In this episode of “Collage,” the Rev. F. Willis Johnson interviews Ryon J. Cobb, an assistant professor of Social Work at Rutgers University. His research interests focus on social determinants and consequences of population health, health disparities and the religious dimensions of racial attitudes among adults.
One of the barbershops participating in the Barbershop Books program.
Barbershop Books, an organization whose award‑winning literacy programs celebrate, amplify, and affirm the interests of Black boys while inspiring kids to read for fun, has spent more than a decade transforming everyday community spaces into joyful reading hubs. That mission was on full display this Martin Luther King Jr. Day, when the organization partnered with a neighborhood barbershop in the Bronx—Flava In Ya Hair—to offer free haircuts and free children’s books to local families.
As families examined stacks of Dog Man, Fly Guy, Captain Underpants, and Diary of a Wimpy Kid, barbershop owner Patrick shared that growing up, reading was associated with negative school experiences and used as a punishment at home. “Go in your room and read!” he said.
As a father of young children, Patrick now sees reading differently. He pointed out how beat up Pete the Cat looked. “I had never heard of the book,” he said, “but all the kids love it. You can tell because it’s all torn up.”
This barbershop owner tells a very different story about Black boys and reading than the narrative communicated by national test scores. His experience also highlights what America gets wrong in supporting Black boys on their reading journeys.
When people learn about Barbershop Books’ work creating child-friendly reading spaces in barbershops in New York City, Philadelphia, and other cities, they inevitably ask the same question: How do you choose your books? They often lean in, as if waiting for top-secret information, but my answer is always the same simple response. We ask Black boys what they like to read. We buy the books they recommend. And then we distribute those books to our national network of barbershops.
For many adults, this sounds obvious. But in practice, it’s rare. At a time when schools and families have more data about children than ever before, one thing is often missing from book lists curated for Black boys: direct input from the boys themselves. When you search “book lists for Black boys” online, you’ll rarely see titles like Pete the Cat, Dog Man, or Captain Underpants.
When curation starts and stops with parts of Black boys that adults can see, such as their skin color, books can become small windows and circus mirrors that distort how boys see themselves and understand the world around them. Barbershop Books serves many boys who enjoy reading but who don’t consider themselves readers because the content that most interests them isn’t affirmed by the adults in their lives. My only ask is that if a Black boy asks for a specific book, give him that specific book. If he can’t read it yet, read it to him. And if there’s another book you think he might like, read him that book too.
Carefully curated titles that center and celebrate Black boys and Black history are essential. At a time when children’s access to books is increasingly shaped by adult fear and politics, we must continue to lift up Black authors and illustrators who tell stories that recognize the full humanity of Black boys, their diverse lived experiences, and the history that shapes their present realities. There is space in Black boys’ relationships with stories for joy and silliness, imagination, and curiosity. There’s also room for conversations about history and the many times when humanity has failed to exercise humility, empathy, and compassion. There’s room on Black boys’ bookshelves for Pete the Cat, Crown: An Ode to the Fresh Cut, Bud, Not Buddy, and One Piece.
Black boys are navigating literacy challenges that are too often framed narrowly as skills deficits with little consideration for the conditions that fuel America’s worsening reading motivation crisis. What child or adult wants to be tortured with wack stories or stories read wackily? As a former kindergarten and first-grade teacher, I can confidently say that teaching reading isn’t easy. However, children can’t read more and get worse at reading. So, the question we should all be asking ourselves is what inspires kids to read for fun?
For more than a decade, Barbershop Books has focused on cultivating Black boys' reading identities by partnering with barbershops to make reading feel possible, enjoyable, and worth choosing. In these male-centered cultural hubs, Black boys feel welcomed, affirmed, and supported. Beyond their entrepreneurship and artistry, many barbers serve as mentors and role models who make reading visible and normalized rather than forced.
The Barbershop Books program isn’t just a good idea or a feel-good story. It works. A two-year evaluation led by NYU education professor Dr. Susan Neuman, funded by the William Penn Foundation, found that Black boys in barbershops with the Barbershop Books program are significantly more likely to be observed reading than boys in shops without it. When asked how they saw themselves, boys most often identified as gamers, followed by basketball players. But in participating barbershops, Black boys were just as likely to identify as readers as they were as basketball players. This matters because when boys identify as readers, they read more for fun and perform better in school.
Black History Month invites us to reflect on legacy, resistance, and possibility. One way to honor America's many freedom fighters is by protecting Black boys’ right to joy, curiosity, and agency. And sometimes it takes the form of a book about a blue cat and his four groovy buttons.
Alvin Irby is the founder and executive director of Barbershop Books, the 2025 Grand Prize winner of the Wharton School’s Lipman Family Prize at the University of Pennsylvania. His writing on literacy and education has been widely syndicated, reaching millions of readers.
When Hegseth ordered all top brass to assemble in Quantico in September, he declared women could either meet male standards for combat roles or get cut. Strong message, except the military was already doing that, so Hegseth was either oblivious or ignoring decades of history. Confusion aside, it reaffirmed a goal Hegseth has made clear since his Fox News days, when he said, “I'm straight up saying we should not have women in combat roles.” Now, as of January 6th, the Pentagon is planning a six-month review of women in ground combat jobs. It may come as no surprise, but this thinly veiled anti-woman agenda has no tactical security advantage.
