Legal Commentary

Cynthia Tucker wrote a very thought-provoking editorial last Sunday about how officially setting aside one month of the year as Black History Month simply reinforces that the history and achievements of those of African descent in this country somehow isn't a part of American History. The same could be said of Women's History, and probably other groups. The goal initially was important--to raise people's awareness of that history, but the process ends up perpetuating the "otherness" of that group.

I have been struck recently by a similar phenomenon at events. Sponsorship by an organization linked with race or gender leads to attendance almost exclusively by members of that group, despite wide advertisement and the clear communication that the subject of the event would focus on issues of wide interest. Few men come to the women's bar group seminar on communicating effectively across generations. Few white people come to the same seminar sponsored by a group of minority lawyers. Even worse, sometimes when broad-based organizations hold events to commemorate or celebrate something linked with a non-Anglo race/ethnicity/national origin, women, or sexual minorities, white people, men, and straight people tend not to go. And even though it's probably not due to any intentional slight, often the non-attendance seems to be a rejection of the group or the thing commemorated.

So how might we foster inclusion in the face of what is well-meant, but counterproductive, in the case of Black History Month or the events I mention, or because of inertia, as may be the case for at least some types of events?