What Is…Performative Allyship?

In the wake of the wrongful killing of George Floyd by a police officer a few months ago, I’ve increasingly seen the following term online: performative allyship. Given the increased use of that term, I thought I would do a “what is” post on this term, even though it wasn’t in my original plans. It’s another term that may seem like social justice jargon to some but is important to understand.

Performative allyship is, generally speaking, an action or set of actions that do more to show how virtuous someone is than help the cause they say they support. Performative allyship is not a term used as a compliment, but as a criticism of someone’s actions.

But how can you tell that you, or someone else, is engaging in an action of performative allyship?

Based on the reading I have done, it seems like different people have different opinions on the point at which someone’s allyship crosses the line into performative allyship. However, I think there’s probably good agreement that if the action you’re thinking of has a clear benefit for you, but does not have a clear benefit for the cause you say you support (or worse yet, if the action you’re thinking of doing may actually harm the cause), then you may need to reconsider your action (or think through it some more) in order to avoid performative allyship. One thing that I might consider to be an example of performative allyship was when some people were wearing safety pins in the aftermath of Trump’s election to the presidency—while the intention was to show that someone would be a “safe” person on issues ranging from race to LGBTQ+, I recall the pins being widely critiqued for doing more to advertise a person’s self-righteousness than actually address any problems.

Thinking about whether an action of yours might fall into performative allyship is not just important to the cause you support, but also to yourself. After all, if an action you’re thinking of is not actually going to do anything to benefit the cause you say you support, then, in all due honesty, why bother? Why waste your time doing something that does not support the cause you support in some tangible way? First and foremost, it’s important to make sure you actually help the cause you say you support, but you also want to make sure that you make good use of your time—something that would not be the case if you’re using your time with performative allyship.

Ultimately, performative allyship is unhelpful for both you and the cause you support. Instead, try to aim for what I might call supportive allyship—allyship that brings tangible benefits to the cause you support, regardless of whether there are any benefits for you.

Barriers to Evacuating From a Weather Disaster

Before every hurricane, we hear elected officials to tell people to “get out of harm’s way.” They say that “if you don’t leave, you are putting your own life at risk.” Or even more dire—I’ve heard elected officials say that “death is certain” if you don’t evacuate. People in parts of Louisiana and Texas heard all of this as Hurricane Laura was approaching last week.

Now don’t get me wrong—I appreciate the strong language. I think that when a major hurricane is heading straight at you, particularly if you’re in an area vulnerable to storm surge from the hurricane, you need to evacuate, if at all possible.

However, I beg people, including any government officials, to take notice of that final clause in my previous sentence: if at all possible.

I say that because, for some people, evacuating is not possible. And the results of this are catastrophic, even deadly.

But how could this be the case, when governments like to give a face of taking these storms seriously? Well…here are just a few major barriers to evacuating from a weather disaster:

Not enough shelters are pet-friendly.

A Reuters article some time ago put it best—pet owners often think of their pets first when natural disasters strike.[1] Now some of that is because people are that emotionally attached to their pets (and that is valid), but we also have to keep in mind that, in some cases, people literally can’t function without their pets. From people who rely on animals as a form of therapy for physical and/or mental health issues, to blind individuals who rely on guide dogs to get them around, there is a whole population of people who can’t function without their pets. Therefore, it is unacceptable for governments to either be short on shelters (as was the case with Florida before Hurricane Irma in 2017, according to the aforementioned Reuters article) or lack pet-friendly shelters in the first place (as was the case with South Carolina with Hurricane Florence a few years ago[2]). If governments want people to evacuate, they need to have evacuation shelters that allow people to be with their pets, for both people who are attached to their pets and for people who can’t function without pets.

Governments also do not provide adequate transportation for people with disabilities.

I was only eleven years old when Hurricane Katrina hit, but one of the things I remember from Katrina was how the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana did not adequately provide transportation for the disabled to get to a safe place. Depending on the disability, one may not be able to get to higher ground on their own; therefore, there needs to be help. With Hurricane Katrina, government didn’t help adequately, and the death toll was probably much higher than it should’ve been because of that lack of help.

