are there any steps towards increasing inclusiveness with which you would be uncomfortable?
(please give as much information as possible!)
Answers
It depends on what you mean by “inclusion". What most people mean by the term, namely the fact that people from various different backgrounds feel equally welcome and that they are treated fairly, is a valid social goal, and I cannot think of a reasonable argument against it. There are, however, some very pathological extremes which might fit the literal term but which most people do not have in mind when they advocate for inclusion. These pathological cases are not so much an argument against inclusion, but demonstrate the necessary limits of the principle. In particular, the paradox of tolerance demonstrates the need to not grow the scope of inclusion to those who harbor extremist, misogynistic, or otherwise bigoted views whose inclusion would negate the inclusion of others.
There is also the consideration that it is sometimes appropriate for events, places, or activities to be limited to specific communities of interest or to cater to such a specific audience. In such a case, I would argue that equality/fairness should be the overriding principle, with inclusion being a means of achieving that. Sometimes equality can also be achieved by providing an equivalent opportunity to a minority or marginalized group to hold an event in which it is dominant. To force inclusion on such events (and thereby take away an opportunity to be dominant) is something that effectively undermines equality for those groups.
Last but not least, there is a related principle of diversity. Whereas inclusion refers to feeling welcome once a person is there, diversity refers to being there in the first place. Both diversity and inclusion are incredibly valuable goals, and I don't think that there are valid arguments against them. However, there are valid discussions to have regarding the merits of different approaches to achieve these objectives. For example, broadening one's search for potential hires so that all groups are well represented in the initial pool, eliminating sources of inequality in the hiring process, and making sure that candidates of all backgrounds feel equal and welcome throughout the process including once they are hired, and applying a consistent standards to all candidates regardless of background in determining whether to hire are all fairly non-controversial approaches to increasing diversity. There are other approaches to achieving diversity, however, that are controversial such as affirmative action, where diversity factors not just into the original search but into the criteria that is used to make a determination. Here, the debate is a microcosm of a much broader philosophical and ethical debate between whether morality is determined by outcomes or by actions (that is, do the ends justify the means?) and also between whether fairness should be considered at the level of the individual or at the level of identity group. I personally come down on the side of “the ends do not justify the means", but there are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of the issue.
this question is answered by michael safyan, an humble answerer in QUORA
regards