#10 - On an engaging discussion about diversity and inclusion
Following my recent trend of everything interesting happening on on a Sunday, I spent tonight having dinner with a small group of people as part of Engage.
What is Engage?
According to the email brief "Engage, a small group dinner & discussion series that addresses diversity & inclusion topics through curated stories, writing, art, research, and conversation. The aim is to inspire growth in empathy, compassion, and action so that Kellogg students can make the world around them a more inclusive and just place."
As a group, we agreed on some norms and boundaries to facilitate our discussion and learning. One such norm was that we would share the lessons we learnt from our discussions, but not the specific stories we discussed.
Why did I get involved?
The main reason I decided to get involved is to learn about other people’s experiences, especially from groups or perspectives that I wouldn’t have access to otherwise. This is especially important given my status as an international student from Australia and not truly understanding many of the inequities that some of my American, and other international, classmates may face.
Through the discussions we have, I also wanted to more actively focus on becoming an inclusive leader, especially in terms of going beyond superficial diversity and towards equity (tackling root causes of barriers to diversity and inclusion).
Beyond that, I wanted to continue to build relationships with new people and learn more about my classmates, especially those who are seeking to expand their consciousness in this way.
What did I learn?
Our desire to get involved in diversity and inclusion was driven by a sense of fairness
At the start of the dinner, everybody shared an experience that had shaped us and how we viewed the world. Everyone’s experiences were different but the common theme amongst everybody was the desire to achieve a sense of 'fairness'.
'Fairness' means different things to different people
Despite our common desire to achieve 'fairness', what ‘fairness’ meant to each person was also different. This is even before you consider different situations and how 'fairness' fits into each of those. Some of the discussions we had were around whether it was fair to have one objective measure of performance or outcome or whether systems should be adapted in order to consider each individual’s circumstances (e.g. in Education). In this way, what may be fair for one person, may not necessarily be fair for another person. We came to the reasonable conclusion that people are generally well intentioned but they will have different frames of reference in deciding on courses of actions or thinking. All we can do as leaders is to try and understand others’ perspectives.
It is difficult to draw the line on where inclusion stops and overbearing control begins
One of the materials we read for the dinner (Language of Appeasement by Dafina-Lazarus Stewart) mentioned that we need to move beyond simple diversity and inclusion and aim for justice and equity. An example of this would be asking “Why would we allow the humanity and dignity of people or our students to be the subject of debate or the target of harassment and hate speech?” when considering whether to invite an alt-right speaker onto campus.
People agreed that while some level of aggressive rhetoric should be restricted on campus, too much restriction would lead to the stifling of not just only free speech, but basic conversation as well. While trigger warning are good for more extreme and sensitive topics, extending them to more potentially mundane or basic issues may hinder basic speech.
It would be difficult to be a Trump voter at Kellogg
As with many discussions I've had recently, all roads lead to Trump. People were curious to understand why someone in our situation would be a Trump supporter, even if we could not sympathise with their views. We all agreed that it would be very difficult to come out as a Trump supporter on campus, especially given his recent actions. I personally think that this is a shame, given that we cannot hope to reach and convert Trump supporters if we cannot understand and address their concerns. Many people support Trump for reasons beyond racism and bigotry and members of the left have a duty to empathise and help these people, but in a progressive way.
Questions for you:
- Are you a Trump supporter at Kellogg? If so, I would love to interview you for this blog (or just have a chat over coffee)