How Lena Wolff Connects Art and Activism

Screen Shot 2020-02-05 at 12.23.09 PM.png

I had the pleasure of interviewing artist Lena Wolff at the Sarah Shepard Gallery in November, 2019. We discussed the relationship between art and activism (such as works like her now iconic “United Against Hate” poster), Lena’s creative process, inspirations, and more. The transcript, which includes photos of Lena’s work, is below (edited and condensed from the conversation).

TRANSCRIPT:

Sarah Shepard:  
Welcome everyone and thanks so much for coming out. Today, Lena is joined with Lauren Schiller, the creator and host of Inflection Point, a nationally syndicated public radio show and podcast from KALW and PRX that focuses on how women rise up and their quest for equality.

Lauren Schiller:  
All right, thanks you guys, you gals for all coming out and being part of this conversation. So why don't we start by hearing more about what we’re looking at in the room. I mean, usually when I go to a gallery, I have to figure it all out for myself and we now have this opportunity to actually sit with the artist to hear directly from you about how you came up with this show. And I’d like to know more about the meaning of the show title, ‘Patterns & Spells.’

Lena Wolff:                  
Hi everyone.

Audience:                   
Hey Lena.

Lena Wolff:                  
Hi! First, I just want to say, I'm so happy to be talking to you Lauren. I'm such a fan of your podcast. It's on KALW and the show is great – and if you haven’t heard it already, go ahead and listen!

Lauren Schiller:           
Thank you.

Lena Wolff:                  
I love it. There are so many fascinating interviews with women who are doing all kinds of amazing work in all different areas, really all areas.

Lauren Schiller:           
Yeah. Including Miriam [Klein Stahl].

Lena Wolff:                  
Yeah, Miriam was interviewed on the podcast! That was great.

Well – about this show, I’m working with a lot of different mediums here.  All the pieces are talking to each other but still it was hard to come up with a title for the grouping of work as a collection at first - to pin down a few words that summed up the intersecting themes.  

I’ve been working with quilt patterns and repetition of these patterns across different mediums for a long time. This began with a very intentional desire to tap into this legacy of quilt making and a lexicon of shared patterns that have been passed down and adapted for generations in our country.  I wanted to walk in the footsteps of these makers who came before me and make work that felt less individual and more part of a collective body of iconography.

When I first got into this, it wasn’t easy for me to understand the patterns because I'm not naturally inclined towards geometry. (I actually got a D in geometry in middle school!) Part of what led to the drawings here is having to draft the eight-pointed star over and over again to get to this pattern, the Golden Dalia, to understand how it worked. Then, I began to manipulate the drawing after I understood it. Now I've been working with variations of the eight-pointed star for almost seven years, but I didn't actually turn the drawings into anything I exhibited until this last, I don't know, a couple years ago maybe. They were initially just a means to get to where I was going in other mediums, in collage and sculpture. And then I started falling in love with the drawings by themselves.

Lauren Schiller:           
How does the title of the show tie in to this?

Lena Wolff:                  
The word ‘spells’ came up when thinking about how patterns captivate and mesmerize us.  How you can, you know, feel hypnotized when looking at patterns. It’s connected to our attraction toward patterns in nature. Pattern recognition was really essential to our evolution as humans, so we’re naturally attracted to them.  And so, I was thinking about how we get thrown into this spellbound state through patterns, but then I was also thinking about feminists and women and ideas about ‘witchiness,’ and how we can participate in these actions that change politics and culture, which we can claim as a witchy thing for fun but really it's more practical.

This artist Nathaniel Russell made a drawing after the election of Trump that said ... Miriam do you remember exactly? It was like, "Calling All Witches, Hex on White Supremacy, Curse on Trump." And then Kate Sweeney [of the bands Magic Magic Roses and July] a member of Future Chorus later wrote a song for us ‘Calling All Witches.’

So this idea of casting spells to change culture, and patterns as having spellbinding potential, those two words together represented most accurately what the work is about.

Lauren Schiller: Patterns and Spells

Lena Wolff: Yeah

Sarah Shepard:            
Do the 8 points in the star have special significance?

Lena Wolff:                  
Well I kind of came upon it accidentally because it’s the basis of the Golden Dahlia pattern. The 8-pointed star was the way to get there. But then I also think, just the star in general, it can be read as a symbol of American democracy – a symbol of our ideal of democracy.

But what I love about the quilt patterns, or any geometric pattern really, is that infinite variations can be adapted from a single pattern, which is what happens in nature all the time. I think I just ended up getting caught in that pattern. It’s the one that just keeps on giving, it's just keeps on going.

Lauren Schiller:           
Well, can you tell us a bit about the process of your craft in terms of, I mean, it's so interesting because you've got three dimensional pieces and then you've got these flat pieces. And I mean, clearly meticulous attention to the details. So, take us inside your studio. What happens when you sit down with the paper or the wood?

Lena Wolff:                  
The thing I've be doing the longest out of all the work here are the collages. To make these, I paint the papers with gouache, watercolor or acrylic, and then each foreground element is cut and glued down individually to the surface of the paper.

That piece right there [points to ‘Quilt for the Future’], is made up 42 squares, made individually and then assembled together like a quilt when mounted for framing. This process actually makes for kind of awkward studio visits because I usually just have piles of cut and painted paper everywhere. Painters have their beautiful canvases on the wall, and all their cans of alluring paint. With me, all you see are these scraps of paper everywhere. I just have paper, everywhere! I mean, even when Sarah [Shepard} saw this piece progress I remember she looked at it and was like, "Oh." [everyone laughs]. And part of it... Seriously, no, no it's not even that, you didn't even mean to! But part of it was that she just saw these unconnected squares taped to the wall that were probably kind of starting to fall off and very flimsy looking. So….it's hard to see what's going on until they're actually complete and assembled.

Lauren Schiller:           
Yeah. Which is actually probably ... I mean, does anyone in this room quilt? So, it seems to me, I mean I don't quilt, but I have someone in my family who does. And so you do see fabric scattered everywhere-

Lena Wolff:                  
Right. You see a mess.

Lauren Schiller:         
and then the composition comes in and out of focus as the design comes together. So, I imagine it's similar. Do you quilt?

Lena Wolff:                  
No. Well, actually I have, but I'm not an expert at it. I was once invited to be in this quilt show with all these quilters who I love, the project is called Piecework Collective and they put on an independent quilt show every year. I was invited and I had a total panic attack because I actually don't know how to quilt. I was like, "Okay, I'm going to try." And so, I tried to make this quilt and then I knew that technically it was not going to compare to what they were doing, because they're SO good. I ended up sending a wood star piece to New York for the show.

Audience Member:     
Can you talk a bit about how historically, women have done the practical arts, the applied arts - quilting and embroidery and decorative arts as a way to channel their creativity.

Lena Wolff:                  
Oh, for sure.

Audience Member:     
In a way that was safe, because the more direct kind of art processes were more for men. I always feel a little ambiguous about it because I love and admire so much craft made by women, but it seems there was a limit to how much personal expression could go into it.

Lena Wolff:                  
Well, I think that women really actually did end up putting their personal self into it.  So many unique and idiosyncratic quilts have been made - really so much quilt work is phenomenally bizarre and unique! People really put themselves into it. And then so many quilts were made that address history - quilts made during the Civil War with pictorial images of specific battles, and then quilts made as fundraisers during the war, and also autobiographical quilts that trace a person's life. So, I definitely think women have always been artists through textiles when they weren’t allowed to participate in other art forms.  

I always want to uphold that tradition rather than ever putting it on a different level with all the other, you know, art forms. I love being a part of the tradition of quilt making and claiming it absolutely as art. It's absolutely art.

