized workers were silenced even though they spoke up. However, it is important to note that the culture of silence portrayed by participants was contextualized within a sector that was described as oppressive, toxic, understaffed, and underpaid, yielding heavy trauma. Undoubtedly, some of these issues were exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, specifically understaffing in various organizations. While understaffing was an issue that affected many sectors throughout the pandemic, it is more significant for the GBV sector given the increased numbers of women exposed to GBV partly because of public health protocols that required people to stay at home.

…if I reflect on times where I’m like “oh, I really didn’t handle that well”, or like, “I’m not proud of how this went”, it's usually from a place of burnout, but also regardless of where it's coming from, those like snap judgements can just reinforce oppression. (White Participant 2)

Notwithstanding the pandemic, participants recognized that these types of environments do not support anti-oppression efforts rather, they maintain forms of structural violence within the workplace that reinforce unhealthy power dynamics between workers. More importantly, irrespective of how unhealthy the work environment might be, it cannot be used as an excuse for discriminatory behavior. Rather, it points toward an opportunity for organizational leadership to consider how they can circumvent or resist the pressures of neoliberal-focused productivity and individualism that put financial frugalness framed as fiscal responsibility over the needs of a healthy work environment.

Silencing Within GBV Sector Governance Structure and Individual Organizations

While the WAWG is a network of organizations that aims to contribute to communities living without violence, many participants were not aware of WAWG or what they did. Those that were aware of WAWG described it as a space where some people did not feel comfortable speaking in meetings, while others simply chose not to attend given past experiences and its reputation of being a space that lacks awareness and critical reflection. In this sense, WAWG's mission of being guided by an anti-racist, anti-oppressive, and intersectional feminist framework may not always be consistent in practice.

There are some great people around that table. I have no doubt, and some of them I do know, and I’ve worked with. But I imagine there's lots of work they could be doing around that table to better work with each other as partners to be more effective and to be listening to the communities that they think they serve … people talk about all the wonderful work they do. I sometimes think we need to start with what are the difficulties. What's not working? And let's have an honest conversation and I think that fear, funding always comes into it, it's that same old thing rather than what will be best for the communities we serve (White Participant 15).

This participant's quote illustrates the challenges of working within larger social and governance structures where neoliberal funding arrangements continue to create competition among organizations that all need funding. This is not a new phenomenon, but it is important to consider when thinking about the connections between anti-oppressive work environments and the larger societal structures that bear some responsibility for the everyday realities of providing social services to communities that are marginalized. Another participant stated,

…so, sometimes I feel like, to get focused so much on numbers, we forget that you know, these numbers are people, and they are here to ask for help and do everything we can to help them. But you know sometimes they kind of get sidetracked because the funder is like “I need numbers” and you know, “I need this many numbers before the end of the month, otherwise we’re not going to give you the money for the next time around”…. (Racialized Participant 7)

Some organizations have managed to resist the pressures of funders and have refused to engage within WAWG's network in a manner that has deterred other organizations and leaders from being at the table. For example, participants indicated that some organizations within the network have made a conscious decision to partner with other organizations that share similar values and principles, recognizing that each organization may be at a different stage in creating anti-oppressive work environments. In other cases, participants described a rigid hierarchical organizational culture that perpetuated a culture of silence.

In one organization, a white participant recounted a time when a committee suggested their organizational leader reach out to another racialized organization within the WAWG network to work on a situation pertaining to a racialized community. Participant two stated,

The response was terrible. The response was, you know, that's not the committee's role. The committee's role is not to tell the executive director to do those types of things. When it's kind of like, well, then what is our role.

The recognition that organizational leadership is not always open to hearing from frontline workers is not an isolated issue in one organization. The rigidity of white organizational leads in positions of power also resulted in racialized workers declining management positions. One participant stated,

I want[ed] more Black staff to come to the leadership program when I called it. I specifically said I wanted Black staff. And they [Black staff] all declined, and I called some of them and they said, “white [staff] not ready for us. Like that’s really disheartening”. (White Participant 7)

In other instances, participants indicated that management's presence in the workplace impacted workers attendance.

