Lee B. Weathers, the former publisher of the Shelby Daily Star of Shelby, North Car­olina, wrote to the editor of Look magazine in 1956: "No race in the world has made as much progress as the Southern Negro since he was set free as a slave 90 years ago. The southern white man has contributed gladly to that advancement and will continue to do so, if social reformers who know little about our problem will let us work it out in our own way…"

It's easy to "Tsk, tsk!" Mr. Lee B. Weath­ers, to shake one's head and be amazed that he managed to be so ignorant, obstinate, de­luded, and provincial. But to varying degrees, we are all Lee B. Weathers. He was a human being as are we, and human beings have common appetites. We all crave measures of predictability. We all want to dictate the pace of change and to be loved and hon­ored for what we've ceded in the name of change, however slight. Like Lee B. Weathers, we don't just want to know what's going to happen; we want our firm, heavy foot on the brake pedal of change.

And like Mr. Weathers, we employ truisms to obscure our ignorance and our obstinacy, our delusions and our provincialism. And we repeat our truisms, until they become our mantras.

Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi minister of propaganda, asserted that if we repeat a lie enough times, it becomes the truth. Through weight of repetition, the mantras of our po­litical parties, corporations, and other organi­zations now appear true. "We want the best person for the job," and "We want to think outside of the box," they contend.

And we believe them.

But such contentions curtain delusion.

Ronald Heifetz, of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, argues that organi­zations are akin to organisms and what all organisms want is constancy. For example, if the human body rises a mere degree, it sweats and we shed clothing. If we drop a mere de­gree, we shiver and don additional clothing. Organizations behave in similar ways. They want the "same old, same old."

America's corporations, government, and communities seek constancy. Via acclimation, we prefer "presidential" appearing candidates and CEOs, which seems code for patrician white men.

Yes, I know that there's been progress. One might assert: "No gender in the world has made as much progress as the American woman since she was set free to vote nearly 90 years ago."

Since the 19th amendment to the US Con­stitution ceded women the right to vote 94 years ago, there has been progress. Women, the majority gender, today comprise 1.2 per­cent of the Fortune 500 CEO population. Seven of the fifty governors are female. There have been no female vice-presidents and no female presidents. The numbers are also tell­ing for black Americans, who comprise 0.6 percent of the Fortune 500 CEO population, with no black governors, vice-presidents, or presidents.

Yes, change is hard. It entails losses: the loss of the familiar white, male face and the loss of predictability, which that familiar white, male face has been trained to deliver. It also entails the loss of privilege for that familiar white, male face, but in the end, the refusal of the Republican and Democratic parties to offer candidates that aren't white, rich, and male is embarrassing.

Yes, the American government and corpo­rations can assert that they want to think out­side of the box and acquire the best person for the job, but the years without proportion­ate female leadership suggest otherwise.

I understand that the two primary parties have "contributed gladly to…(the) advance­ment (of women) and will continue to do so, if social reformers who know little about (the) problem will let (the parties) work it out in (their) own way."

But I wince when I hear their mantras, like I would wince if Lee B. Weathers happened to be my uncle and he started pontificating over Thanksgiving turkey about the contributions of the Southern white man to the unprec­edented progress of the Southern Negro.