Audience Member:                   
I think there’s a documentary called Anonymous Woman that talked about a lot of these quilt pieces.

Lena Wolff:                  
It’s true that women may not have always been given credit for what they made. There might not be a name on a quilt the way a painter would sign their painting. That’s true of women stories throughout history unfortunately, we don't have as much attribution to specific women for their work.

Lauren Schiller:           
Do you want to tell us the story of one of the pieces that we're sitting here looking at?

Lena Wolff:                  
Sure, I’d love to talk about Quilt for the Future. I started working on that one in January 2019, so I worked on it for close to a year. It probably wouldn't have taken take me that long if I'd known all the symbols and images I wanted to use from the start. Part of what took time was figuring out what I wanted to include. Also, I'm like a crazy person when it comes to color, and I think I spent a month working on the color for the background.

Screen+Shot+2020-01-30+at+10.53.30+PM.jpg

Miriam Klein Stahl:      
She had about 40 shades that to me looked exactly like that, but to her, she would look at them and see a difference, but to me it's like, "Is that not all the same blue?"

Lena Wolff:                  
They were really different! In the end the color is made from maybe 2-3 layers of watercolor with a bit of gouache, so there’s some nuance and it’s not totally flat. The piece originated from looking at American sampler quilts from the 18 and 1900’s. These sampler quilts were basically block quilts with different images appliqued into each block. Many were put together around a theme, some with all nature imagery and sometimes they were thematic in other ways. In this piece, I’ve combined images from a historic sampler quilt with my own.  

To me, the stars generally represent the idea of American democracy, although the way they can have a patriotic connotation makes me feel uncomfortable – so to me I’d rather think of the starts as symbols of democracy. The plant images reference the natural world. The radio tower was one of the last images I added. I was so glad that I’d waited eight months to finish the piece because I didn’t land on that until the very end! The radio tower symbolizes free speech and I love public radio, I listen to it all day long. The triangles are for queer culture, the hand is for generosity, open borders and hospitality. There’s the more modern symbol for equality, a justice scale, and a square with an arrow pointing to justice, like emphasizing justice.

The vases are for gay culture, the bee for sustainable agriculture, the pitcher for water, a harp for music, the scissors for craft. This square here is a simplified form of a quilt pattern called ‘housetop.’ The little five-patch cross is for healthcare, and then there's just the kind of galactic—the cosmic images, which I'm working with in different pieces throughout the show. To me these universe images are this overarching reminder to keep things in perspective, like remembering we're on a single planet in a larger solar system, in a galaxy, in a universe that is one of many potential universes. Especially during these hard political times, I want to think about the bigger context of our place in the wider scheme of things. And I like reading up on physics for lay people -it’s comforting compared to politics.

Lauren Schiller:           
So some of the things that you referred to in there, for example pointing to justice, you’re reminding everyone what we’ve got to focus our attention on. We actually first met through activism and then I was introduced to your art, I think it was like months later. And you told me that you had actually separated those things out mentally at one point, like when you were really thinking about what you needed to do as an activist, art took a back seat. But then you brought them together.

Lena Wolff:                  
Well, what happened immediately after the election of Trump is that I felt I could only make work that was directly responding to what was going on. This article came out by Chimamanda Adichie, an essay she wrote after the election called ‘Now is the Time to Talk About What We Were Actually Talking About’ and the point of it was really that we can't be obscure right now about what we stand for. It's critically important to name what is wrong and what we're going to do about it.

The first piece I made in 2017 was my banner for the Women's March. It’s the only thing I made that January and I love it so much. It was really big and I had this big heavy stick that was way too heavy to carry around and then-

Miriam Klein Stahl:               
I carried it.

Lena Wolff:                 
[laughs]. Yes…but ha - you know, I felt like I absolutely had to respond to what was going on in no uncertain terms. So, a lot of my work after the election focused on this. Then in 2017 I formed Future Chorus for my de Young residency.  We sang songs for the political moment. Not the usual protest songs from the past, but punk and pop songs with a poetic relationship to the moment we're living in. I spent a long time organizing that and didn't make as much studio work for a while.

Lauren Schiller:           
Miriam has been our third guest!

Lena Wolff:                  
Yeah. She's a good third guest!

Lauren Schiller:           
I mean, do you want to talk about how you work together as artists? Miriam is also an artist and an activist, and you're a couple.

Lena Wolff:                  
We’ve started more parallel work since the election also. We've shared the studio now for over a decade. We work side by side.  

Last year Kimberly Johansson of Johansson Projects asked us to be in a two person show. We'd never shown our work side by side like that. And it was so weird how there were so many overlaps that I hadn’t actually noticed before!  Even how we cut paper. Miriam makes beautiful paper cuts, silhouette paper cuts and there's such a connection to my process there. Anyway, it's been really nice in the last year to have more overlap with what we're doing and to be recognized together for what we do -for our life together, not just our work individually, that's been really new.

Lauren Schiller:           
Yeah. Well, and this proclamation was for the two of you in Berkeley and for your work.

Lena Wolff:                  
Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Lauren Schiller:           
Yeah. Do you ever steal each other's scissors?

Lena Wolff:                  
Yes, and our Exact-o-knives!

Miriam Klein Stahl:               
“Don’t use the fabric scissors on paper!” [everyone laughs]

Lena Wolff:                  
Yeah, exactly.

Miriam Klein Stahl:               
But I need a workspace that's about this big [gestures to a small space], and so I can really work anywhere. When Lena was creating the show, I just stayed out of the studio because she needs a big space to think and work because like she said, she has paper everywhere! I'm happy to be on the floor, on the kitchen table, anywhere.

Lauren Schiller:           
And that's how you stay married.

Lena Wolff:                  
That's how we stay married.

Lauren Schiller:           
Keep it up.

Lena Wolff:                  
We know how to share space!

Lauren Schiller:           
How are you feeling about art and activism connecting now? I mean, is there room to be a little more obscure or did we still need to be more direct.

Lena Wolff:                  
Well I mean, with abstraction or something - you’d never want to say to a musician ‘you can't make music without words now, that’s too irrelevant!’ In the same way, there is a place for abstraction in visual art. It’s important to celebrate the world that we live in and everything we can see with our eyes and what we’re able to hear. That's really important too. But I couldn't only do that right now. I would feel irresponsible if I was only working with abstraction. Even, you know, I think there's room to be totally abstract in your artwork, but then maybe you're doing activism in another way. I think we just have to participate right now, and there's lots of different ways to do that, there's no one way to do it.

Audience Member:                   
What motivates you to make art? What is your driving force?

Lena Wolff:                  
That's my mom!

Lauren Schiller:           
Wait, this is your mom?

Lena Wolff:                  
Yeah.

Lena’s Mom:                
Lena made art as soon as she could get her hands on paper and a pen. I mean, she was always drawing, always putting blocks together in certain forms, or she would look through slides…we had slides back then.. and she'd look through them and compare…I don’t think it was really a choice.

Lauren Schiller:           
Do you agree with that?

Lena Wolff:                  
Yeah, definitely. Yeah. I mean, I think making art has always been healing for me. It’s how I channel everything that I take in, and the world around me.

Lauren Schiller:           
You’ve mentioned in other conversations the difference between patriotism and democracy, but what’s your thinking around the connection between art and freedom?

Lena Wolff:                  
One of the great privileges we have as artists or makers is that we can work with any materials we want to within reason and we get to work with whatever subjects we’re interested in. We have this freedom, and even in countries without freedom of expression there can still be ways around that artistically. In any case, we have this great privilege. I’m able to enjoy my freedom as an artist and affirm my humanity through art. Knowing this makes me concerned for the freedom and the humanity of other people. Knowing that there are people who can't assert their freedom or their humanity through art, either because of oppression or just because they don't have what they need, that concerns me.  My draw towards art making and how I care about the state of the world, it’s all connected, these two things are part of the same feeling. 