I feel that people are not quite happy … you would find days [where there is] a lot of call-ins on the part of their employees, because, for example, I can just feel like, honestly, I don’t feel like I want to go to work on my shift because management is going to be there … I just don’t want to be in the same vicinity with them, so I’m just going to call in sick. (Racialized Participant 6)

These quotes reveal that organizational leadership contributed to a culture of silence that impacted the day-to-day staffing within women's organizations and, also, posed as a barrier to racialized workers accepting leadership positions. The perspectives of Black women in leadership positions in the GBV sector could support greater systemic changes within women's organizations. Nevertheless, to ensure that their contributions are not to the detriment of their own mental health and well-being, organizations must be committed to the structural supports needed (i.e., mentorship, training, opportunities, allyship) to develop successful leaders—accounting specifically for how anti-Black racism can tokenize Black women in leadership spaces undermining their power and ability to effect change.

Lack of Awareness of White Privilege and White Privilege as Paralysis

White participants identified that there was a general lack of awareness among some of their colleagues while others acknowledged their privilege but were fearful about how to address it. For example, some participants had higher expectations for professions most often found in the GBV sector (i.e., social work) but were surprised at the lack of their reflection and awareness. One participant stated, “I can’t believe social workers are so reluctant to look at their biases. They are. It's bizarre to me, I have to tell you, [the truth] I can’t wrap my head around it” (White Participant 7). Whereas another white participant indicated that some of her white colleagues have misinterpreted policies as taking away from their experiences or potential to grow. She further stated,

…it's hard for white people to identify characteristics of white supremacy culture. And that makes it hard for them to … I shouldn’t be saying them [laughs] … It makes it harder to, you know, be accepting of something that you don’t understand right. If there's a lack of understanding, sometimes, emotions can jump in there. So, I would say that there is not universal buy-in, but it's, it's because of a lack of understanding of, you know, what white supremacy culture [is], how harmful it is, how it's even harmful to white people. (White Participant 2)

In this quote, she corrected herself by stating, “I shouldn’t be saying them,” recognizing that she too benefits from the privileges afforded to her because of her skin color. In most interviews white participants separated themselves from problematic behaviors witnessed in their organizations and some participants did not see how this lack of awareness may make it difficult for some racialized workers to speak out. One white participant stated that the organization wanted to hear from racialized workers, and this had been verbalized to racialized staff. She also articulated an essentialized view of oppression that may explain why some racialized workers did not feel safe enough to express what they were experiencing in their workplaces as seen below.

Yeah, from where I’m sitting, no, I don’t see a lot that concerns me that way, you know there might be things if you were to speak to one of our staff who's BIPOC, they might say, “oh yeah, there's this or there's that”. But from my perspective, I’m not seeing that, I mean everyone is equally disadvantaged there. (White Participant 14)

In essence, if she believed that all oppression is experienced the same, she has pre-emptively ended the conversation before it could occur and revealed that some white workers may not be conscious of how their perspectives can be contradictory and hinder a meaningful and safe conversation about the experiences of racialized workers. Whereas other workers were aware they may have biases but were unsure of how to address them and did not want to be paralyzed by fear. One participant stated,

I think something that happens is you’re navigating your life as a white person and you have a lot of privilege, and it feels normal and suddenly you’re like, if you’re lucky or if you’re searching for it, you are confronted with the reality of your privilege. Theoretically, you start learning about balance and suddenly kind of, it all sinks in, and then it can create a little bit of a freezing. And like not knowing what to do, what to say and how would you … know. (White Participant 13)

Racialized participants also observed that their white colleagues were aware of their privilege; however, they did not view it as one that caused “a freezing.” Rather, racialized workers described white workers making clear actions that served to address their guilt, sometimes at the expense of service users.

I don’t know about the policies but … I do notice like, sometimes, a desire to save … sometimes, I think because there is so much [white] guilt and I wonder if sometimes [white] people are thinking about what that person [the survivor] wants [respondent chuckles]. (Racialized Participant 3)

This participant's comment suggests that when white workers think of themselves as a savior, it can create narratives or stories of how they think service users should be helped which does not necessarily speak to the needs of the survivors.

The language of white privilege and supremacy are discussed and used within work environments in the GBV sector. However, there are differing levels of understanding and awareness as to how white privilege is enacted and less awareness of its subtly in everyday ways that continues to result in the silence of some racialized workers and service users.

