Against Over-Inclusivity

Inclusion is generally good - except when it harms more people than it helps

Today I’m in The Dispatch, talking about how society’s instinct towards inclusivity, which is normally good, has extended so far that it often ends up ends up excluding more people than it includes. It touches on recent social media controversies, and the more serious real world policy mistakes that they lead to.

Last weekend, a controversy exploded at the British Academy of Film and Television Arts awards. During the ceremony John Davidson, a man with Tourette syndrome whose life inspired a BAFTA-winning film, repeatedly interrupted the show with obscene outbursts, including shouting the n-word as black actors Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo were presenting an award. The episode instantly dominated online conversations; it pitted two historically disadvantaged groups against each other—black attendees subjected to a racial slur, and a person with a disability who routinely faces ostracization. The “Which marginalized group is really worse off here?” nature of the incident led to a firestorm of controversy, at the center of which is the idea of inclusivity—that despite the challenges that Tourette’s poses, excluding individuals with Tourette syndrome would be wrong.

Reacting to this debate, a user on the Tourette subreddit stated, “You are allowed to exist in public.” At the risk of sounding like the villain, I’m not sure that slogan is universally true.

To be clear, society should absolutely make reasonable accommodations for people who have conditions like Tourette syndrome. Historically people with disabilities have often been segregated or shut out of public life entirely, and we shouldn’t accept that as normal. Disabled people shouldn’t be discriminated against in housing or in professions where their disability isn’t material to their work. We should all have patience and understanding as they navigate daily life, and people with disabilities like Tourette’s deserve dignity like anyone else.

But if you are someone who literally and physically cannot prevent yourself from screaming the n-word at black folks in front of thousands of people (and millions watching at home), I don’t think it’s crazy to suggest that you should perhaps stay home from the BAFTAs and send in a pre-recorded message instead. Inclusion doesn’t require that every single space accommodate every possible behavior, regardless of the cost to others.

At the BAFTAs, for the benefit of one person—who described himself as “deeply mortified,” left the ceremony partway through, and likely had a miserable time—two presenters had to withstand racial slurs, thousands of guests had their ceremony disrupted repeatedly, and millions of people heard the slurs broadcast. That level of “inclusion” did nobody any good. Instead, it alienated far more people than it included.

Karl Popper introduced the idea of the paradox of tolerance—that by tolerating intolerance, you erode the conditions that make tolerance possible. Here, we see a paradox of inclusivity. When inclusion becomes unconditional—when no behavior is too disruptive, no boundary legitimate—shared spaces collapse. The BAFTAs were so inclusive they ended up excluding people.

Award ceremonies themselves are low stakes. The millionaire movie stars will be fine. But this same dynamic applies to much more consequential parts of our lives…

The Dispatch normally has a paywall, but Infinite Scroll readers get a gift link - check out the full article over at The Dispatch!