Lauren Schiller:           
What did you mean when you talk about the difference between patriotism and democracy?

Lena Wolff:                  
Ooh, I mean, I just don't really believe in nationalism. Nationalism is so dangerous. Patriotism is dangerous, but democracy is what we need. I mean, it’s something we haven't really seen yet, something  we say we believe in as a country, or that we are, but we're not, not yet anyway.

Lauren Schiller:           
And I mean, does anyone have conflicting feelings when they see the American flag? I mean, is that kind of what you're referring to -

Lena Wolff:                  
Oh yeah. Especially right now. I mean, probably always

Lauren Schiller:           
You were telling me also about this new exhibit happening in Amsterdam. I mean, you should tell the story and it will make sense about why I'm bringing it up. Just be vague, go ahead. But it's about symbolism and the influence of symbols on culture.

Lena Wolff:                  
Right. So, it was just after I finished ‘Quilt for the Future’ with all of these symbols. I was in the car listening to NPR and heard a story about an exhibition that just opened in Amsterdam that focused on Nazi iconography. And just to begin with, there's a question like, is that a good idea? Is this problematic by itself? All of a sudden, I was just thinking about that image of the swastika and how much weight it carries. How it symbolizes one of the most horrific things we can possibly think of, and how powerful the image is, in an awful way.

And it made me wonder if we could we ever create an image or a set of images that are the opposite of that, like would that be? Can we make or contribute to creating symbols and visual culture that is the opposite of the swastika, but also as powerful. So just that idea of the power of visual symbols was really resonating with me.

Lauren Schiller:           
Yeah. Which I mean, so some might say, "Well, that is the American flag." Right? And then you're ending up with this one symbol that represents one thing for all people that represents different things.

Lena Wolff:                  
Yeah, no. That's not what I'm thinking.

Lauren Schiller:           
I'm not trying to put you in a corner, I'm just like wow, what are the implications of one symbol?

Lena Wolff:                  
Right. Yeah! Making the show I really was working with a collection of symbols, and then this idea about how can we use symbols to generate what we want to see in the world

Lauren Schiller:           
Yeah. I mean, that comes back to this idea of how art can change society and how it can spark cultural imagination. And I mean, what is your point of view on how your art might ... I mean, your wish for how art, your art, all art, can play that role in terms of pushing for social change or creating ripple effect of social change for the better?

Screen Shot 2020-01-30 at 10.58.39 PM.png

Lena Wolff:                  
I mean, I think we can definitely influence culture through the images that we generate. I brought the posters series that I worked on today - the United Against Hate posters that we made during the fifth white supremacist rally that was going to come through Berkeley.

Ahead of this, I’d had the chance to talk to the Mayor [Jesse Arreguin] about the idea of enlisting artists to make banners for the city about what we stand for right and what we stand against. He was like, "Great idea!" Then, he called me maybe two weeks before the rally maybe, in June 2017 and said, "Lena, do you think you could make a poster for us?" So, I called my friend who's a graphic designer, Lexi Visco, because I’m actually not a graphic designer. We sat down and we busted these out in a few hours together. Then, It was so amazing to see them everywhere at the rally a few weeks later. 20,000 were printed for Berkeley before the rally, and another 20,000 were printed for Oakland, along with huge banners of the image that hung from city hall. The posters were in almost every window I could see, and then almost every other person was carrying one the day of the counter-protest. That was incredible. That felt incredible.

Media organizations wanted to interview us at the time, but we made them anonymously. Miriam was actually getting death threats because she had worked on these pro -choice license plates. So, she was being trolled and I also just felt like it also wasn't important for us to put our name on them. It just wasn't important. Like, they were public service announcements. Now 200,000 of them have been printed for various cities combined in the Bay Area and they’re still visible in windows all over the place.

Then Lexi and I made the VOTE! for Democracy poster series (these are also for the taking afterward!)  We did this series in English and Spanish ahead of the 2018 of the midterms and printed 20,000 of them. Then we got funding and shipped them to over 15 States and they were all over the place.

Using nice colors and a good image helps. People really want them! Having this collaborative relationship with Lexi who a really strong designer too, that made it possible

Lauren Schiller:           
Tell us about the All For One For All piece.

Lena Wolff:                  
Okay. So this is based on the embroidery piece on the wall. The text has a double meaning. All For One For All is about how endless variation can be found within a single pattern, like in nature, but then it’s also is about a social philosophy of desiring more equality. It’s a call for more equality in the world. And then the embroidery piece was made into a polymer letterpress edition for this show and they’re being sold as a fundraiser for Spread the Vote.  I had an edition of 40 printed, and Sarah [Shepard] was like, "Of course we'll do that." So it's so nice, we're doing this through the exhibition, the fundraiser for Spread the Vote.

Lauren Schiller:           
They could be yours.

Lena Wolff:                  
Oh yeah, 100% of the sales go to the organization.

Miriam Klein Stahl:               
What is Spread the Vote?

Lena Wolff:                  
They work to give IDs to voters in States that require an ID to cast a ballot. They’re also doing a lot of other work on the ground, but that's kind of their main thing.

Voting rights and voter engagement is where I'm putting my energy with activism this year. Because really, the more people that we enfranchise to vote, we're going to win. He [Trump] didn't win the popular vote. We're going to be able to vote him out if we can get more people involved. And guess what? Then we can vote people in who actually represent us. And there's so many cool people out there. It's such an opportunity. But we are up against centuries of voter suppression, especially within communities of color. That's really serious, and so to me, that's the battle right now.

Lauren Schiller:           
Well, there are six States that I think need these posters. From what I understand.

Lena Wolff:                  
There's so many good organizations too, Spread the Vote is just one of them. There’s also Vote.org, Reclaim Our Vote, Fair Fight, Mi Familia Vota, Four Directions and Woke Vote – they’re all totally great. There's just, there's a ton of them.

Lauren Schiller:           
Well let's learn a little bit more about you, you and your backstory. I mean, we have your mother here, so I guess we can just ask her all the questions. [Laughs]

Well, I'm trying to think about the best way to ask this question. As I’ve built my podcast I've had to find my own voice, which obviously I need to have conversations with people every day. But when I'm trying to think about how I want to express myself or get a point across, there's something weird about sitting in front of a microphone and suddenly having to do that, like not just in a conversation one on one. I don't know why that is, it just is. So, I'm wondering if in terms of finding your voice in your art, whether there was ever a time when it was like Lena over here, and then Lena, the artist, or trying to connect those two people together, or have they always been the same person?

Lena Wolff:                  
I think the same person.

Lauren Schiller:           
Yeah

Lena Wolff:                  
I don't know. I really found a home in San Francisco. I just have to say that it felt really comfortable when I came here as a young person and that made it easier for me to find my way as an artist.

Lauren Schiller:           
Yeah. What does that mean? What's the environment that someone should look for if they want to feel confident?

Lena Wolff:                  
Well it was a really gay culture and filled with just a lot of people who were really stepping out of constraints. Like making art in the street and working from folk art, and illustration so kind of less confined by older ideas of what art is supposed to be. And I was surrounded by people who were breaking out and making whatever they wanted to make. And so, I had a lot of peers who were inspiring and totally great.

Lauren Schiller:           
What has your experience been in terms of being a woman and being in the ‘art world?’ I'll put that in quotes.

Lena Wolff:                  
Well, I guess you could just say I've been really ..[pause]…I have been supported by other women as an artist. Women have held me up.