Speaking up but Still Being Silenced

Most racialized participants spoke about the challenges of working in organizations where they were the only person or one of few racialized staff members and the impact it had on feeling silenced. Participants provided current examples and reflected on past experiences given the trajectory of some organizations and the changing composition of staff. The sheer lack of representation not only made workers feel silenced, but also resulted in some questioning their own credentials and abilities for their position. One participant stated,

So, I think sometimes, you kind of feel that you don’t have a lot to contribute and you kind of feel like, inferior, almost, you know? Because people, you know they were born here and they have a lot of education, right? So sometimes I thought that, you know, my ideas weren’t good enough, or you know, that I wouldn’t be taken seriously so I was always quiet in meetings, and I wouldn’t say a lot, because I kind of felt that because everybody just look the same, but then I was this odd one. (Racialized Participant 7)

While some participants chose not to speak in meetings, others described feeling dismissed or not acknowledged when they did speak up in meetings. For example, one participant stated,

I think sometimes it can make me feel dismissed when I say something, and no one says anything else. And, you know, that silence can feel like, it's, you know, it may not come from a place of not being supportive, but it can feel like that. I can’t speak on behalf of anyone else, but I think that I’ve really appreciated when people have actively validated me and actively, you know, said things that are supportive to show that you know they have listened, and they don’t have anything [to say]. (Racialized Participant 4)

Silence can be understood in several ways. She identified that silence may not necessarily be unsupportive, but in the context of a racialized worker in a predominantly white space, silence can be read differently. In other instances, racialized participants described speaking up about issues within their organization and not being supported by those who held more power than them.

I even told my supervisor I have said … as a Black woman I feel dismissed from time to time and she was like its above me, but I hear you. What does that mean? (Racialized Participant 5)

In this quote, the participant has articulated how she felt silenced as a Black woman in a predominantly white space, only to be dismissed because of organizational structures above her supervisor. It illustrates that either leadership within the organization has created a culture where a supervisor does not feel they have the power to advocate for a frontline staff member or that the organizational leadership can be used as an excuse to not address this participants’ concerns.

The realization that racialized workers were silenced in various ways was also identified by several white colleagues. Some white colleagues were aware of how their presence and positionality as white women may contribute to silence when discussing issues of race. Other white participants were aware of the lack of diversity in management positions and felt that EDI policies left too much room for interpretation by management. This resulted in some workers and service users being treated differently based on how the supervisor or manager felt and interpreted the policy. Regarding the differing treatment of service users, one participant stated,

There is a tendency for white folks who are accessing services to complain more and louder, [they] tend to feel more entitled—when they’re unhappy to make it known, and then folks of color, especially, like immigrants, or, like really marginalized folks, they are more likely from my experience, to not complain, like not make a fuss, okay. And so, sometimes management can make a decision to just be like, okay, we’ll just make this happen. And it will give that person a break, that like, our women of color just don’t get. (White Participant 4)

Service users also impacted racialized workers differently and some white participants were attuned to the complexities of how silence can be created in their attempts to address racism with service users. One participant stated,

So, some of the volunteers have names that sound Arabic or are from other cultures, then get exposed to, like, hateful language, so they’re allowed to use an alias. But we also don’t want it to be a situation where they have to use a fake name. And yeah, trying to figure out without just cutting out a lot of survivors all together, but also not exposing them [racialized workers]. Yeah—We don’t have a great solution at the moment. (White Participant 4)

This quote illustrates the complexities of addressing racism and how some practices may inadvertently create silences within work environments. One of the most important ways that people can be identified is by their name, yet names can also be an identifier of racialization that is used for discrimination. As this participant pointed out, the question remains how racism can be addressed without silencing parts of people's identity while also offering services to segments of the population that may be racist and/or ignorant to their own biases.

Racialized and white participants have provided examples of how racialized workers are silenced within the GBV sector and illustrated an awareness of the complexities of addressing these silences in meaningful ways.

Shifting the Needle Forward

Organizational change and growth related to EDI were explained by participants in ways that signaled an incremental progress termed “shifting the needle forward” within the GBV sector. First, policies were identified as a potential starting point for organizational change; secondly tough conversations allowed for EDI issues to be acknowledged, addressed and for equitable work environments to be created in some instances; and lastly, a focus on creating space at decision-making tables for racialized women indicated that racialized voices were being represented in some organizations and that hiring practices may slowly be changing. Participants shared that, more recently, there has been a clear shift regarding EDI even though organizations have been addressing EDI at varying levels for many years.

