You think you’ve covered all the bases to address implicit bias in your organization. You’ve held trainings and worked with employees exhibiting problematic behavior. You’re confident that every aspect of your nonprofit’s operations supports tenets of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
You are likely wrong. Without realizing it, your communications to constituents could be conveying the message that the organization is sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and racist. Blame your database and the honorifics, names, salutations, and acknowledgments it regularly spits out atop donor solicitations.
How can a database be discriminatory? In many cases, the rules established for data management are based on antiquated notions of etiquette, assumptions about identity, stereotypes, and Anglicized or Euro-centric conventions for names.
This is both offensive and bad for fundraising. A 2016 study by Abila on donor loyalty found that approximately 71 percent of donors “feel more engaged with a nonprofit when they receive content that’s personalized. Personalization done wrong — with misspelled names, irrelevant information, or age-inappropriate material, for example — rubs donors the wrong way.”
So, what can you do about it? The following scenarios highlight red flags to look for and offer solutions to help ensure your database reflects the organization’s mission and conveys respect for donors.
Scenario One:
Outdated and Offensive Honorifics
An alum seeks to register online for a university’s reunion weekend. The form’s drop-down boxes require the alum to choose among the following honorifics: Mr., Miss, Ms., or Mrs., then asks for a full name and class year, and to enter a “preferred name.” The alum looks at the form, closes the browser, doesn’t register, and decides never to support the institution again. Why?
Reason one: The alum is offended by a need to choose an honorific based on a gender binary system. They don’t identify as male or female.
Reason two: The alum is a trans woman who doesn’t want to be identified by her “dead” name and wishes to be identified by her “lived-by” name. She is offended by the phrase “preferred name,” which she finds condescending and dismissive.
Reason three: The alum is a feminist and an LGBTQ ally. She is offended by the need to choose an honorific that identifies her by marital status. Why does her marital status matter in registering for an event? She thinks, “Why is this institution so behind the times? I thought we settled this issue in the 1970s.” She also recognizes the honorifics and “preferred name” phrase as not supporting members of the LGBTQ community.
Solutions
Eliminate honorifics based upon marital status and a gender binary choice. If honorifics are essential to the constituent base and community culture, think carefully about which to include. Perhaps only use those earned by education (Dr. and Rev.), professional position (Hon.), or military rank (Gen.).
Ask for pronouns. Asking and using the appropriate pronoun — he, him, his, she, her, hers, they, them, their — signals an institution’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. It also sets up the institution for further respectful engagement with constituents. For example, development directors will know how to address potential donors, and communications staff will be better prepared to write pieces that fully honor the identities of notable constituents.
Replace “preferred name” with “lived-by name.” People who care about this will notice and have more respect for your institution. Individuals will feel seen and heard, and allies will applaud the message of inclusivity. But organizations shouldn’t stop there. Data should be coded to ensure the individual’s dead name is no longer used in any communications or recognition. If your institution needs to retain the dead name because it’s tied to records such as academic transcripts, then code the data to reflect that the lived-by name should be used in all other circumstances. If you are unsure which name to use for tax purposes, ask the individual and keep a record of the information. Don’t assume you should use their dead name.
How databases manage your constituents’ identities sends a loud and clear message about whether or not you deserve their support.
Glaad (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination) offers a useful reference guide, including a glossary and tips on how to frame communications to be more inclusive. Additionally, these and other changes recommended in this article should be available through customizations of relationship-management software.
Scenario Two: Outdated and Sexist Attitudes About Couples
A couple makes a contribution using a check. The checking account is in the name of Gregory Smith and Alexis Jones. Alexis signs the check. A tax credit is issued to Mr. Gregory Smith. A thank-you letter is addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Gregory Smith, and the donor roll lists Mr. and Mrs. Gregory Smith. The next solicitation letter the couple receives is addressed to Mr. Gregory Smith. The couple is furious and vow never to give again. Why?
Reason one: Alexis is a woman and on the institution’s board. She is angry because her name wasn’t listed, and she has the primary relationship with the organization. The institution presumed that she is married to Gregory and that she took her husband’s name. It also assumed the contribution was “his money.” These assumptions are typical of data entry for couples and can be infuriating to women, who, studies show, are more likely to give than men — and to give more.
Reason two: Alexis is a man. Both he and Gregory are angry because it was presumed that a couple is defined as a woman and a man.
Making assumptions that couples have a single primary breadwinner who is male significantly hinders an institution’s ability to accurately identify potential volunteer leaders and major donors.
Solution
As a general rule, alphabetize names when addressing couples. If your institution has alumni, name the alum first and spouse/partner second. Two alums in the couple? Again, alphabetize. Put aside the antiquated etiquette idea of the male name as primary. The hierarchy, if any, should be based on who holds the primary relationship with the institution.
Scenario Three: Westernized Notions About People’s Names
Mich’ele Williams signs up to become a member of an organization and makes a contribution. When she receives her acknowledgment and membership card, her name is listed as Michele Williams. She is furious and cancels her membership. Why?
Reason: The institution has misspelled and Anglicized her name — disrespecting and dismissing her African American identity. Since the 1970s, the use of diacritical marks in African American names has signified a reclaiming of cultural and ethnic heritage. Getting Mich’ele’s name right is intrinsic to supporting institutional values of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
A person’s name is one of the most important signifiers of identity. It can convey gender, sexual identity, values, religious beliefs, cultural heritage, national origin, ethnicity, and more. Accurately recording names is crucial to constituent support. This goes much further than the difference between “Ann” and “Anne” or “Stephen” and “Steven.” It means being attuned to the implicit bias of viewing the world through a Western European, Romance-language lens.
Solution
Globalize your database. Prepare your database to accurately accept and sort constituent names from around the world. For instance, the order of a person’s name varies in different cultures. In China, last names come first, and Brazil uses two or more last names. This resource on names around the world from W3C Internationalization Working Group is a good place to start educating yourself about how different cultures approach names.
How your organization recognizes and acknowledges constituents and donors should be a key part of any implicit-bias training and should include employees who design forms and databases containing names. Communications, marketing, and development leaders and staff members should also be aware of these issues.
Realizing and accepting every constituent’s experience as valid is key to the success of your institution. How databases manage your constituents’ identities sends a loud and clear message about whether you deserve their support.