Lauren Schiller:           
Yeah

Lena Wolff:                  
For the most part. A few rare men have exhibited my work, but not that many. [shout out to Andrew Berg of Smallworks!]

Lauren Schiller:           
Yeah. So held you up like—

Lena Wolff:                  
Just exhibited my work and wanted to work with me.

Lauren Schiller:           
Where's the men?

Lena Wolff:                  
I mean, that's the truth.

Lauren Schiller:           
So, you're not alone with that.

Lena Wolff:                  
Mm-hmm.

Lauren Schiller:           
We actually—Miriam and I have talked about this too, but if you look around at museums—although you're going to be in the Oakland Museum, Miriam, so congratulations to you! But the percentage of women who are exhibiting in museums is much lower than those of men.

Lena Wolff:                  
You know those statistics that the Guerilla Girls put out there in the 80s with their text pieces, it's basically the same right now. I mean, I think since Trump, there's been more of a concerted effort amongst curators and arts professionals to be more inclusive with the LGBTQ community, with people of color. I think there really is, but it kind of took this biggest asshole in the entire world being a president for that to happen, which is sort of like, really? But it is, I think that there is a shift happening.

Lauren Schiller:           
Yeah. Well, I think, I mean, Sarah Shepherd here. Thank you for opening this gallery.

Sarah Shepard:            
Yeah.

Lauren Schiller:           
So how do you measure success as an artist? How do you decide ... Well, I mean I guess there's so many ways I could ask that question. How do you decide when a piece is done? How do you decide that you are feeling fulfilled by your work? How do you decide that this is how you want to make a living? I mean, there are all different ways of measuring success. How do you think about it?

Lena Wolff:                  
Well about when a piece is done I just know it, then sometimes I push things too far and other times I really know when something needs more work. The hardest part is when you go too far and ruin things.

Miriam Klein Stahl:               
I pick them up out of the trashcan and use the pieces.

Lena Wolff:                  
I throw away a lot of work! Yeah, but actually when we were driving over here I was going over things with Miriam for the talk because I'm not always so comfortable with public speaking. But we were talking about this question about when we feel successful and Miriam said, "Well, when I’m in that flow place when I'm working and I forget about time and place, that's such a good feeling." But I do feel like maybe the work I'm most proud of is just the more anonymous work, like the United Against Hate posters and the VOTE! posters. Like the work that maybe helped, I don't know, gave voice to our outrage and drive as a community to address what’s happening politically. And then, a lot of of my work from the earlier days with plants and animals are in hospitals around the country. Sometimes I get emails from people, usually relatives of patients saying, "I just sat by your piece today. My brother's here and he's dying. Your work helped me find a moment of solace today and I wanted to thank you." And that just makes me feel..[pause].. well, it feels great. It feels like, okay, if I can make work that makes people feel a little better sometimes, or somehow makes our cities feel a little better, that's what I want to do.

Lauren Schiller:           
Great. Thank you.

Audience Member:                   
I was just looking at those geometric pieces up there and I noticed that they're kind of beautifully perfect, with this perfect symmetry. But then just maybe a line missing in a few of the pieces and I wondered why?

Lena Wolff:                  
Well I love working with repetitions of certain patterns, but I also like to create slight imperfections in the pattern, especially when working with something more linear. I'm always trying to play around with that a little bit, seeing where adding a line or leaving out a line makes the piece more interesting. I've made plenty of things where I’ve added too many lines and they look horrible. Even weirder, sometimes even a single added line can throw something off and the feeling is wrong. I mean there's only--I can't even count, six up there. I think I went through at least 25, and then selected the six and threw out the other ones, because I had just done something that didn't work to my mind.

Screen Shot 2020-01-30 at 11.00.51 PM.png

Audience Member:                   
Sometimes patterns can be so perfect, it feels confining.

Lena Wolff:  
Yeah.

Audience Member:                   
But then you leave that line out and there's a little escape.

Lena Wolff:                  
I definitely struggle with it because you can tell I do actually like symmetry. I feel relaxed by symmetry, and so having moments where there's asymmetry, it's important that I can play with that a bit. Because I can err on the side of being a little bit of like a perfectionist or something or get a little, I don't know what. I'm not going to use any word. I'm not going to pathologize myself.

Audience Member:                   
Do you use a ruler?

Lena Wolff:                  
I do, with the quilt pattern drawings. I want the points to connect!

Lauren Schiller:  
I was actually curious about this star piece with the lines [points to Expanding Star]

Lena Wolff:                  
Even with that piece, all the strips are different widths. They’re milled that way, so they’re not the same. I could have made them the same and evenly spaced them out. That's something that my brain would maybe want to do--but they're purposefully a little wonky – a little imperfection in the pattern that is overall symmetrical.

Lauren Schiller:           
Do other folks have questions?

Audience Member:                 
Well, two things. One's a statement, one's a question. I was in LA last weekend and I went to see Pattern and Decoration in American Art at MOCA.

Lena Wolff:                  
Oh yeah. I'm dying to see that show.

Audience Member:                 
I think you would love it. But I'm wondering, I mean, I feel so lucky to both to admire your work and I also love that I also admire your values. But I often come across artists where I don't honestly like their values or their personal story. So, I'm wondering how you deal with that because for me, it's very conflicting, whether it's a musician or a visual artist, it's hard because I have real feelings about it.

Lena Wolff:                  
Miriam and I talk about that a lot, like the Picasso problem. [Audience laughs] Yeah. It's, I don't know. It’s hard, what do you do with it? Miriam and I have been saying lately, I think we're over it.

Miriam Klein Stahl:               
I don't have a problem with just being over it. Like I don't need to ever see a Woody Allen film again.

Lena Wolff:                  
Yeah. Morrisey too, has gone totally crazy,

Miriam Klein Stahl:               
Oh, that was just painful. I loved the Smiths growing up, but Morrisey is such a jerk now.

Lena Wolff:                  
All of a sudden, he’s a racist Brexiteer, it's so weird. All of a sudden, he's gone crazy.

Miriam Klein Stahl:               
At some point you just have to say no.

Lena Wolff:                  
Yeah. Especially when there's so many artists where you can take in the whole package and feel like, "I love this. This is great."

Audience Member:                 
Can you talk about Patterns & Spells and how your work in this show speaks to politics, as well as just your values or place on the planet? Do you think there's also some underlying message around technology or craft and the very handmade quality of your work? I'm curious about that-

Lena Wolff:                  
Maybe it's just, technology is absent.

Audience Member:                 
Absolutely.

Lauren Schiller:           
Well, you are using a ruler. [Audience laughs]

Lena Wolff:                  
I am using ruler sometimes!

Lauren Schiller:           
That's a great question. I mean, it is sort of like an activist act in and of itself. This work can exist in any world, with or without technology. I don't know if that's the nature of your question, but-

Audience Member:                 
I think so. I mean, we're so steeped in technology now and there's this calmness and anonymity of what you're saying around craft and quilting and heritage. I feel that in these pieces. It’s really a very different experience then some of the art—some of the visuals that we see today, that have become more and more technologically advanced

Lena Wolff:           
Yeah, I definitely want to maintain an intimacy with materials and to work with my hands. That's an important part of it. It's so relaxing. And it just feels really human. I like cooking a lot too. I like to garden.

Lena’s mom:                
This is part of the culture we need to create to deal with climate change. I keep thinking about how my father lived over a hundred years ago and how much more simple it was, how much better for the planet.

Lena Wolff:                  
I definitely like working with natural materials, humble materials - paper and wood and thread and cloth. These natural materials that are all interrelated -the way the wood pieces are cut for marquetry is so similar to how the paper is cut for the collages, they're so connected.