The murder of George Floyd in the United States, the discovery of unmarked Indigenous graves across Canada, and other racially motivated forms of violence that took place in 2020 were events mentioned specifically by participants. They felt these incidents informed the change in the work environments within their organizations by galvanizing conversations and actions related to EDI. Moreover, there was a shared recognition from participants that shifts were occurring, and they could look different within the sector at various organizations.

Policies can be a Starting Point for Organizational Change

While knowledge of EDI policies varied among participants, white and racialized participants who were aware felt that EDI policies provided a framework that enhanced credibility in supporting responses to racism and discrimination within the GBV sector. Nevertheless, some participants were acutely aware that having a policy was no longer enough. An organizational leader stated,

So, I think that, you know, if anything is evolved over the last number of years, is you know, the critical eye that we need to put on policy. So, it's not, we can do policy for the sake of policy, it's really about, you know, who are we hearing from within the organization. (White Participant 3)

In other discussions participants who worked on the frontlines echoed similar observations, acknowledging how organizations are making progress by having policies in place but highlighted the need to go beyond them.

I just need my employer to, you know … not just create the policies, for the sake of creating it, but actually believe in them, you know? And actually, you know, put them into action. (Racialized Participant 7)

These quotes illustrate that participants recognize the usefulness of policies being directly related to the intentionality and action espoused within EDI policies. As participant three indicated, for EDI policies to be effective, policy development and action must be informed by listening to those who work within organizations. Awareness of EDI from leadership was important as it showed some staff that issues related to EDI were believed in, championed by leadership, and made a priority within the organization. An organizational leader shared one of their goals for staff,

The work is hard I get it, to do the work is hard day-to-day. I want staff to slow down and stop checking boxes, because that's what the industry wants you to do. I want you to be more innovative, a little more risk tolerant, a little more informed about who's in front of you and, really practice social work principles of non-judgment. (White Participant 7)

Moving beyond the written document in any EDI effort was underscored by both white and racialized leaders. It was understood that acting on a policy would require staff to be intentional and make a conscious effort to address their biases if the goal was to treat people equitably and foster an equitable work culture. To this end, as participant seven indicated, individuals at all levels within the organization would need to slow down, be introspective, reflective, and apply a lens that acknowledges their biases to address and eliminate them. Where individuals within organizations did not have the opportunity to slow down, a participant indicated that policies could, “facilitate a kind of performative work environment where everyone is walking on eggshells, people don’t necessarily grow their politics authentically and it can sometimes perpetuate violence” (Racialized Participant 1).

Participants’ quotes illustrated that the use of EDI policies can signal to staff and service users that EDI is on the radar of organizations. At the very least, EDI policies can be used as an accountability measure to support decisions made on EDI-related matters. However, participants questioned the effectiveness and buy-in of policies without action.

Breaking the Silence, Openness to Tough Conversations Signals Progress

As noted in the section on a culture of silence, for many white participants, reckoning with their privilege and acknowledging how white privilege has benefitted them over other populations was a challenge. However, most white, and racialized participants agreed that acknowledging, naming, and having tough and uncomfortable conversations about oppression, colonization, racism, and inequity was necessary in addressing EDI issues and in turn could facilitate organizational growth. For example, a white organizational leader stated,

There is an acknowledgement that to shift this silence means hard conversations, but how and when to facilitate them remains an issue that continues to perpetuate silence. We are not the experts in people's experience and so there's always something to learn and adapt and provide opportunity for that to be expressed and I think in some cases demanded in terms of ensuring we run an equitable workplace … these conversations shouldn’t be easy, they’re going to be hard, you’re going to have to shift. It means reflection, it means continued conversation and it means change. (White Participant 3)

This comment speaks to the awareness that EDI work requires a willingness to learn and acknowledge that one cannot be the expert on another's experiences. To understand and respect the lived experiences of colleagues and clients, tough conversations are required as it includes the acknowledgment and naming of oppression (s) (i.e., racism, ableism, sexism) and a recognition of one's positionality. Participants provided examples where organizations actively ensured that space was created for these types of conversations to occur. For example,

It's being very aware of the language that we use, correcting each other when there are things that are misconceived, or just having an enriched conversation about things going on. We also have really enriching discussions within our groups about things that happen in society (e.g., hate crimes etc.) and to further educate each other, so that we can also better support people we serve as well. (Racialized Participant 4)

This participant's comment revealed that conversations on anti-oppression and current events fostered work environments that made staff feel safe. Being able to openly name the experience and speak to it in the workplace was viewed as a step forward, particularly for racialized workers who felt that they were or had been silenced. The importance of having frank, constructive conversations to advance change in organizational structures was also acknowledged by several white participants. For example, some white participants felt there was greater awareness and sensitivity than before in acknowledging people's background in meetings, whereas other white organizational leads indicated they are beginning at a board level and centering the understanding of decolonization and how it relates to board governance before creating additional committees.

