Lack of Inclusion Looks Purposeful

This is a short post about the intersection of two events that are widely separated in space and purpose, but nevertheless come together over the topic of inclusion. Or more clearly: the lack of inclusion.

I don't really think that leaving people out of these events and processes was intentional. Rather, I think it was just lazy. When we don't think about how to be more inclusive, we are destined to do what we did before: just enough to get by.

The first example is the most egregious. A state agency was directed in proviso language to include tribal representation in a work group. The agency did not do so, and when the final work group recommendations came before the agency's governing board for adoption, two tribal members objected.

On the face of it, there is simply no good excuse for ignoring the proviso language so blatantly. Peeling back the layers on this, though, reveals some dysfunction that affected decision making. The agency had let their previous executive director go and was thus going through a period of weak leadership. The person who had been the lead on this particular topic resigned, and without strong executive leadership, program management suffered.

These are a few of the reasons the proviso language was missed as the work group moved forward. While understandable, not following such an important piece of the proviso language is inexcusable. By leaving tribes out, the program may be delayed and the agency is left looking like it did not want tribal engagement.

The other example is very small. I missed a lunch meeting of a board I'm a member of, because the invitation was buried in a document in an email that gave no hint as to the meeting. It was assumed that everyone would open the email and the multiple attachments and thus be informed. No follow up occurred, even though we have a private channel in which to do so.

Again, this is an almost insignificant event, but it speaks to the same kind of laziness. It was broadcasting a message with the assumption that everyone was tuned into that radio station and listening carefully. Many (most?) people don't really function that way. We catch what we can, when we can, but few of us are able to keep a radio frequency tuned into a station that rarely transmits anything at all.

Was it intentional to be left out of the lunch meeting? No. Is it forgivable? Yes. Will it be repeated? I hope not. I've spoken to the head of this board about it and I believe that next time, he'll try to make sure we understand there is an invitation included. People being what they are, it is just as likely to be forgotten a year from now.

Inclusion takes a little bit of extra effort, especially if the person or organization does not have a strong history of working to include and engage others. Laziness is the "we've always done it this way" answer to why one was not more intentionally inclusive.