Careful WSMBF – Indianapolis Recorder

Careful, Newfields, the silence is a bit too loud. An African proverb says, “The eye that is outside sees most of the game.” The silent game Newfields plays leaves little to the imagination and more to dance with dated ideologies better suited in history with Newfield’s reticent past. However, the antithesis leads the Indianapolis art institution to repeat the same mistakes continually.

Before Newfields self-disclosed, its racist intent (in a board-approved job description), the distance between its history, (the interconnectedness of its) current problems, and its lack of social responsibility stood the quasi-contradictory institution resting on traditions while utilizing traditions to encourage change, a clever master of playing change, but never evolving. But now that its “racial problems” will not hush and go away and Newfields is under a brighter, more intense spotlight, the community wants to see all its laundry and hear its leaders while it is being cleaned. A charge Newfields led with its commitment to a metamorphosis that would include diversity, inclusivity, and transparency.

Under the gaze of inclusivity and transparency, Newfields elected its first Black Board of Trustees, Chair Darrianne Christian. Her role would be the Director of Governance. Christian, in turn, appointed and welcomed Dr. Colette Pierce Burnette as Newfield’s first Black CEO and director of day-to-day operations.

Leveraging the possibilities of what started as an opportunity to exhibit institutional change, educate, build community, and begin anew with Black women at the helm now leaves the community questioning what prevented these hand-selected women from doing their jobs efficiently and effectively. What changed?

Both Darrianne Christian and Dr. Colette Pierce Burnette have traveled the road to success while Black, so they both know how to commune with all people, including racists. They both have been tapped to fix problems and have had great success in the past, so what or who changed? And did that change have anything to do with Dr. Burnette quickly stimulating a more diverse audience? If so, did these newfound partnerships with a more diverse crowd affect the museum’s “traditional, core, white art audience?”

Back to the white supremacist culture that led to its initial problems now challenges the public to realize white supremacist ideals are not only upheld by white people. One can have a white supremacist mindset and a Black face (WSMBF). “The characteristics of white supremacy can manifest in organizational culture and are used as norms and standards without being proactively named or chosen by the full group. These characteristics are damaging to both people of color and white people in that they elevate the values, preferences, and experiences of one racial group above all others.” These ideologies also impose an acceptance of the moment but resistance to the movement, and Dr. Burnette was hired for the movement (so thought the public).

Dr. Burnette presented and acted upon a clear understanding of and addressing the root causes of the white supremacist culture within Newfields and in its business dealings. To do the job the public was informed she would do, Dr. Burnette promoted equity by partnering with community organizations and artists to dismantle societal power imbalances that Newfields often negated and neglected. She fostered inclusivity, challenged discriminatory practices, and promoted policies that supported diverse and equitable opportunities for all, so what changed?

Why would an institution hire a CEO who did not fundamentally agree with the “new” direction? Unless the direction changed, or did it? Newfields always wanted to keep its traditional, white core audience, right?

Newfields told the public that was not the intent, so once Dr. Burnette began to do what was asked of her publicly, why was she no longer at the helm of day-to-day operations? The public is wise enough to know that Dr. Burnette was not hired as a face. She did not leave Texas to be a face in Indiana. The board welcomed her ability to turn around the troubled institution. So, when did the board change? Or, who or what changed the mind of the person who welcomed Dr. Burnette?

When did the pressure begin? When did “slow down” or “don’t you think we’re going too fast too soon” come up in casual conversation? Who asked her to resign? When? Why wouldn’t she? These are the questions on the community’s mind, and we will continue to seek answers. In the African culture, a proverb states, “When spider webs unite, they can tie up a lion.” Who divided the mission and at what cost?

The Recorder will keep asking questions and sharing the findings…