Therefore, in some instances, change has been intentional, incremental, measured, and continues to evolve as white colleagues realize it is not exclusively the work of racialized individuals to introduce and/or lead all conversations related to EDI. Additionally, some white participants also vocalized a shift in awareness of their responsibility to do the work of learning, unlearning, and being uncomfortable with having conversations that call their privileges, biases, and disempowering practices to the forefront in addressing inequitable work conditions. However, when space was not created for dialogue to occur, racialized workers felt they could not address their experiences of racism. A participant stated,

I feel like when you tell someone they were racist, they circle back and tell you how they weren’t being racist and then it's like they can’t even acknowledge the fact that from your perspective there was some racism, so there's a lot of defensiveness. I think that carries out, and if management is not equipped with the right tools, they do not know how to deescalate things, that quite negatively effects the employees. (Racialized Participant 8)

Conversations, even when perceived as uncomfortable, were seen as opportunities to confront racism and a change within organizations that resulted in greater accountability. Moreover, as this participant shared, defensiveness did not allow for open dialogue or growth, rather it resulted in circular conversations.

Seats at the Table and Diverse Hiring Practices Signal a Shift in Perspective

Participants indicated that organizations are recognizing the importance of attracting more diversity to their workforce and ensuring the perspectives and voices of racialized people are captured. While a measurable outcome may be to increase the representation of racialized workers throughout the sector, some organizational leaders recognized that hiring practices must be done differently. Participants indicated that hiring practices are being reviewed however, challenges remain in retaining racialized workers as high turnover rates result in low numbers of racialized workers in each organization and even less in management or leadership positions.

Nevertheless, there are some organizations within the sector that are ensuring racialized workers are being heard in the workplace. These organizations are creating a space in which racialized employees and leaders are empowered to take up space, be vocal and contribute, particularly in spaces where there are often no racialized workers. As one participant shared,

If I was in a different organization, something would happen and I know that I wouldn’t be able to speak up, I’d have to bite my tongue. And so, I also want to recognize that because I’m in a more senior position, I have a little bit more liberty, or I feel more liberty to say things out loud, whereas if I was in a different position, I’m not sure if they would feel that it's okay to speak as much as possible. (Racialized Participant 2)

This quote illustrates that workers are aware of organizations within the sector that are more empowering than others. While this participant is racialized, they also acknowledged that their position provided more freedom to speak and feel heard than if they held a different position. Participants in frontline positions agreed and stated,

Let's have a dialogue within the organization and in the same token, if we have a meeting, we want to be heard and then things to take place. (Racialized Participant 6)

Racialized participants at all levels within organizations stated that simply having a seat at the table was not enough. They desired environments that empowered employees and leaders to speak up and encouraged dialogue in their organizations. Some white participants also acknowledged the need to include racialized colleagues in decision-making and value their contributions. In doing so, some leaders were reflective of their own positionality and how it influenced organizational culture.

I think of myself as a leader and as a white woman in a position with a lot of earned and unearned privilege … We have to be ready and what we talked about in our leadership is that we need to be prepared for challenge, we need to be prepared for change, because it's ever evolving. This work will never be done, and so I hope if I impart anything to the leadership team, it's that—always be ready to change, change is a good thing. Change will ensure that we continue to grow, that we continue to be more welcoming. (White Participant 3)

When organizational leaders and white participants, like participant three, understood EDI to begin with a reflection of their own privilege, it signaled a greater possibility for a shift in organizational culture that could be modeled after its leadership. Moreover, some white leaders embraced the opportunity and recognized the importance of educating white colleagues on the work of decolonization and anti-oppression. Not all organizations were on the same trajectory, some did not have leaders who clearly articulated the importance of change and self-reflection.

Shifts in thinking, behaviors, and actions, while varied and complex across the sector, are happening. Participants acknowledged the heavy lifting and long-term work that must be done to tackle racism and oppression. Where participants identified challenges, all participants acknowledged that progress is being made.

