I had the pleasure of speaking to the graduate students in the Community Engagement program at Merrimack College tonight. I spoke about the challenges within service, advocacy, and activism. I really appreciated the opportunity to also think through two issues I’ve been chewing on for a while, both of which had to do with definition.
Equity
As I mentioned to the students, there isn’t a positive definition of equity that we all agree on that helps us know equity when we see it. We know equity is not equality, but we don’t know what it is so that when we know when we are beginning to get there. And it’s entirely possible that there isn’t a single definition that applies in all circumstances of injustice. I’ve been thinking about this for a while and am thinking I should make this the subject of my next book. Maybe.
I suspect that part of the problem is that we’ve gotten used to understanding fairness as equality. But equity sometimes requires treating people differently. This means that some individuals will have advantages, benefits, entitlements, or other privileges that others do not. So in a society that has for too long seen justice as equality, how can we justify treating people differently?
Here’s where my thinking is at right now:
Treating people differently is justified when it supports full and dignified inclusion into a community as they are, whether that be a workplace, a neighborhood, a house of worship, or a playground. Treating people differently in a way that reproduces social harms or reinforces dysfunctional social hierarchies is not justifiable.
If you’ve got opinions about this, let me know. You know how to reach me.
Inclusion
The other definition that I have been working on is this notion of inclusion. Again, the issue is, how do we know it when we see it. More importantly, how can we define inclusion in a way that challenges us to accept difference while also rejecting harmful behaviors or attitudes?
Here’s where I am at right now:
Inclusion is a condition where everyone who shares and contributes to the core values of an organization/ community is accepted, valued, and integrated as they are into the structure and functioning of the organization/ community.
Obviously this means that individuals are accepted, valued, and integrated irrespective of socially constructed differences in terms of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.
But I think inclusion demands more. Individuals must also be accepted regardless of differences in personality or affect. I don’t mean that we have to accept bullies and jerks (see below). And I should be clear that I am also not just talking about neurodivergent people, although that is also important. What I think we should also consider is that introverts must have a place in our organizations and communities too. This is particularly important for social movement organizations. I know a number of individuals who describe themselves as “quiet gays” who do not feel like they have a place in their local LGBTQ advocacy or service organization. That’s a problem.
But inclusion demands an even greater challenge in our current political atmosphere. We live in a time where people are actually reporting that they would object to their child marrying across party lines. This is a problem. So, I argue that inclusion also requires accepting, valuing, and integrating individuals even whentheir specific positions about how to put those core values into action is different than yours. By this I mean that the main criteria for inclusion is not similarity in political affiliation or political valence but agreement a shared belief in core values.
What I think inclusion does not require is acceptance or integration of people whose behaviors are harmful to their fellow human beings, most especially those who are minoritized and marginalized. This is why bullies and jerks do not have to be accepted. But it also means that if your beliefs do not allow you to respect the humanity or sanction the oppression of others who are different from you, those individuals may need to leave until their actions better align with their professed values.
As I do more reading and thinking, these might get refined. Again, I guess I might need to write a book.