Audience Member: There’s something age-old and timeless about it.

[conversation moves to info about current fundraisers for important campaigns]

Sarah Shepard:            
Yes, thank you all for coming.  It’s great to see all your faces and get to talk to you Lena, thank you. Enjoy the work, enjoy your day. 

A Boardroom of Our Own: Julia Rhodes Davis on All-Women Spaces and The Future of AI

Ask any woman who’s sat through a long meeting surrounded by men, and she could tell you how exhausting it can be: we struggle to make ourselves heard while carefully avoiding accusations of being ‘bitchy,’ ‘strident,’ or ‘shrill.’ We rarely have the kind of permission to fail that our male counterparts get. We want to take ownership of what little power is tossed our way, yet we’re always at risk of being punished for wielding such power.  


Which is why Julia Rhodes Davis decided to form an all-women board for the non-profit, Vote.org. The question is, can the empowerment that takes place in an all-women board meeting translate into actual, world-changing power once they step outside the boardroom?

Find out what Julia has to say about turning empowerment into power, and also shaping the future so women and minorities don’t need to be “empowered” anymore.

Listen to my conversation with Julia Rhodes, Chair of Vote.org and Director of Partnerships at The Partnership on AI in the latest episode of Inflection Point.

Screen+Shot+2018-09-12+at+8.43.36+AM.jpg

TRANSCRIPT

Lauren Schiller:                  Women are banding together in ways we haven't seen since the feminist revolution of the 1970s. The Women's March, the #MeToo movement. More women than ever are running for office and actually winning elections. There are girls-only engineering camps, girls-only maker camps, girls-only afterschool clubs, and they're growing like crazy. So it would seem to be an incredibly empowering time for women. But there's the trendiness factor. The word "feminist" on every other t-shirt in yoga class, "Like a girl" and "nasty woman" have become marketable catchphrases on Nike ads and sanitary pads and coffee mugs. I mean, I love it, but is that mug really going to get you promoted? Because there's one question that has been bothering me: "Does all this empowerment equal power?"

Lauren Schiller:                  I thought one good place to start to understand this would be to look at the boardroom. That's a consolidation of power if ever there were one. As the chair of the board of Vote.org, Julia Rhodes Davis was empowered to decide who to include on that board. With her CEO, also a woman, they made a conscious decision to only appoint women. I wanted to know why and what it was actually doing for them.

Lauren Schiller:                  But first, let's take a closer look at this trend of all-girl and all-women spaces.

Julia R Davis:                        I think that all-women spaces could be seen as sort of incubators. In other words, incubators or startups or whatever are these places that foster early-stage ideas and provide extra resourcing around the things that are most vulnerable at startups like infrastructure and funding and access to networks and access to know-how. I think that when you think about all-women spaces in a similar way, it's not that we're going to stay in all-women spaces, to your point, but I think especially for younger women and girls there's so much risk taking and failure that comes with learning, especially in sort of the early pursuit of anything. When the world is conditioning young women to be afraid of failure because our worth is attached to our achievement and, by the way, also our appearance and so forth and so on, it's really existentially unsafe for us to fail. I think that that's a huge loss.

Julia R Davis:                        There's actually an amazing ... the founder of Girls Who Code, Reshma Saujani gives a beautiful TED Talk to this idea that we need to create spaces that are safe for girls to fail, because that's actually how you become an entrepreneur and how you become successful.

Lauren Schiller:                  She's actually been a guest on this show.

Julia R Davis:                        Oh, amazing. Well done.

Lauren Schiller:                  Yeah, and we do talk about that. So it sounds like you're in the camp of, "Women-only spaces can be a place where we can learn to navigate the "real-word" having gathered our strength and gone out there to make things happen." But do you think it actually is a way of solving gender inequality?

Julia R Davis:                        I think it depends on your timeframe. Here I would really sort of look at how power operates. Right? Let's take a few examples. There are right now, or actually I guess this stat is from 2016 from Time Magazine. 77% of all elected officials in the US are mail, 23% are female. So until we're starting to approach parity in terms of a representative government, I am all for as many organizations as possible working on the issue of bringing more women into public office. I think, similarly, if we look at who's writing political checks right now, 80% of political donors, 80% of all dollars political donations are written by men. That means that essentially ... I mean, that just points to how power is going to operate. So I would push for getting as many women to become political donors as possible to shift that power dynamic.

Julia R Davis:                        Then, you look at nonprofit boards. 80% of nonprofit board members are men. So until we shift that dynamic I am all for going in the opposite direction and really taking an exceptional tact to get exceptional results.

Lauren Schiller:                  What would you see in this polarized time as the role of women-only spaces?

Julia R Davis:                        I'm not sure that the role has actually changed very much from the inception of at least women-created women-only spaces. What I mean by that is-

Lauren Schiller:                  That's such an important distinction, by the way, "women-created women-only spaces".

Julia R Davis:                        Yeah. I mean, the paternalism of men creating women-only spaces is a whole different topic. Right?

Lauren Schiller:                  I hadn't actually thought about it in different terms than "women-created". Yeah, that's so interesting.

Julia R Davis:                        Well, because I actually don't know the founding history of, for example ... my first attempt at college was Mount Holyoke College, which was an all-women's school. It is a very small liberal arts school in western Massachusetts. I had grown up in New York City and I showed up and there were more rules and oversight at college than I had in my parents' home in New York City.

Julia R Davis:                        My parents were neither really conservative in terms of minding my time, nor were they extremely permissive. They were somewhere in the middle. When I really unpacked the Mount Holyoke experience and ultimately why it was not a good fit for me, there was a paternalism that was claimed by the administration of the school, as though we as a school of young women couldn't, individually young women, couldn't possibly make decisions for ourselves that would keep us safe and happy and well, which I just reject outright.

Julia R Davis:                        Anyway, that's just a little bit of a tangent on that.

Lauren Schiller:                  Well, no, but you obviously didn't know that before you started classes. What was your expectation and hopes for why you would go to an all-women's college?

Julia R Davis:                        Yeah, thanks. I think people tout that there's a freedom in an all-female classroom, for example, for women to find their voice and, to be honest, in a lot of ways I didn't have much trouble finding my voice. I probably often have too loud a voice. Although, put me in a room where I feel intimidated and all of a sudden that changes a lot, or certainly when I was younger it changed a lot. So I think I went for the promise of kind of the freedom of finding my voice and not having to fight for a voice in the classroom or fight for attention of advisors to pursue special projects or whatever the case may be. Because I do think that oftentimes women and men compete differently. I think when you put a group of women together, even if it's a competitive environment, if the rules of the game are not prescribed by sort of a masculine framework of power, you often find collaboration.

Julia R Davis:                        You'll get a winner at the end, some woman will rise to the top, but there's probably a lot more collaboration to get to the top than if you're in a situation where the only way is to compete and dominate those around. And, you know, obviously that's an over generalization. But I think that's one of the things at play.

Lauren Schiller:                  So your hope was that by going to an all-women college that you would eliminate all of those variables?

Julia R Davis:                        Yeah, totally. Because, I will say I went to an all-girl summer camp for 10 years, first as a camper and then as a staff member. It was so liberating. I mean, it was an extraordinary experience of finding myself and figuring out how to be in the world in a way that I could feel good about. Yeah, there were no men there, no boys there. It was a really free experience.