Discussion

The aim of this paper was to illustrate how women workers experience EDI policy-led work environments in women's organizations within the GBV sector in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The results illustrate how racism is experienced in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, but also how it can be addressed. Central to our analysis is the recognition that the GBV sector, being embedded within a colonial system, will continue to “shift the needle forward” without meaningfully addressing the culture of silence if organizations continue to operate within the system as it is currently structured. Transforming the current GBV sector requires an acknowledgment that it is embedded within a colonial system that is upheld by a neoliberal logic and its attendant practices. While emerging approaches have attempted to account for racialized individuals, these interventions have widely employed an approach that works to incorporate racialized subjects into a flawed system that overdetermines hierarchical relations of recognition (Coulthard, 2007; Fanon, 1967). What is required, are transformative efforts that fundamentally shift how racialized workers are framed and valued within the sector. For instance, a number of women's organizations in Hamilton have not received funding increases for more than 15 years (Nickerson, 2023). We suggest that material investments are necessary to facilitate these transformative efforts as without them, racialized workers will continue to be devalued by, excluded from, and feel unsafe within the sector.

Our results add further support to studies that have called for a critical examination of how neoliberal funding arrangements impact organizational and sector response and implementation of EDI policies (Boucher, 2018). Participants’ experiences revealed that current funding arrangements created and sustained work environments in some organizations where financial efficiency took precedence in decision-making that did not foster workspaces that supported anti-oppressive practices. In these environments, anti-oppressive practices were at times considered an option that was more difficult to implement. However, work environments such as these that are challenged by financial and human resource constraints are exactly where anti-oppressive practices cannot be an option, especially given the nature of work within the GBV sector, and the higher exposures to trauma and secondary trauma. Notably, the GBV sector, which includes several helping professions, has “both depended on and reproduced the inferiority and other status of Indigenous Peoples, Black people, and People of Color. As the work of helping professionals constituted the other in unfavorable terms—and as everything the white settler was not” (Gebhard et al., 2022, p. 11). Therefore, the GBV sector must grapple with the fact that their organizations, organizational practices, and WAWG as an overarching body, are not race-neutral and therefore, have the power to “enhance or diminish the agency of racial groups and legitimate the unequal distribution of resources” (Ray, 2019, p. 27).

Further, an improvement to work environments within the GBV sector also pointed toward an examination of other social structures and institutions, particularly the education system. The realization that some white social workers lacked the awareness to be self-reflective supports previous research that indicated white social workers, both educators and students, downplayed the importance of anti-racism perspectives and practices in their personal and professional lives (Blitz & Kohl, 2012; Srivastava, 2005). The persistence of these perspectives in our study offers an understanding of how colonial systems continue to perpetuate legacies of violence, racism, and discrimination that center whiteness and directly impact the everyday lives of racialized women who experience violence. The centrality of whiteness was also experienced by racialized workers in ways that protected the femininity of white womanhood.

As Allen's (2022) work indicated, white femininity is based on constructions of innocence and helplessness that was recognized within the sector by racialized workers and in fewer instances by white women workers. She discussed her own experiences as a white woman attempting to help an Indigenous woman who she felt was in distress, but in her attempt to help this woman, she ended up causing more harm (Allen, 2022). The idea of being a savior or helping a racialized person in “distress” discussed by Allen (2022), was also described by a racialized worker as “white guilt” and illustrates learned patterns of white settler womanhood that focus on racialized communities as needing the care that white workers believe and not what survivors want. As Allen (2022) indicated, “the survival of an ongoing settler-colonial project through the performance of white benevolent white femininity preserves white women's status and white settler dominance under the guise of protection, help and saving” (p. 88). Additionally, the construction and preservation of innocence remains steadfast in perspectives from white participants such as, “everyone is equally disadvantaged there” because it acknowledges discrimination in a workspace but trivializes the intersecting experiences of racialized women to the point of erasure. Perspectives such as these are examples of epistemic ignorance that maintain a culture of silence and perpetuates racism and discrimination.