I will end this section with a quote from a report issued by the National Council on Disability in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005: “For example, during the Katrina evacuation, many people with disabilities could not evacuate because to do so would require them to abandon support services and personnel. Moreover, since emergency transportation and shelters could not care for them, many people with disabilities were forced to stay behind.”[3]

Employee rights are inadequate.

How inadequate are employee rights? So inadequate that people can, and have, been fired because of evacuating from hurricanes. For example, a woman in North Carolina claimed that she was fired for not showing up to work after losing power during Hurricane Florence in 2018—that’s very possible because North Carolina is what’s called an “at-will employment state,” or a state where “private-sector employees can be fired for any reason – or no reason at all.”[4] There were also stories galore before, during, and after Hurricane Irma asking whether an employee can be fired for fleeing from the hurricane (by the way, the consensus answer was “yes”). Until governments have better protections keeping people from being fired for not showing up to work during or immediately after a hurricane as part of an evacuation plan, people will hesitate to evacuate for fear of missing work and being fired.


When a disaster such as a hurricane is on the way, the barriers to evacuating should be minimized to the greatest extent possible. However, that does not happen, and that likely results in preventable deaths.

Please note that I will not publish a post next Monday, as next Monday is Labor Day.


[1] This article talked about how, even for those who need companion animals, pet-friendly shelters were difficult to find: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-elderly-evacuation-pets/florida-needs-more-pet-friendly-hurricane-shelters-for-the-elderly-idUSKBN1CM2Q4

[2] https://weather.com/safety/hurricane/news/2018-09-11-where-to-take-pets-south-carolina-shelters

[3] https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED496270.pdf

[4] https://www.nbc26.com/news/national/employers-can-fire-employees-who-evacuated-for-hurricane-in-north-carolina

Heading into a Major Election Year…Without a Functioning Election Commission

I am not one for hyperbole, but the 2020 Presidential election is extremely important. In addition to many local- and state-level races, the election will determine who will control Congress for the next two years, and who will occupy the White House for the next four years.

Heading into such consequential elections, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) would be a helpful tool in making sure that candidates for the United States House of Representatives, United States Senate, Presidency, and Vice Presidency were not running afoul of federal campaign finance law.[1]

There’s one problem though—the FEC is not in a position to enforce federal campaign finance law heading into this. Why? Because the FEC needs at least four commissioners (out of six that could be in place) in order to enforce federal campaign finance law, and right now, the FEC is at…three commissioners. It was an issue noted the previous time the FEC lacked a quorum (which was just mere months ago),[2] and it’s an issue again.

The reality is that this situation has been in the making for quite a while now. Back in 2018, one of the commissioners at the time, Lee Goodman, resigned and the FEC went down from five to four commissioners—the bare minimum needed for quorum.[3] What this meant was that if one additional person resigned, retired, died, or was otherwise not present for an FEC meeting, the commission would lose the power to enforce campaign finance law. Therefore, when another of the commissioners, Matthew Petersen, resigned in August 2019,[4] the FEC was left with only three commissioners, which was short of the quorum of four they needed to make any substantive decisions. Only when Republican Trey Trainor was confirmed did the FEC regain its ability to enforce campaign finance law,[5] but it once again lost that ability when another of the commissioners, Caroline Hunter, resigned.[6]

While we wait for there to be a quorum with our election commission, I can’t help but think that heading into this election year, we actually do have a major election integrity issue. But, the issue is not with fraud resulting from absentee voting—it’s with the lack of enforcement of campaign finance law because of an election commission that is not functioning properly. Unless this issue gets resolved, I worry that 2020 will be a bit of a “wild west” in terms of adherence (or lack thereof) to campaign finance laws.


