Read on Twitter
It is so puzzling to see arguments against equity initiatives.
We live in a world where everything (EVERYTHING) is stratified based on identity and ability to fit the mould of the "ideal citizen."
We live in a world where everything (EVERYTHING) is stratified based on identity and ability to fit the mould of the "ideal citizen."
Which means there is no such thing as neutral laws, policies or industry practices.
None of these things function within a vacuum, so they're going to affect people differently based on the categories they fit into.
None of these things function within a vacuum, so they're going to affect people differently based on the categories they fit into.
When folks who sit on the fringes of the developed "ideal citizen" identity enter rooms (including academic spaces and representative organizations) and spot immediately that they're the exception...
That tells us (a) this is not a space that is interested in prioritizing equity
That tells us (a) this is not a space that is interested in prioritizing equity
And (b) this isn't likely to be a space interested in examining how it shirks its responsibility to developing anti-oppressive practices.
Which means that the burden will likely always be that of the person who had to claw their ways into rooms that more "ideal" candidates could stroll into.
And if you haven't been paying attention in 2020 - where the onus of this incredibly isolating work typically falls (on top of navigating a different playing field) has ALWAYS been a part of the problem.
So the question should always be: how does the space you work in challenge this "norm?"
How do they prioritize attracting, RETAINING AND ELEVATING (!!!) folks on the fringes?
Because if these folks enter, then shut down or run screaming to never return, then GUESS WHAT?
How do they prioritize attracting, RETAINING AND ELEVATING (!!!) folks on the fringes?
Because if these folks enter, then shut down or run screaming to never return, then GUESS WHAT?
