The Alternate Realities of Diversity and Inclusion

An avalanche of insights from three New York Times op-ed pieces (Brooks, 2020; Garrett, 2018; Warzel, 2021), plus findings from a serious research study (English et al., 2020), compelled me to compose yet another editorial touching upon complex constructs such as morality, diversity, and inclusion. Although several of my remarks pertain to the conditions involving individuals of color or members of minority and ethnic groups, they can easily be applied to individuals with disabilities or, to be progressive, individuals who are d/Deaf and hard of hearing.

For starters, I wonder if the Internet, particularly social media platforms, should shoulder some of the blame for the perpetuation of extreme biases, prejudices, and outright ugly denigrating remarks leading to accusations of ableism, ageism, racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia. Clearly, there are other forces that have elicited insensitive behaviors and remarks; however, it is possible to argue that the Internet has exacerbated the situation. In our "attention economy" (see discussion in Warzel, 2021), individuals can associate with others who hold compatible ideas and positions—in essence, people can live in their own reality, shared only by others holding common or nearly common views or exhibiting similar physical characteristics. This situation renders it difficult for these individuals to be exposed to different mental frameworks or to foster respect for weltanschauungs that do not match their worldviews. In my opinion, this contributes to a narrow perception of diversity and inclusion, couched within varying subjective unshared alternate realities.

In two previous editorials (Paul, 2020, 2021), I provided a few brief remarks on diversity and inclusion, focusing on the convoluted constructs of rights and morality. My hope is that you have been inspired to reflect on the development of your morals and understanding of ethics. Have you wondered if knowledge is sufficient, assuming that we can agree on the conditions for reliable and valid knowledge? That is, is it sufficient to teach others about various cultures and ensure that such information is in our school curricula? Will this contribute to an inclusive environment?

Knowledge is power; however, it might not affect or reach those who live in alternate realities, who distrust or do not believe anything that does not support their positions. Even a die-hard cognitivist like me can recognize that "studying and learning" is not enough, particularly if you are in a group that holds similar ideas and views. Perhaps I am underestimating the influence and importance of workshops, seminars, or webinars on sexual misconduct, implicit bias, racism. Or perhaps I am underestimating the noble intentions of educators and professors who desire to shake their students' metaphysical foundations by making them feel uncomfortable and compelling them to confront their biases. You might argue that empathy plus knowledge (i.e., learning about others) produces a diverse moral worldview. Education is enlightening, right? But is it really sufficient?

In my university class, I have informed my students that the success of inclusion in education requires more than evidence-based practices, including those related to coteaching, universal design for learning, and response to intervention (instruction). A considerable portion of my inclusion class is devoted to the issue of attitudes (perceptions, self-fulfilling prophesies, views on disability, attitudes toward disability rights, etc.)—discussed mostly by scholars in the field of disability studies or proponents who have been labeled "radical inclusionists" (e.g., Gabel & Connor, 2014; Siebers, 2008; Valle & Conner, 2011).

Make no bones about it: Attitudes is a complex construct, and a number of descriptions or definitions have been provided in the research literature (e.g., Horne, 1985; Kahle, 1984). For example, Horne (1985) cites several definitions, but this is the one I think is apt here:

A social attitude. . .may be defined as a set of evaluative categorizations formed toward an objector class of objects as the individual learns, in interaction with others, about his environment including evaluations of other persons. Through attitude formation, the individual relates himself, psychologically, to these objects. His attitudes become constituent parts of his self (ego) system. By definition, therefore, attitudes have emotional and motivational aspects inseparably intertwined with cognitive content (Sherif, Sherif, & Nebergall, 1965, p...