[1] Read more about the FEC here: https://www.fec.gov/about/mission-and-history/

[2] https://www.npr.org/2019/08/30/755523088/as-fec-nears-shutdown-priorities-such-as-stopping-election-interference-on-hold

[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/it-s-going-be-crisis-turning-out-lights-undermanned-fec-n1048376

[4] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/a 2020-election/it-s-going-be-crisis-turning-out-lights-undermanned-fec-n1048376

[5] https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/498619-fec-regains-authorities-after-senate-confirms-trump-nominee-as

[6] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/26/fec-caroline-hunter-resigns-341396

Want to “Support Our Health Workers”? Here are Some Tangible Ways to Do So.

“I support our health workers.”

The above is a common refrain I’ve heard while the United States has grappled with the coronavirus.

I agree with the sentiment—I think our health workers should be supported. However, I also recognize that all too often, this refrain does not turn into action. Often, we say “support our health workers” but then act in ways that show anything but support for our health workers.

But how can we support our health workers? I propose a few suggestions:

  1. If you aren’t doing so already, wear a mask or some other protective face covering[1] and practice social distancing. These two actions are widely proven to contain the spread of the coronavirus. If people performed these two actions, we would keep our health workers from becoming overwhelmed with coronavirus patients.
  2. Assess the needs of the health workers where you live, and act accordingly. Speaking as someone who witnessed how difficult things were with the coronavirus in New York City, the needs of health workers were varied—at one point it included everything from equipment to food to funds for childcare. I can’t speak for what the needs are of health workers in places like Miami or Houston, but I strongly urge you to assess the needs of health workers where you live and act accordingly.
  3. If there are murmurs of a hospital closing down near where you live, do all you can (within reason) to protest the closure. There is a great deal of concern about the financial strain that many hospitals are experiencing as a result of the pandemic.[2] As such, there is also concern about the potential of hospitals closing. The closure of hospitals would put more strain on the hospitals that remain, and therefore the health workers who remain. As such, I urge readers to protest any proposed hospital closures in your area.
  4. Support legislative efforts to reduce the financial burdens that our health workers have. From current childcare costs to past student loan costs, there are a multitude of financial burdens that many of our health workers have to deal with. Given the stresses involved with trying to deal with the pandemic, we should try to minimize other sources of stress, such as financial burdens. This is where I would recommend actions such as urging your member of Congress to support legislation to forgive student loan debts for frontline health workers during COVID-19.[3]
  5. If you have a friend who is a health worker, listen to what they have to say. Don’t blow off your friend. Don’t minimize the experiences your friend had. Just listen to them.

These are just a handful of ways that you can support our health workers during COVID-19. Are there other ways we should consider supporting health workers? If so, please leave a comment below!


[1] I understand that some people have a difficult time with masks for health reasons. However, for many, there are other types of face covering, such as face shields, that may work better for you than a face mask.

[2] https://www.aha.org/guidesreports/2020-05-05-hospitals-and-health-systems-face-unprecedented-financial-pressures-due#:~:text=Hospitals%20face%20catastrophic%20financial%20challenges,of%20%2450.7%20billion%20per%20month.

[3] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr6720

Sports Sponsorships and Morality

A storefront with the Nike logo.

I don’t know how much I’ve shared this on my blog, but one of the sports I follow closely is NASCAR. Yes, the same NASCAR that for the longest time has been stereotyped as a racist southern sport…and backed up those stereotypes with all of the Confederate flags that fans were able to have in the infields of racetracks. It’s also the same NASCAR that made national news when it announced a long-overdue decision not to allow said flags at NASCAR events.

While NASCAR got positive attention for this, it also ended up in a bit of controversy when news broke that one of its teams was going to have “Trump 2020” on the car for a number of races—something that happened because the Patriots of America PAC (a political action committee supporting President Donald Trump) paid $350,000 to said race team to have “Trump 2020” on the car.[1] I’m sure some Trump supporters were happy to see their candidate’s name on the car (though maybe less so upon finding out that said car has spent most of the season below 25th place in points[2]), but many have pointed out the hypocrisy of advocating for a Confederate flag ban while allowing pro-Trump sponsorship at the races. And frankly, given some of the comments that President Trump has made about matters such as the Confederate flag, Confederate statues, and Black Lives Matter, I can see why someone would think that NASCAR is being hypocritical.