Lauren Schiller:                  Mount Holyoke, where Julia Rhodes Davis went to school briefly, was the first of the Seven Sisters All-Women's Colleges, which have collectively produced some of the most influential women of our time. Here's seven of them: Emily Dickinson, Grace Hopper, Jane Fonda, Hillary Clinton, Gloria Steinem, Helen Keller, and Zora Neale Hurston. I myself went to Vassar, but as one school t-shirt proclaims, 1969 was the year Vassar switched position, meaning they let guys in by the time I went there.

Lauren Schiller:                  But before that, in 1837, starting with Mount Holyoke, women's colleges were created because women weren't allowed to learn or be leaders in the same spaces as men. Since the founding of the Seven Sisters, families whose names were on buildings and museums sent their daughters to these schools, not necessarily to empower them, but to wrap them in the safety of high society. The plan was for white women who had means to go to school, meet well-connected friends and find a suitable husband from Harvard or Yale, you know, that MRS degree.

Lauren Schiller:                  It took 181 years to get from Mount Holyoke to the first female presidential candidate to be nominated by a major party. And, well, you know how that turned out. Julia Rhodes Davis, as chair of the board at Vote.org, is working to ensure that everyone is being represented at the ballot box and in the boardroom.

Lauren Schiller:                  Tell me about Vote.org. What do they do? Then let's talk about their board.

Julia R Davis:                        Vote.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization that seeks to bring about reflective democracy wherein the electorate matches the population. We do that through making it easier to vote, period. We have programs that are focused on leveraging technology as much as possible to do really high-impact Get Out the Vote campaigns and have a number of other programs that are sort of longer-lead focused.

Julia R Davis:                        One of the reasons we don't have electronic or online voter registration in most states in this country has a lot to do with sort of antiquated voter registration laws that, unlike a lot of other voter suppression activities, these are not actually insidiously antiquated, they just are literally antiquated. So over the course of the next several years we're focused on working with secretaries of state to shift those laws. But in the interim it's really about focusing on who's not getting to the polls and why, and taking a double-down effort to get them there.

Lauren Schiller:                  So as far as your role at Vote.org, you're the chair of the board and you had an opportunity recently to reshape what that board looks like and who was on it. Tell me what you did and why in terms of the makeup of that board.

Julia R Davis:                        I think at Vote.org the commitment is really to exceptional results. So we kind of look across the board at, "Well, what's the status quo or what are the norms in this space and how can we think and do differently?" So when it came to board composition, when you look at the fact that 80% of nonprofit board members are male, well, let's be exceptional there and create an all-female board.

Julia R Davis:                        Will this be in perpetuity? I don't know. But for right now it's working really, really well. We convene the new board in January of this year and it's a small board that are all female. We spent 10 hours in a room together doing all kinds of planning and thinking and debating and so forth, and then we had a dinner that followed on. At the end of it I reflected with a colleague, a fellow board member, "You know, normally at the end of any board meeting, whether I'm on the board or on the staff serving the board, I'm exhausted. This time I'm energized. What's the difference?" It took me a beat to realize that not having to facilitate and manage around gender politics in a boardroom was a very liberating experience.

Julia R Davis:                        So back to the idea of the incubator, the all-women spaces and incubator. Just having that experience and that awareness gave me tools to start looking at other boardrooms that I participate in, for example, and helping to bring some leadership to, "Let's imagine if this looked different." Because I actually don't think that mixed-gender boardrooms are the wrong way to go necessarily. I do think that in general people need more self-awareness about how they show up in a room. So whether you're a man who doesn't necessarily have self-awareness about talking over others or taking credit for other people's ideas, or you're a woman who perhaps doesn't listen very well. I think being in a space where we didn't have to spend a lot of energy making sure that all the voices were heard and so forth and so on, because there was just a more natural flow. It gave me a sense of what's possible. So experiencing the art of the possible in one space can actually help to bring examples of making that a possibility in other spaces.

Lauren Schiller:                  I mean, I'm trying to imagine if the chair of a board of, just pick any other organization, was like, "You know what? We're going to make this board all men." Which is happening, obviously. It's 80%.

Julia R Davis:                        I mean, it has been the norm forever.

Lauren Schiller:                  Right. Exactly. I mean, have you received any backlash for making this decision [crosstalk 00:16:56]?

Julia R Davis:                        I'm sure I will now that I've been on a podcast talking about it. We have not received to date any backlash, and the men that were on our board prior to this cycle were extremely supportive of the idea, so I will say that.

Julia R Davis:                        I think that we have to look at these things in a more global context. This sort of comes back to how I was talking about kind of the power analysis. So if men were marginalized, men would need all-men spaces, but they're not marginalized. Every system of power in place right now is still designed with the benefit of men. So until that's different, this is not a one-to-one comparison. Women need to build power to create a more equal society. Until that's not a need, I think all-women spaces are completely justified as one way towards that end.

Lauren Schiller:                  So thinking about the Vote.org all-female board as this sort of incubator idea, a testing ground and a place for new ideas to proliferate, both inside the board and out into the world, have you set sort of a success metric in terms of, is it working, when do you reevaluate, what happens next?

Julia R Davis:                        So there's a sort of goal-setting framework that's pretty common in tech or tech-inspired organizations, the OKR: Objectives and Key Results framework. So we're developing actual metrics for board performance. I think that that is the place where we'll look to first to see if we're making progress.

Julia R Davis:                        If you're asking is there a point at which we're going to say this all-female board thing was a success or a failure, I mean, I suppose that's an important question for us to be asking, but I think it's pretty early days for us to be framing it up that way.

Lauren Schiller:                  Yeah, or whether you want to ... if you have a seat open up, whether you're going to continue to look specifically for women, or-

Julia R Davis:                        Oh, we will. I would say for the foreseeable future, but definitely through 2020. I think it's too short a timeframe to expect to see any significant results being a two-year-old organization.

Lauren Schiller:                  Julia's feeling optimistic about her all-female board and I can see why. More women-only spaces are popping up so fast it's hard to keep tracking: women's coworking spaces, event spaces, gyms, networking organizations. In New York The Wing and [Cubby 00:19:44] Club, in San Francisco The Ruby and The Assembly. And while some are quietly growing their member base, others are getting admonished. The Wing for not being in compliance with New York's public accommodation law; a law ironically created to further gender equality. And remember when the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin announced it would host two Wonder Woman screenings where no men were allowed at its downtown location? They were accused of violating city equality laws. But as Glynnis MacNicol, cofounder of The List, a network and visibility platform for professional women from all industries, told the male host of the Story in a Bottle podcast, "As a man that has access to every place, why is it a problem to allow women a safe space?"

Lauren Schiller:                  I brought Julia in to talk with me about the Vote.org all-female board and women-only spaces in general. But she also recently took a job at the Partnership on AI for the Benefit of the People and Society. That's the full name of the organization.

Lauren Schiller:                  We've all heard that insidious things like bias and tribalism can be perpetuated by artificial intelligence, but if you've got someone like Julia empowered who applies an equity lens to everything she does, could that actually shift the power dynamic?

Lauren Schiller:                  But first, don't forget to hit that subscribe button. I'm Lauren Schiller. This is Inflection Point. We'll be right back.

Lauren Schiller:                  It's time for a shout-out to Care/of for supporting this show. What is Care/of, you might ask? It's a monthly subscription vitamin service that delivers completely personalized vitamin and supplement packs, right to your door. The vitamin aisle is overwhelming, but there's an easier way to figure out what's right for you. I took Care/of's online quiz, which asks you about your diet, health goals and lifestyle choices to find out what vitamins and supplements you specifically need. It only takes five minutes. For me, I wanted to get more sleep, give my nails a chance to get stronger, and have more energy. They account for all of that. Then, your vitamins get delivered right to your door in personalized, easy-to-remember, daily packs, perfect for a busy on-the-go lifestyle. And, your monthly subscription box can be easily modified at any time.

