In today’s world, inclusivity has become a buzzword for many individuals, organizations, and social movements. The term suggests a commitment to welcoming and accepting people from all walks of life, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or socio-economic background. At its core, inclusivity promises to create environments where everyone feels respected and valued. However, there is a growing concern that those who claim to be inclusive often fall short of this ideal, especially when it comes to including people who do not share their beliefs or opinions.

This contradiction raises an important question: Are people who say they are inclusive truly living up to that claim, or are they selectively inclusive, leaving out those who disagree with them?

The Paradox of Inclusivity

Inclusivity, by definition, is supposed to mean embracing diversity in all its forms. In practice, however, many who advocate for inclusivity fail to extend this principle to those with differing viewpoints. This leads to a paradox: while promoting acceptance and openness, these individuals or groups may exclude those who do not align with their own beliefs or social values.

For example, in political or social discourse, someone might advocate for inclusivity but dismiss or ostracize individuals who express opposing opinions on controversial topics. Whether it’s about politics, religion, or social issues, those who don’t conform to the dominant ideology of the inclusive group are often sidelined or labeled as intolerant, ignorant, or even harmful.

Selective Inclusivity in Action

This selective approach to inclusivity can manifest in a variety of ways:

1. Political Exclusion: A common form of selective inclusivity can be seen in political spaces. People who claim to be inclusive may champion equality and diversity but will exclude or condemn others who hold opposing political views. For instance, someone might argue for inclusivity of marginalized communities but refuse to engage with or accept the views of someone from a conservative or libertarian background. This creates a situation where inclusivity is applied selectively, based on ideological agreement rather than true openness to all perspectives.
2. Social Media Echo Chambers: On social media, many who advocate for inclusivity may actively block or “cancel” people who disagree with their beliefs, creating echo chambers where only similar views are reinforced. Instead of fostering discussion and understanding, these environments shut out dissent, reinforcing the idea that inclusivity only applies to those who agree with the prevailing narrative.
3. Workplace and Activist Groups: In organizations that pride themselves on inclusivity, such as certain workplaces or activist groups, people who hold contrary or unpopular opinions may feel unwelcome. While the organization may outwardly promote a culture of acceptance, individuals who voice differing viewpoints on sensitive topics—such as religion, gender identity, or politics—might be marginalized or silenced. This selective inclusivity suggests that the principle only applies if one aligns with the group’s values.

Why Selective Inclusivity Occurs

1. Group Identity and Ideological Purity: Many inclusive movements are built around a specific set of ideals or beliefs. While these movements advocate for the inclusion of marginalized groups, they also tend to enforce strict adherence to certain ideological standards. If someone challenges those standards, they are often seen as a threat to the group’s cohesion, and their exclusion is justified in the name of maintaining unity.
2. Fear of Conflict: People who prioritize inclusivity may genuinely fear the conflict that can arise from engaging with opposing viewpoints. In an effort to maintain a harmonious environment, they may choose to exclude dissenting voices rather than risk creating division. This approach, while well-intentioned, ultimately undermines the idea of inclusivity because it avoids the difficult but necessary work of finding common ground.
3. Moral Superiority: Some individuals or groups may believe that their commitment to inclusivity gives them a moral high ground, leading them to dismiss or belittle those who don’t share their perspective. This sense of moral superiority can lead to the exclusion of anyone who challenges their worldview, even if that exclusion contradicts their stated values of openness and acceptance.

The Consequences of Selective Inclusivity

The selective application of inclusivity has several negative consequences:

1. Polarization: When inclusivity is applied selectively, it deepens social and political divides. Rather than fostering understanding between different groups, it leads to increased polarization, as people retreat into communities that reinforce their own views and exclude dissenting voices.
2. Echo Chambers: Selective inclusivity creates echo chambers where only certain perspectives are heard. This limits critical thinking and the exchange of ideas, as individuals are only exposed to opinions that align with their own, further entrenching divisions and preventing meaningful dialogue.
3. Loss of Trust: When people realize that inclusivity is being applied selectively, they may lose trust in the individuals or organizations promoting it. If inclusivity is used as a slogan rather than a genuine practice, it undermines the credibility of those who claim to support it.

True Inclusivity: A Challenge and a Necessity

True inclusivity means welcoming and respecting people not just for their race, gender, or background, but also for their differing opinions and beliefs. This doesn’t mean endorsing harmful or dangerous ideologies, but it does require being open to respectful dialogue with those who disagree with you. Real inclusivity is difficult because it challenges us to engage with perspectives that may make us uncomfortable. It requires setting aside the desire for ideological purity and instead embracing the messiness of diversity—diversity of thought, in particular.

To practice true inclusivity, individuals and groups must:

1. Engage in Dialogue: Inclusivity means having conversations with those who disagree with you and approaching those conversations with an open mind. This doesn’t mean you have to agree with them, but it does mean being willing to listen and understand where they are coming from.
2. Avoid Labeling and Ostracizing: It’s easy to dismiss people as intolerant or backward when they don’t share your views. True inclusivity avoids this temptation and instead tries to find common ground, even when disagreements seem insurmountable.
3. Reflect on Biases: Everyone has biases, and those who claim to be inclusive should regularly reflect on their own biases, especially when it comes to accepting differing viewpoints. Inclusivity isn’t about moral superiority—it’s about humility and the willingness to learn from others.

Conclusion

While inclusivity is a noble goal, its practice is often limited by selective application. True inclusivity means embracing not only the people we agree with but also those whose opinions differ from our own. It’s about creating space for genuine dialogue and understanding, even in the face of disagreement. When inclusivity is applied only to those who share the same beliefs, it becomes exclusionary and undermines the very values it claims to uphold. If inclusivity is to be more than just a slogan, it must include the willingness to engage with and respect all individuals, even those with whom we disagree.

4o