Continuing the culture of silence reinforces the invisibility of whiteness as a taken-for-granted power that is not actively shaping the experiences of racialized workers and service users within the sector. This invisibility is what Fanon (1967) would describe as an objective historical condition that could only remain powerful if connected to the subjective experiences of people within the system. Within our study, the culture of silence not only impacted the work environment but impacted the psyche of racialized workers whose histories and experiences have been relegated as the “other” within the colonial project Our results illustrate that the identities of racialized workers were shaped not only by recognition, but also by absence as seen by one of the participants who questioned her own credentials and presence in the workplace. It is in these cultures of silence where the colonial project continues to perpetuate racialized bodies as less than human (Haynes, 2012; Thobani, 2007) and workers, having been exposed to these persistent structural and interpersonal relations may come to endure this type of work environment as “normal” (Coulthard, 2007; Fanon, 1967). In this sense, history remains present in the everyday experiences of racialized women workers in the GBV sector as their value and positioning within the system are reproduced in ways that maintain longstanding hegemonic power relations.

Therefore, it is important to constantly re-think what it means to be well-intentioned and the belief that GBV women's organizations are providing spaces to speak about racism, when in fact these invitations may be read as disingenuous by racialized workers due to experiences of dismissive responses by white colleagues or organizational leadership when racism has been experienced. This point cannot be overstated if we recognize the importance of women workers (who may be survivors themselves) being heard and feeling safe when they speak up in a sector that is focused on eliminating violence.

The aim of our work is also not to create further divides or compare victimhood between white women workers and racialized women workers. The work of feminist critical scholars and activists has always been to critique our own spaces and movements to ensure we are not reproducing exclusions in our varied pursuits. As Reddock (2019) stated, “in order to understand the various groups relation to each other, it is necessary to understanding their valuing within a colonial power” (p. 822). Thus, understanding and framing the experiences of racialized women workers within a larger Canadian colonial context is necessary and reveals the ways in which power is reproduced, maintained, and perpetuates silence within the GBV sector. Instead of meaningfully engaging in dialogue, some white participants viewed the inclusion of more racialized bodies within the sector as taking away from their unearned dominance. Without addressing the experiences of racialized women and understanding the colonial project that informs the performance of whiteness, there can be no real cohesion within the GBV sector as it remains predominantly an affirmative space (Reddock, 2019).

Within affirmative spaces, the system or structures remain intact and therefore focuses on including racialized bodies into systems that are inherently racist and discriminatory (Fraser, 2005; Luckett & Shay, 2020). The increase in racialized workers throughout the sector is important and was noted by participants as an example of how “shifting the needle forward” can be celebrated as a step toward more inclusive workspaces. However, racialized, and white participants were resolute in articulating that the sector remains imbalanced in terms of racialized women in leadership positions and, more importantly, that some leadership circles were read as unsafe which deterred racialized women from accepting leadership positions. This supports other research where Black women and racialized workers recognized that leadership positions (irrespective of the sector) present as a concrete ceiling, which means an often-unachievable level, due to systemic barriers (Bernard et al., 2020). In a Canadian context, these barriers have included, but are not limited to, being passed over for promotions (Aladejebi, 2021; Das Gupta, 1996), invisibility and exclusion when in leadership positions (Daniel, 2019) overlooking of talent (Bernard et al., 1993; Hossein, 2018), as well as a lack of options for professional development (Joseph & McKenzie, 2022), mentorship (Henry, 2015) and organizational support (Jefferies et al., 2022) due to racialization. Given these experiences by Black women and other racialized women, many choose to decline leadership positions. In these instances, participants’ experiences within this study revealed acts of resistance where racialized workers rejected opportunities that may have resulted in increased pay and possibly higher status in exchange for the preservation of their own mental health and well-being. These acts of resistance reveal the level of violence racialized workers anticipated in leadership spaces and a radical act of self-love over higher salaries and job titles, sending a clear message to organizational leadership that the work environment must first be addressed. As Simpson (2014) indicates, “there was something that seemed to reveal itself at the point of refusal—a stance, a principle, a historical narrative, and an enjoyment in the reveal” (p. 107). In this sense refusing a leadership position as one participant did was anti-colonial because she rejected a space that would expose her to further reproductions of colonial violence given her racialized body does not align with those who have historically has been deemed to have power in a Canadian context and within a helping profession (Gebhard et al., 2022; Thobani, 2007).