Lauren Schiller:                  When they arrive, it's so great. The Care/of packs have your name on them, and a little bit of inspiration to start your day. For 25% off your first month of personalized Care/of vitamins, visit TakeCareOf.com and enter "Inflection". That's TakeCareOf.com and enter "Inflection", for 25% off your first month of personalized Care/of vitamins.

Lauren Schiller:                  I'm Lauren Schiller and this is inflection point. I'm talking with Julia Rhodes Davis, the chair of the board of Vote.org and director of partnerships at the Partnership on AI.

Lauren Schiller:                  So, Julia, what is the Partnership on AI?

Julia R Davis:                        The organization is really ... it's a multi-stakeholder membership organization, which really means that it has representatives from corporations and from civil society, from academic research institutions and others, all of whom are working together to really shape the future of artificial intelligence. From my perspective, this is really the frontier of society. There's so much we don't know, and I think early indications of the impact that technology can have on society suggests that we're in for a ride and we really do need to play a more proactive role in informing and designing technology so that it does benefit people and does as little harm as possible, I guess is the way I can say that.

Lauren Schiller:                  So when you said there's already been some indications that there could potentially be harm, are you thinking of a specific example?

Julia R Davis:                        I mean, you could really point to our current democracy in the United States as an example of at least technology broadly that is in some ways supported by aspects of AI technology. I mean, Facebook was used as a platform and by a foreign power to influence our Democratic election in 2016. That is a pretty significant thing that's happened.

Julia R Davis:                        I think that there are a lot of questions in general right now about, you know, for an organization or company who has previously thought of itself as this neutral utility of being a platform to connect people when it can be used for such insidious ends, what is the responsibility of that company to mitigate that risk? I think that's an extremely important question that should be extrapolated to the entire technology industry and to those of us in and around it. What are our responsibilities to society at large?

Lauren Schiller:                  Can you define artificial intelligence? I mean, is it always some sort of human manifestation or human impersonation? What is it?

Julia R Davis:                        That's a great question and you'll get a million different answers to it depending on who you ask. I think first of all it's worth noting I don't have a technical background. I came into this sort of intersection of technology and society in my career about five years ago and have increased my knowledge hundredsfold as a result of working closely with technologists. So I have a different answer than someone who, say, got a PhD in computer science. But in general, this is a very broad term that I think now media has even further muddied the waters generally, because a lot of folks don't understand the technology, so they're trying to put words to it that don't necessarily get us very far in terms of understanding.

Julia R Davis:                        I think it's an umbrella term that really speaks to sort of making machines more intelligent. What I mean by that is, I think in its very basic sense, a computer that can run a program that has some similarities to a decision-making process could be considered artificial intelligence. So, in fact, your entire smartphone runs on all kinds of "artificial intelligence". Really what that means is there are a number of decision trees that are programmed into the different applications on your phone. The thing that supercharges this technology is that much of these formulas or algorithms as they're known in technical parlance actually adapt over time.

Julia R Davis:                        I think one thing for everyone to understand about AI is this is not a fixed too. So unlike a hammer and a nail, they are a hammer and a nail and you really can't change their form very easily. When you're a user of a smartphone or a user of any kind of AI technology at all, your use of that technology actually changes how that technology operates. So we have this iterative relationship with technology that I think few users understand. I think we should all feel more empowered by that, actually.

Julia R Davis:                        When you choose to use Facebook in a particular way to click on an ad or not, you're actually informing Facebook in the future of how it should relate to you. That can sound scary, but I also think it can sound really empowering and I think that the latter is a better relationship that we should start to cultivate with our technology if we're going to have a better future around it.

Lauren Schiller:                  The thing that I'm trying to understand about the role of AI in the human world and how humans are already interacting with each other is how whoever is sort of setting this technology loose influences the way that it interacts with the world and how that might either magnify or reduce the bias that is already in the world, be it racial, gender, pick one.

Julia R Davis:                        Yeah. So this is a huge topic and a really important one.

Lauren Schiller:                  We're going to solve it today, Julia.

Julia R Davis:                        Yes, please. There are a lot of efforts in the technical community to mitigate and solve for the ways in which data carries bias and can further bias algorithms and therefore technology systems. There are unbelievable examples of early apps that were ... I think there was a health app that was put out early on that had been built entirely by a male engineering team and had zero acknowledgement of menstruation as a regular part of the health that women experience on a monthly, daily basis. So those oversights are sort of the most obvious examples of the ways in which who builds the technology and how they think and who's around the table really informs society.

Julia R Davis:                        I think that we have to think about it in a number of different ways. I actually am really excited about my work at Partnership on AI, because there is a deep recognition on the part of the organization that we have to have a diverse set of voices and stakeholders around the table when we are making decisions about what this technology is going to do and how it's built and designed and so forth.

Julia R Davis:                        I think that there's a long way to go in terms of being able to sort of have more practical ways that engineers in a room can kind of have a checklist that helps them recognize where their own biases might be and how to mitigate them in a technical capacity.

Julia R Davis:                        Then, there's a whole body of work around the pipeline issue and the fact that you have far fewer women in STEM, and though that's changing over time, I think it's a slow process. You have a far fewer number of people of color in STEM as well for all kinds of reasons. So there are many, many efforts to address these different ways in which bias can show up in technology. I think it's important for technology creators to bridge the gap, to sort of shift the systemic issues that contribute to the fact that most technologists are male, for example. That's going to take time. So what do we do in the interim and what are the incentives that we have at our fingertips to kind of shift that landscape?

Lauren Schiller:                  Man. It seems like with every new innovation it's an opportunity to get ahead, but it's also just this opportunity to just make it worse.

Julia R Davis:                        Yeah. I heard a really compelling conversation between Reid Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn, partner at Greylock, et cetera, I think most people know who he is, and Kara Swisher, who's a really fantastic media editor, I guess, and host of the Recode podcast. They were in a public conversation at a conference in San Francisco and they ... Kara was really pressing Reid on, "Why is it that tech companies so often fail to identify unintended consequences and address them before they become the problematic unintended consequences of, say, an intervened election or something like that?"

Julia R Davis:                        Reid's response, it's on the record, is, "When you have a homogenous group of young, largely white, regularly affluently-raised men around a table building a product, this is a group of people who haven't lost very much in their lives, so they're not all that familiar with what it looks like to be on the losing end of an unintended consequence." I mean, that has just sat with me at the front of my mind ever since I heard that conversation. I mean, it certainly speaks to something I've believed for a long time, but to hear it from Reid Hoffman sort of put some teeth to it in a way.

Julia R Davis:                        I think that that should be reason enough to really push for more diverse rooms, whether it's the engineering room as it were, or the boardroom.

Lauren Schiller:                  We need AI to recognize all different kinds of people right now, but we don't have people working on AI that recognize all kinds of different people right now. So how do we get where we need to be, given where we are in this moment? How does your equity lens that you put on everything you see tie into the work that you're doing with Partnership on AI?

Julia R Davis:                        I think that there's two angles to an answer, or there are two different kinds of answers here, one of which I can speak to more directly and one of which is worth mentioning that it's worthy work that other people are doing.

Julia R Davis:                        Representation among engineers matters tremendously if we are going to solve for a more, both inclusively designed and inclusively executed, if you will, technology. The issues of getting more women into technology spaces is huge and I think that there are a number of incredible organizations focused on that and we need to proliferate those efforts across the board. This has to be a serious focus of every technology company, of every academic institution, of ever undergraduate program, et cetera. So that's a huge undertaking that I fully support and I'm so grateful for people who dedicate their work to that.

