It is rare these days to hear a Canadian voice arguing against the idea of equity, diversity or inclusion, as most of us are rational and ethical enough to acknowledge those values. EDI (Equity, Diversity, Inclusion) goals are claimed now, not only by activists, but by governments, educational institutions and corporations. The challenge therefore is no longer to convince average Canadians that the goals of EDI are valid, rather to decide HOW best to implement those values so they become a lived reality.
I come to the conversation as a former teacher/co-owner of a private school that served bright underachievers. I am now an Accredited Family Mediator in the area of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution). ADR is a relatively recent, evidence-based industry with much to offer the activists for social change. The fundamental message of ADR research is that conflict is most effectively resolved when opposing parties switch from an adversarial to a collaborative approach. I occasionally observe an adversarial tone being used by zealous EDI advocates. Doing so undermines the very principle of inclusion they intend to be support.
The collaborative approach of ADR requires a deep attitudinal shift. In any campaign for social change, there are valid arguments and legitimate emotions on the side of advocacy for immediate transformation as well as on the side of slower, gradual change. Individuals on each side naturally defend their own position while becoming hyper-aware on the faults of the other side. It is a recipe for escalation, with neither group grasping the legitimacy of the other group’s point of view. I am writing to suggest steps to prevent adversarial, ideological elements from taking over the conversation. For example, there is a contradiction between the stated goal of inclusion and the strategy of attempting to silence disparate voices. EDI raises delicate and difficult topics. Feelings run high on both sides and must be respected. Shutting down voices on either side of an issue isn’t the best strategy for attaining diversity or inclusion. It isolates each side from the other, thereby enhancing misunderstanding and narratives on both sides that demonize the other.
ADR strategies seek connection. By bringing different voices into non-adversarial conversation, an understanding can be built, leading eventually to solutions that address the legitimate interests of all parties. The starting point must be a willingness to listen respectfully to voices on all sides. The principle underlying ADR is that humans from competing groups have more needs in common than in conflict. All humans prefer security, peace, autonomy, connection and justice. Identity politics tend to define us by our differences, based on factors such as race, nationality, ethnicity, disability, sexual identity, wealth. These differences are important and true, but obscure the deeper underlying commonalities.
We all need healing. We all suffer from emotional wounds and insecurities that blind us at times to the hardship of others. Authentic conversation with members of an unfamiliar community can spark deep reflection that shifts individuals from defensiveness and anger toward open collaboration. Those born into privilege can shift from guilt or denial about the advantages they possess to empathy, by listening respectfully to the life experiences of the disadvantaged. Those in marginalized communities can shift away from a stance of judgement and anger, however justified those emotions may be, and seek instead to understand the dilemma faced by the colonizers’ descendants.
Meaningful inclusion can only be established when we seek more authentic communication that goes beyond judgement, beyond ideology and asks us to meet one another as struggling human beings who jointly seek greater justice for all. Judgement is a risky strategy when the speaker claims higher ground in judgement over another person or group’s perspective. We can judge our own and others’ behaviours; but to judge the person pits us against the person instead of the behaviour, thereby defining the person by the deed. Understanding grows when we sit at the same level around the circle, all of us seeking greater wisdom and growth. These principles of ADR are borrowed in part from indigenous communities. The formalities are different, but the goal is the same: not to shame, punish or exclude those who have done harm, (or who are descended from those who have done harm), rather to bring them into community with those who have been harmed or excluded from the dominant narrative.
Some promoters of ADR employ a tone that sabotages the stated goal by excluding or presuming superiority over other voices. True inclusion moves from the surface to the depth. Instead of heightening our awareness of differences, we would be wise to shift the conversation in a more colour-blind direction, toward the deeper underlying commonalities shared by all justice-seeking communities. And then to invite all voices to share in the conversation.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mike MacConnell, founder of Reflective Mediation, is an accredited family mediator, conflict coach, educator and author. He is the highest-ranked mediator on Google in the greater Toronto area, with over 180 5-star reviews. To book your free consultation click here.