When integrating women into combat roles was brought to Congress in 1993, a summary of findings submitted that, “although logical, such a policy would [erode] the civilizing notion that men should protect . . . women.” Archaic notions of the patriarchy almost outweighed logic; instead, luckily, as combat roles have become available to them, more and more women are now serving, increasing military readiness. As it turns out, women are highly effective in combat. Khris Fuhr, a West Point graduate who worked on gender integration at Army Forces Command, calls this new review "a solution for a problem that doesn't exist." She says an Army study between 2018 to 2023 showed women didn’t just perform well in ground combat units but sometimes scored even better than their male counterparts.
The military stands corrected on several other missteps regarding integration. General Arnold wrote in 1941 that “the use of women pilots serves no military purpose,” only to have “nothing but praise” for them by 1944, and a survey in 1945 revealed that most white troops who claimed to have unfavorable views of integrating with African Americans changed their view to favorable after fighting alongside them. To that end, in a study with British Special Operations Forces, researchers discovered that almost all the male soldiers felt women had zero negative influence on their effectiveness in combat; those who disagreed had no concrete reasoning but just a feeling, or a fear that women might have an adverse effect in the future. Sounds like our Secretary of War might be crafting policy out of similar feelings and fears, which are notably not based in reality.
Unfortunately, these baseless biases are far more harmful to combat effectiveness than women being there. According to a study conducted by RAND National Defense Research Institute, the success of gender integration is influenced by whether men perceive women as competent and if women are “accepted as full members of their teams.” If unit cohesion is so impressionable, then whenever Hegseth casts doubt on whether women should hold these roles, he is sabotaging how much more effective these combat units could be.
The military is indeed a difficult place to be a woman, but not because of the mission. Women are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by the enemy, and military leaders have repeatedly failed to live up to promises for reform. There are more unplanned pregnancies in the military than in the civilian world; since Dobbs, 40% of female servicemembers are now facing increased health risks simply by being stationed at one of the 100 bases within a state banning abortions. As a result, the likelihood of separation for women is 28% higher than for men. And these were the numbers before the Secretary of War made it harder to complain about assault, bias, and harassment. Alas, Hegseth may be deliberately making the military inhospitable to women to keep them from leadership. Starting with combat roles is strategic: if combat opportunities and physical strength become top metrics to measure leadership ability and competence, gatekeeping women from those roles keeps them subordinate.
The thing is, in the largest recruiting drought since the Vietnam War, the armed forces need women. Women represent a higher percentage of the recruitable population than men; back in 2018, the Navy’s then chief of personnel said of women: “That’s where the talent ishat’s where the talent is.” Plus, diversity is a critical force multiplier, while an overrepresentation of men has a negative effect on security policy initiatives. So why is Hegseth pursuing an agenda that weakens us? Beyond a blinding level of misogyny, it is unclear. Unless…if all the women left the military, then it could be whittled down to a horde of men indoctrinated in machismo and more loyal to specific leaders than the Constitution. Might that be the true goal?
As a nation, we need good people in uniform now more than ever. We must push on our legislators to not allow the military to continue on a war against women, but we must also uplift female servicemembers, and encourage male servicemembers to do the same. We can’t turn our backs–we have to have theirs.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.
Harvard students joined in a rally protesting the Supreme Courts ruling against affirmative action in 2023.
I have an identical twin sister. Although our faces can unlock each other’s iPhones, even the two of us are not exactly the same. If identical twins can differ, wouldn’t most people be different too? Why is diversity considered a bad word?
Like me, my twin sister is in computing, yet we are unique in many ways. She works in industry, while I am in academia. She’s allergic to guinea pigs, while I had pet guinea pigs (yep, that’s how she found out). Even our voices aren’t the same. As a kid, I was definitely the chattier one, while she loved taking walks together in silence (which, of course, drove me crazy).
Just last month, universities have been changing the names of committees to remove the word “diversity,” magazines for women and Black students are being shut down, nonprofits providing scholarships for Hispanic students are being sued, and companies are eliminating their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs and stopping annual diversity reports.
In 2025, in the United States, “diversity” has been flagged as a word to avoid. But is it really a bad word? People, by nature, vary. We grow up in a range of countries, states, and cities. We may be different ages or genders and come from many cultures, religions, racial and ethnic backgrounds, and socioeconomic situations. Our brains don’t all work the same, as some of us experience ADHD, autism, or other forms of neurodiversity. According to the World Health Organization, more than one billion people worldwide have disabilities. Many have experienced trauma, illness, cancer, or are supporting relatives who have.
Our experiences are all unique and form us into who we are.
Growing up as a female computer scientist, I often stood out in classes and professional environments. Once, at a robotics competition, a well-known female professor from another university greeted me by name. I was shocked (and honored!). I asked my fellow students how she knew who I was, and one of them said something like, “Look around you,” and I realized I was the only female in my group. I guess it wasn’t too hard to learn my name.
People are diverse in many ways.
