The word “segregation” means the action or state of setting someone or something apart from other people or things. In its most negative application to humans, it means labeling people according to a caste system that ranges from the most privileged to the worst treated. The people who have been segregated into the lesser ranks can experience life as property, i.e., slavery, or as barely alive, such as the “untouchable” caste in India’s history. The people who are at the top of the pyramid of privilege in a segregated structure are those to whom authority, resources and choices flow. In its most benign application, it means making sure the bag of sugar doesn’t say “salt”.
Our nation’s current civil and moral struggle with the application of segregation has entered the awareness of nearly every citizen. Many are galvanized to act to eliminate unequal and dangerous treatment based on membership in various categories of humans that have been applied to segregate them for poor treatment. We even struggle with what to name those categories, in an effort to be respectful, to be accurate. “Homosexual” has expanded to a string of letters that are difficult to remember, or explain. A new term, “Latinx” has entered usage, to indicate a person of Latin American heritage, without reference to gender, gender identity, gender preferences, etc. The Spanish language is particularly challenged to respond to the non-binary trend in how we describe each other. It’s no longer appropriate to use the term “oriental” in describing someone’s origins or ancestry. Now we apply “Asian”, and more specifically, naming the country from whence a person’s lineage originated.
This part of our struggle is, in my view, one of the most problematic impediments to actually achieving fully inclusive, broadly accepting and respectful treatment of all people, regardless of the name that is applied to their particular set of physical characteristics.
I am committed to inclusion as a primary principle of any organized entity, and for life in general for that matter. One of my favorite science fiction shows (and there were many) was “Deep Space Nine”. I loved that all of these different life forms lived and worked together on a space station between galaxies, the cosmic equivalent of a crossroads of trade routes. Everybody was just doing business, experiencing the joys and dramas that had absolutely nothing to do with what reproductive process they exhibited, what shade of purple their three eyes were, or whether or not they had eyes.
My ideal definition of “inclusion” and “diversity” incorporates the entire set of human beings. When asked to complete a form, my answer to the question of “Ethnic Status” or “Race” is “Earthling”. To the query of “Sex”, I write “Sometimes”.
Because we focus on categorizing people in the act of trying to protect them, we inadvertently perpetuate the existence of the category. In other words, by using labels to refer to a particularly defined group of people, we are in fact segregating them. We are doing the exact thing we say we are trying to eliminate.
Perhaps it’s a paradoxical necessity to segregate people by categories in order to someday not need to segregate people by categories. I say “perhaps” because I’m not completely convinced it is necessary—or even effective in making progress towards that ideal state of inclusiveness. It might even be holding us all back.
I believe that only through broad awareness and concerted collective behavioral change will Deep Space Nine’s culture materialize on Earth. It’s the choosing of the right actions that is the challenge, not establishing the most accurate labels. I know the things I can do personally, without trying to convince anyone else to change. One is to engage with everyone I encounter with respect, awareness and empathy. If I refer to them, and I know it, I use their name. If I don’t, I describe them by how I know of them, not by their physical characteristics.
I can examine my own unconscious thoughts and actions, to eliminate those that are destructive to trust and inclusion. I can ensure that when I might make decisions in business that affect others, I apply the principles of a meritocracy and use objective behavioral evidence of ability. I can eliminate factors in my decision-making that have no bearing on a person’s capabilities to perform a role or task. I can ensure that I cast as wide a net as possible so that qualified people from every walk of life know about the opportunities I may have to offer.
I can speak up when I see ill treatment of anyone else, no matter who they are, because they are fellow humans, the only category that truly describes all of us.