Julia R Davis:                        At Partnership on AI, I am looking at this question right now in terms of who is our current membership. We have just over 70 members currently and they represent corporations, they represent think tanks, they represent academic labs, research labs, also human rights organizations, advocacy organizations. There's more representation from some parts of sectors and less from others. There are certain constituents who are more and less represented. So I'm very actively trying to understand whose voice is at the table and whose voice is missing and how do we balance who's around the table. That's really at the forefront of my mind in day eight of my job as the director of partnerships.

Julia R Davis:                        We have an institutional commitment, both in terms of our executive director, Terah Lyons, who comes out of the Obama White House, as well as our board to really make sure that our multi-stakeholder organization is representative of and represented by a diverse set of stakeholders, and more to come on that. I think we're doing a good job and I think there's more improvements that we can make in terms of, you know, to get back to sort of the impetus for the question, "How do we make sure that AI is built for and by everyone?"

Lauren Schiller:                  Most of us move through the world with blind spots. Those blind spots are typically created where we grew up and by the stories we were told. Julie Rhodes Davis seems to be called to make places of power blind-spot-free so everyone's story is represented. Where did her obsession with representation come from?

Julia R Davis:                        I come from a long line of change-makers, especially on my mother's side of the family. My mother's family is from North Carolina. Back in the turn of the 20th Century, my great grandfather was one of the leaders around opening the first school for black children in Pender County, North Carolina. And as a result, my grandmother, his daughter, grew up with the Ku Klux Klan regularly visiting the house to intimidate the family, my family, and to try to get them to close the school down.

Julia R Davis:                        Family story goes, you know, hard to fact check this one, but my great-grandfather would regularly go out and meet the Klan and just stand there with actually a shotgun in his hand and just acknowledge them but not kowtow. The line was, "I'll see you in church on Sunday."

Julia R Davis:                        That translated to my grandmother and grandfather participating a lot in Civil Rights marches in Louisville, Kentucky where they raised their family and where my mother grew up. My mother has gone on to build a really impressive institution that trains progressive religious leaders to help bring about a more just and equitable society.

Lauren Schiller:                  What's it called?

Julia R Davis:                        Auburn Seminary. So with that background, you wonder where does technology fit in.

Lauren Schiller:                  Well, even before we get to where does technology fit in ... I mean, as far as you growing up, and that's obviously ... it's sort of baked into your growing up experience and the stories of your family and stuff like that, but have you personally experienced your own ... I mean, you're a white woman, but have you experienced your own inequity or anything you'd care to share that might also have influenced your trajectory? Like the first time you were like, "Hey, that's not fair."

Julia R Davis:                        I wish I could remember the first time. I mean, I think the most ... I mean, first of all, I remember seeing a movie, I think I was probably seven or eight years old, I can't really remember. It was called Class Action. I said to my parents, "I want to be a litigator," once I saw that movie. So I think very early on I kind of understood that there was a way in which standing up for what's right and being a precocious young person and girl was somehow subversive.

Julia R Davis:                        I was really politicized really early. I mean, I remember Clinton and Bush running against each other and really feeling very strongly that Bill Clinton should win the election, and I was relatively young. So certainly I was aware of politics, I felt sort of engaged by politics, I was writing current even articles in the seventh grade about politics. I think abortion actually ... abortion access was the first issue that really hit home for me, just in that I remember hearing male relatives speaking about abortion access as though they had any right to any opinion whatsoever. I remember being at a family function and I was probably 16 or 17 years old, talking to 10 fully grown male uncles and grandfather, all of whom were anti-choice, and basically just holding the line and arguing sort of every angle of the point, but ultimately, not willing to see ground around reproductive rights.

Lauren Schiller:                  How did you handle that?

Julia R Davis:                        You know, righteous anger is a good thing, Lauren. I mean, I think on some level I do feel in my bones what is right. Bodily autonomy is something that we all need. It is a human right. The fact that there are women in this country and around this globe who literally every day do not have full control over their bodies is unreal. It's a horrifying thing.

Lauren Schiller:                  Since you brought up abortion and pro-choice/anti-choice, are your parents ... are you guys in the same camp?

Julia R Davis:                        Oh hell yeah.

Lauren Schiller:                  Okay. It's just the uncles. It's always the uncles.

Julia R Davis:                        Exactly. Again this is why I sort of put it in the frame of bodily autonomy. The my mind, the political issue is about controlling women. It has nothing to do, really, with the individual case or what is claimed.

Lauren Schiller:                  I probably should know what this means, but what does it mean to pray with your feet?

Julia R Davis:                        Oh, it's shorthand, I think, for the behaviors we engage in. How we show up in the world I think is the evidence for our beliefs. So if you believe in justice and equality for all, what are you doing to, in the real world, to bring those beliefs about? Quite frankly, if you are pro-life, what are you doing to live that value?

Julia R Davis:                        I mean, this is where I think language really matters. The religious right, the conservative right that sort of started in the Reagan era and built power through Jerry Falwell's church and so forth, they did a masterful job of claiming language. But if you don't stand up for people on death row who have not gotten a fair trial and who are there because of racism and because of xenophobia, that is not pro-life to me. If you put the life of a woman behind a nonentity, that's not pro-life to me either. Quite frankly, if you put your ... let's go down the list, and there are much more articulate people than I on this subject, but the effects of climate change ... is killing our planet and really changing the course of the lives of our collective children. The right has done nothing to preserve life in that regard.

Lauren Schiller:                  I'd love to know what the best advice that you've ever been given is about how to find and be your authentic self.

Julia R Davis:                        You know what's interesting? I've gotten unbelievable amounts of wonderful, wise advice over the years. I've had an incredible access to women of all ages who've played tremendous roles in terms of mentorship and advice-giving and wisdom, both in sort of more formal settings and also just friends around the dinner table.

Julia R Davis:                        At the end of the day, the thing I've learned, it's not someone else's advice, the thing I've learned is any amount of advice is only as good as how much work you're willing to do yourself; how much work I've been willing to do myself. I think everybody's sort of demons are different in a way, but I guess my take on that is you have to find ways to internalize your wins and really fundamentally believe that you are enough just the way you are.

Lauren Schiller:                  Julia Rhodes Davis created her own all-woman space in the boardroom for Vote.org and is willing to give it some time to see if it not only feels good, it does good. As the director of partnerships for the Partnership on AI, Julie is making sure diverse voices are at the table when it comes to who and what technology is used for.

Lauren Schiller:                  I want to hear your stories of how empowerment has led to power. Tell us about a moment when you were empowered by going to our Facebook group, The Inflection Point Society, or go to InflectionPointSociety.org. I'm Lauren Schiller and this is Inflection Point.

Lauren Schiller:                  That's our Inflection Point for today. All of our episodes are on Apple Podcasts, RadioPublic, Stitcher and NPR One. Give us a five-star review and subscribe to the podcast. Know a woman with a great rising-up story? Let us know at InflectionPointRadio.org. While you're there, I invite you to support Inflection Point with a monthly or a one-time contribution. Your support keeps women's stories front and center. Just go to InflectionPointRadio.org.

Lauren Schiller:                  We're on Facebook at Inflection Point Radio. Follow us and follow me on Twitter @laschiller. To find out more about the guests you heard today and to sign up for our email newsletter, you know where to go: InflectionPointRadio.org.

Lauren Schiller:                  Inflection Point is produced in partnership with KALW 91.7 FM in San Francisco and PRX. Our story editor and content manager is Alaura Weaver. Our engineer and producer is Eric Wayne. I'm your host, Lauren Schiller.

Speaker 3:                              Support for this podcast comes from the Corporation For Public Broadcasting.

Speaker 4:                              From PRX.