As an associate professor in a school of information sciences, one of the things I love most is the variety of academic backgrounds and expertise around me. I learn something new every day from my colleagues’ work, while also contributing my own perspectives to our conversations.
When it comes to my research on accessibility, my students and I discuss these differences, and I’ve been struggling to come to terms with why diversity has become a word we are no longer using.
Researchers are removing the word “diversity” from grants, 35 major companies rolled back their DEI programs, and the federal government is calling DEI programs illegal. Target, which had once been an advocate for diversity, has been removing the word from its reports. Many are boycotting Target due to its reversal of DEI policies, which affected its Black Friday sales.
While some DEI initiatives have fallen short, thoughtfully refining them would have been a better approach than abandoning diversity altogether.
Having diversity is a positive. Research shows that diverse teams can be more effective. Diversity can lead to better problem-solving and outcomes that benefit a wider range of people.
Standing up for diversity is not going to be easy in today’s times. It will take courage to focus on the strength of our multiple perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences instead of hiding them. By noticing and valuing our differences, we can create spaces where everyone’s contributions are recognized and welcome.
If even identical twins aren’t exactly identical, why would we expect a community, workplace, or classroom to be?
I hope we take the time to appreciate the diverse experiences of our friends, colleagues, and students, and consider how we can turn diversity into a positive for everyone.
Team of male and female entrepreneurs working on computers at office
Amid the pushback to DEI, an essential truth often gets lost: You have agency over how you approach building diversity, equity, and inclusion into your organization.
No executive order or unhinged rant can change that.
Yes, DEI, in acronym form, has become a quagmire that poses real risks. But in spirit and intent, there’s no reason it can't flourish as a core value and standard practice within your organization.
To achieve this requires shifting away from the political to the possible. It remains possible to commit to building a work environment where differences are not simply celebrated, but leveraged for greater impact and stronger results.
After all, we still have reams of research-backed conclusions that organizations that embrace and promote diversity are more successful than those that don’t.
DEI never was, and never will be, a tangible thing. It’s a value-driven, data-affirmed belief that all of society advances when everyone has the opportunity to achieve their full potential.
The pressing question then becomes, what is the most promising path forward?
Moving beyond the acronym
The first step is to reframe our efforts through the lens of building and strengthening thriving communities within our respective workplaces.
There’s both a practical and aspirational rationale for this.
The practical aspect acknowledges the reality on the ground that DEI, as a formally structured approach, has been weaponized and distorted to the extent that it no longer offers a viable path to progress.
There are times when certain ideas and initiatives become so easily reduced to tidy acronym-wrapped packages that the package itself becomes the primary focus, rather than the contents within. Taken to its extreme, that package becomes toxic to everyone it touches, regardless of their view on its value.
That leaves us with the challenge of pursuing the data-and-research-proven benefits of a diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplace while avoiding the constant need to fend off attacks or water down our goals.
To do so will require expressing values and benefits in ways that speak to a broader audience, while freeing organizations to strive for the success that a diverse and inclusive work environment creates.
Framing this approach around the concept of community building can help unlock the path to achieving that goal. Pretty much everyone likes the concept of community – from your Trump-stomping neighbor to the woman down the street who still has an Obama-era Hope & Change placard in her window.
The promise of community framing
There’s sound research to back this up.
PACE’s Civic Language Perceptions Project annually surveys registered voters to gauge their reactions to words and terms that are frequently used in communications about civic issues.
Its most recent survey found ‘community’ is a word that resonates with liberals and conservatives alike. It scores well whether you live in a small town or a big city, or whether you’re young or old.
As a leader of an executive search firm navigating the current climate — while ensuring organizations have access to a blend of excellent candidates with diverse experiences, backgrounds, skills, and unique strengths — we are finding that introducing community framing offers promise.
Think about it. The best workplaces foster and grow a strong sense of community. It’s a mindset that is central to building welcoming and thriving cultures. If you can maintain an authentic sense of community, you become an organization where everyone wants to contribute -- and deeply values the contribution of others.
Isn’t that a place where you could do your best work? And attract others who feel the same?
Key characteristics of healthy communities
So ask yourself: Which communities seem to operate in the most meaningful and healthy ways?
In my experience, these communities:
If those traits bring to mind the fundamental elements of a certain acronym that has become a volatile flashpoint, I think we’re on the same page.
Yet viewed another way, when the DEI principles are put into service thoughtfully and with intention, aren’t they ultimately driving toward the aim of fostering a strong sense of community?
That is the moment that demands evolved thinking – thinking that gets to the essence of what is most valuable and how we can move forward in positive ways.
Take an aspirational approach
That’s where the aspirational part comes into play.
As you consider your current team – and how you’d like to grow and strengthen it – think about what kind of community you have built within your organization – and how you can ensure it thrives in the future. To do that, ask yourself:
No doubt, the political war against diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives will continue to rage. Yet you have the power and agency to write your own narrative.
A good place to start is by building a community within your organization where people from all backgrounds and walks of life feel seen, valued, and welcome.
Vincent Robinson is the founder and managing partner of the 360 Group, an executive search company that places leaders at nonprofits and foundations.
