Content Note: Systemic Realities, Recurring Dynamics

On performative inclusion vs. accomplice work

Dear Colleagues,

I know we care about inclusion. I see it in the language we use, the statements we share, the photos we choose.

But I want to talk about what happens after the statement is published.

I’ve watched accessibility be celebrated, as long as it doesn’t slow things down.

I’ve seen equity supported, until it requires changing a process, a budget, or a timeline.

I’ve seen people praised for being allies, without ever having to give something up.

And I’m realizing that inclusion without risk is not inclusion. It’s branding.

Being an accomplice means more than agreeing in principle. It means being willing to:

• Say no to work that wasn’t designed with access in mind

• Push back when “that’s how we’ve always done it” shows up

• Reallocate resources — not just attention

• Name who isn’t in the room, even when it’s uncomfortable

It means understanding that neutrality is a choice and it usually protects the status quo. I don’t need everyone to have the perfect language.

I don’t need flawless plans.

What I need is honesty about trade-offs. And courage to make different ones. Real inclusion costs something. Time. Money. Comfort. Certainty.

But the cost of not changing is higher. It just gets paid by the same people, over and over again.

Please don’t ask marginalized people to carry this alone.

Step in. Take a risk. Put skin in the game.

That’s how systems change.