However, I think the debate over “Trump 2020” on a sub-25th place car should expand beyond even whether said sponsor is moral or should be allowed. Namely, we need to have a larger conversation about sports sponsorships and morality—a conversation we don’t have often for whatever reason—because there are quite a few sponsors throughout sports that are morally questionable. And if you think I’m being overly sensitive, consider this breakdown of sponsorships and morals (or lack thereof) in a number of top sports:

  • Mars: They sponsor the defending NASCAR Cup Series champion, Kyle Busch.[3] They also have a long-standing reputation of producing chocolate with child labor.[4]
  • Nike: They are the official supplier of NFL, NBA, and MLB uniforms.[5] They’ve had a history of using sweatshops to produce their apparel and are now linked to the use of forced labor.[6]
  • Caesars Entertainment: The NFL has an official casino sponsor in Caesars Entertainment.[7] Gambling is also an addiction that can and has ruined people’s lives.
  • Adidas: Adidas has a $700 million deal with Major League Soccer,[8] and they are also linked to accusations of forced labor.[9] Like Nike, Adidas has a history of sweatshop use.
  • Red Bull: They’re everywhere. They sponsor numerous soccer/football teams, a Formula One team, and more. Energy drinks can also be harmful for one’s body.[10]

This is not an exhaustive list of sponsors with morals that are questionable, but these are some of the major ones. Still, this short list should give people a sense of how reliant so many major sports are on sponsors such as these. This list shows that it’s an issue much bigger than “Trump 2020” on a race car. It’s also an issue that seems to get ignored in the debates over whether “Trump 2020” should be on a race car to begin with, even though it would be beneficial to include the Trump car in a larger debate on where to draw the line with sports sponsorships and morals.

As to how to tackle this issue with sports and sponsors with questionable morals, I’m not sure. There most certainly is a line that many major sports have drawn with sponsors—otherwise we might still be talking about the NASCAR Winston Cup Series.[11] But as to where exactly that line is drawn, it’s something that needs to really be discussed at-length, because while I wish there wasn’t the need for any of these morally questionable sponsors to begin with, I also realize that if not for the existence of these sponsors, many people would be out of their jobs, out of their livelihoods.

What do you, the reader, think of sports sponsorships and morality? Where do you think the line should be drawn? At which point do you believe a sponsor is morally questionable enough that it should not be allowed in by a sport? You need not be a sports fan to comment below!


[1] https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/ct-nascar-political-paint-schemes-20200704-pwofhks3nbdtfhskcr4ebsnrea-story.html

[2] https://www.racing-reference.info/drivdet/lajoico01/2020/W

[3] https://www.mms.com/en-us/experience-mms/nascar

[4] https://blindinjusticeblog.com/2020/01/23/slavery-and-chocolate-some-not-so-sweet-truths/

[5] https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/27/news/companies/nike-nfl-gear-contract/index.html

[6] https://www.forbes.com/sites/siminamistreanu/2020/03/02/study-links-nike-adidas-and-apple-to-forced-uighur-labor/#41332b191003

[7] https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2019/01/03/nfl-caesars-sign-casino-sponsor-deal-minus-sports-betting/38836737/

[8] https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mls/2017/08/02/mls-gets-record-sponsorship-deal-adidas/534865001/

[9] https://www.forbes.com/sites/siminamistreanu/2020/03/02/study-links-nike-adidas-and-apple-to-forced-uighur-labor/#2c0f8bb61003

[10] The National Institutes of Health in the United States has a whole page breaking down the health impacts of energy drinks on one’s body, particularly those of teenagers and young adults: https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/energy-drinks

[11] Winston, a brand of cigarettes, sponsored the top level of NASCAR for over three decades. Some of my earliest memories as a NASCAR fan come from when the top level was called the Winston Cup Series. The concerns over a cigarette brand sponsoring the series was why NASCAR changed title sponsors: https://www.foxsports.com/nascar/gallery/nascar-premier-series-names-through-the-years-120216