Moreover, a recurring theme throughout this study was that many white workers separated themselves from their own privilege when discussing EDI, racism, and discrimination or reflected on other white workers who engaged in discriminatory or problematic behavior. The inability to speak in first person or to be reflective about one's role within the system illustrates a complicity within a colonial system that is reflective of how anti-oppression and anti-racism movements were co-opted by equity, diversity, and inclusion language that is more palatable and better aligns with the image of Canada as a post-racial multicultural nation. However, racialized workers and some white workers within women's organizations in the GBV sector are also illustrating transformative practices that aim to challenge the sector in terms of creating work environments that support better treatment of racialized women workers. This is important because it means that while challenges remain within the sector, examples of solutions that are sector-specific can also be found and shared throughout women's organizations within the WAWG network.

The recognition by some white organizational leadership that staff should move slower and be more intentional signals that some organizations are ready to move differently than the status quo, marking a disruption in the power structures that consider EDI as a surface-level engagement and/or activity in the GBV sector. However, this change in engagement and work practices requires a concerted effort from the federal, provincial, and even municipal governments to invest more in women's organizations within the GBV sector. Therefore, the continued advocacy by women within the sector calling for more resources is a recognition that while every social system may be struggling financially, this sector is predominantly overrepresented by gendered, classed, and racialized bodies, particularly in the frontlines of organizations, and deserve more financial support.

The importance of strong leadership was a key component for many participants in creating and improving workspaces that centered anti-oppression and anti-racism. In some instances, sectoral leadership acknowledged and worked with their own realizations of power and centeredness; however, based on frontline worker experiences, these practices need to be expanded within more organizations. Making whiteness visible in some cases illustrated that within the sector there are opportunities to learn and model ways of relating that have disrupted the silence and invisibility of whiteness. Notably, some organizational leadership were aware that discussions at the head of organizations need to shift toward the understanding of decolonization as a foundational step toward accounting for the history of their organizations. A shift toward decolonization as a starting point (as opposed to EDI) is an opportunity to hold systems and structures accountable for the ways in which colonial violence has been reproduced. In this sense, transformative perspectives and more importantly, practices, are emerging in the sector—even if they are few and far between.

Therefore, organizational leaders must play an active role as change agents who are willing to facilitate and engage workers in dialogue that encourages an awareness of their own biases. However, this can only occur if organizational leadership wrestle with their own identities as well. Once this occurs, it may be easier for white colleagues as allies to read silences within organizational spaces in a manner that supports racialized women workers when they choose to speak, rather than speaking for them. As Freire (2000) states, “But while to say the true word—which is work, which is praxis—is to transform the world, saying that word is not the privilege of some few persons, but the right of everyone. Consequently, no one can say a true word alone—nor can she say it for another, in a prescriptive act which robs other of their words” (p. 88). White women workers cannot truly be allies until they are able to reckon with and address the discomfort of their own privilege and disrupt the taken-for-granted power that is afforded to them because of their positionality.

Lastly, our results also illustrate the tensions white workers face in coming to terms with their own privilege, wanting to address their biases, but not knowing how or where to approach what they may be unaware of. Participant comments indicated that this was a necessary step in creating greater safety in the sector for racialized workers. These tensions are not new and have been addressed in other sectors. Halvorsen et al.'s (2002) work at the University of Calgary is of particular importance to this discussion given their focus on disrupting white entitlement and racism within the School of Social Work. Halvorsen et al. (2002) utilized caucusing structured within an anti-colonial and anti-racist framework to provide white participants a guided space to do critical unlearning of white supremacy and privilege. Within this framework, racial hierarchies are made explicit so that their production can be disrupted (Giles & Rivers, 2009 as cited in Halvorsen et al., 2002). Central to the success of caucusing is the realization that the end goal is to bring participants (racialized and white) together in solidarity (Halvorsen et al., 2002). In this sense, this approach could be instrumental in addressing the concerns of racialized and white participants in this study that question how and where to engage in tough conversations on racism and discrimination.

Conclusion

EDI policy-led women's organizations are spaces where racialized women continue to experience racism and discrimination in the GBV sector. Even though progress has been made in terms of shifting the needle forward, women's experiences of racism are examples of systemic violence. To eliminate a culture of silence, which inherently dehumanizes racialized women workers, the GBV sector must move toward transformative approaches that continue to question the system's responsibility in creating spaces that support anti-oppressive efforts. Only in transformative spaces can the culture of silence be addressed, and this means questioning and challenging power, and moving toward language and more importantly, action that centers anti-oppression and anti-racism over equity, diversity, and inclusion.