Skip to main content

Inclusivity is a Bad Thing.

(This post inspired by Michelle Lyons-McFarland; check her out at among other places)

There are a lot of white dudes in IT talking about "inclusivity" in their culture and how it's important, as if "inclusivity" is an end-stage boss they can beat, or a card they can move from the "actionable" to the "done" part of their burn board. It's often used in concert with "diversity" (which is another tricky concept that I might go into later), and is touted as a good thing in and of itself.

I can claim a lot of things as a cis white guy in IT, but here's one thing that you should probably trust me on: Inclusivity Is A Bad Thing. It's bad for the individual, it's bad for communities, it's bad for teams and organizations, and it's bad for society as a whole.

It's bad because at best it means nothing, and at worst it means a deliberate and willful choice to avoid making decisions. I'm not even a big fan of the phrase "be inclusive" because it, too, is a move towards avoiding action and choice, rather than possibly making a stand and risking some sort of outcry or backlash or (in extreme cases) horrible harassment. Inclusive is the wrong word. It's the word that nerds and PR flacks use to say something without saying something.

No, if you want a stronger organization, a stronger team, a stronger community, you must include people. If you want a better range of colour and gender and backgrounds in whatever it is you're trying to build or improve, then you, both individually and collectively, must act to build or improve. And that means changing the words used. "We want to be inclusive" is a passive statement, and implies that the problem is not you or your organization, but all of those silly people who can't figure out how awesome you are. "We want to include more women and minorities" is better. "We want to include more women" is much better. "We are working to make our organization more friendly towards GLBT folk" is much, much better.

Organizations require work. Good organizations require lots of work. Some of that work is deciding who will or won't be a good fit for your organization, and determining the rules about how to admit and how to exclude individuals. Because the truth of the matter is that not all people fit in all organizations; that's the nature of both people and organizations. And for that matter, not all of the people who the organization thinks will fit will actually fit. It's possible to create a team that wants to have more women on it but decides not to hire a woman. It's possible to create a company that wants more black programmers but doesn't hire every black programmer.

The set [all the people everywhere] is not a good fit for anything other than a definition of population. Necessarily, organizations will not want to, but need to, exclude some people. Clear and easily understood exclusion principles are hard to implement, but ultimately will improve whatever group you're trying to create. Exclusion and exclusivity aren't a priori bad things, as long as they're clearly understood and communicated.


Popular posts from this blog

Organizing And You: Lessons from Labor History

    I made a joke on Twitter a while ago: Do I need to post the Thomas M Comeau Organizing Principles again? — Jerome Comeau says Defund The Police (@Heronymus) July 15, 2021 and it recently came back up because a member of my family got their first union job and was like "every job should be offering these sorts of benefits" and so I went ahead and wrote down what I remember of what my dad told me. My father had many jobs, but his profession was basically a labor union organizer, and he talked a lot about the bedrock foundation items needed to be serious about organizing collective action. Here's what I remember.    The Thomas M. Comeau Principles of Organizing -- a fundamental list for finding and building worker solidarity from 50 years of Union Involvement. This list is not ranked; all of the principles stated herein are coequal in their importance. Numbering is a rhetorical choice, not a valuation. 1) Be good at your job. Even in an at-will

Money and Happiness as a fungible resource

Money really does buy happiness. Anyone who tells you differently has a vested interest in keeping you poor, unhappy, or both. I know this because I grew up on the ragged edge of poor, and then backed my way into a career in IT, which is where the modern world keeps all the money that isn't in Finance. So I am one of the extreme minority of Generation X that actually had an adulthood that was markedly more financially stable than my parents. And let me tell you: money really does buy happiness. To be clear: at 45 years old, I'm now in a relationship and a period of my life where our household is effectively double-income, no kids. I live in the city, but I own a house, and can only afford to do that because of our combined income. We also have two cars -- one new, one used (though neither of them is getting driven very much these days) -- and we have a small discretionary budget every month for things like videogames, books, and the like. What my brother used to call DAM -- Dic

Activision, Blizzard, Game development, IT, and my personal role in all of that.

 I'm pretty sure if you spend any sort of time at all on Twitter and/or spend any sort of time playing videogames, you are by now at least aware of the lawsuit brought forth by the State of California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing versus Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al. From this point on, I'll add a Content Warning for folks who are sensitive about sexual assault, suicide, and discrimination based on sex, gender, and skin color, as well as crude humor around and about sexual assault , and what the State of California refers to as "a pervasive 'frat boy' culture" around Act/Bliz, especially in the World of Warcraft-associated departments.   Just reading the complaint is hard rowing, even with the clinical legalese in place. The complaint itself is relatively short; 29 pages laying out ten Causes of Action (basically, "these are the legs on which our lawsuit stands"). I'm not sure I have the vocabulary to properly express how a