Is true inclusion possible?

In this month's episode, we take a closer look at physical disability. We unleash all cynicism, and talk about whether true inclusion is actually possible in such a diverse world with so many potentially conflicting characteristics.

The articles discussed are:
‘Refused service yet again with my guide dog – I'm done speaking out’
Hiring discrimination study from Cardiff University

If you have a question for us, then you can submit it through this form.

Music used is:
Who Do You Think I Think You Are? by Mini Vandals

Transcript

T: Welcome back to another episode of D&I Digest.

H: I'm Henry, I use he/they pronouns.

T: And I'm Teagan, and I use she/her pronouns.  We make up the Diversity and Inclusion team at Anchor, which is an organisation that specialises in housing and care for over 55s. This month, we're centring our conversation around disability, but considering whether a fully inclusive world for everyone is actually possible. Hm.

H: Hmm.

T:  I think we briefly posed this question in an earlier episode, but given the sheer number of people in the world and all the different ways we interact with it, is it actually possible? Is true inclusion possible?

H: No.

T: End of episode!

H: End of episode, we're done. Yeah, no, I don't. I don't think so.

T:  I think - Yeah, it's really interesting, isn't it? Like how do you get to a point where you include everybody's beliefs, everybody's types of disabilities, everybody's backgrounds... All of it.

H: In an equal way? 

T: In an equal way.

H: Yeah.

T: I think it's a struggle.

H: I also think it would make for a really boring world. I think we should aim to be inclusive.

T: Yes.

H: Like truly inclusive. Like I don't think we want to have achieved inclusion.

T: I just don't think it's possible. Cause there's always ways that people are evolving and showing us that they're different.

H: And I feel like if you had achieved true inclusion, that would, in reality, just mean that you'd achieved assimilation. I don't think you'd get to a point where everybody equally decided, I'll put my own feelings to the side for the moment because someone might disagree with them. I think people would just get very good at hiding it. 

T: Yeah, okay.

H: Which potentially isn't really the question. I suppose true inclusion is the aim,  but I don't think in reality it should be the aim? If that makes sense?

T: I think it should be aim, I just don't think it's achievable.

H: Yeah, perhaps I'm- I'm drawing a difference between being inclusive and inclusion.

T: Okay, fine.

H: Kind of in the same way that, like, we've mentioned before about drawing a difference between like allyship and being an ally, and I think a similar thing would happen with this.

T: Okay, well let's-

H: I'm not sure if linguistically that works, but I'm saying it does so!

T: Well, let's get into it. 

MUSIC

T: So, our first article today is from the BBC, last November, and it's called 'Refused Service Yet Again With My Guide Dog. I'm Done Speaking Out,' which I think is loud and clear, isn't it? This was written by the BBC's transport correspondent, who has a guide dog and has been a guide dog handler for over 25 years, since he was 14. He has a number of eye conditions, which has left him completely blind, and having a guide dog gives him his freedom and independence as you would expect. The service he was refused was at a restaurant and he was told that he couldn't enter as people have allergies but they later changed the reason to they had no space. So I mean straight away, something stinks doesn't it? Like oh we don't have... we've got people with allergies! Have you?

H: Actually wait, no there's just no room.

T: Have you really? Oh no, no, it's not that, we've got no room. Right.

H: I think the issue here is like the fact that they changed their mind.

T: Oh, it's embarrassing isn't it?

H: It is, yeah.

T: Basically what has happened here is he's just been told that him and his dog can't come into this restaurant. They just don't want to deal with it. And this is just like literally out and out discrimination.

H: Yeah, that is not allowed.

T: You can't refuse someone with a service animal. The discussion that we had  before we started recording this podcast around this particular article was really interesting though, wasn't it? Because we'd said,  okay, let's pretend that they were telling the truth, there was somebody with a pretty serious pet fur allergy in the restaurant. How do you balance having someone who- cause I mean, both people are entitled to go and eat at that restaurant, right?- but how do you balance this idea of  the man coming in with his disability and a service animal, and this idea that some people's allergies can be so extreme that it is classed as a disability because it becomes a point where it's life-threatening and it's something that's a long-term impairment. So how is that balanced realistically? Can it be balanced?  Hmm. That's the question.

H: So it was quite an interesting one for me because one of my best friends has really severe animal allergies, like she's probably the kind of person that they were talking about in where, if they'd been honest when they said we can't allow this because of allergies, my friend's probably the person that would die in the corner because of it- and I hope I can say that because she is my friend! But yeah it was interesting because I spoke to her about it and she gave me some information which I didn't know beforehand, which I thought was really interesting. So she pointed out the fact that  actually  assistance dogs, like genuine guide dogs, assistance dogs, are obviously trained impeccably well, which that part I knew, but they're also trained not to jump up at people, not to touch people who aren't their owner. And that bit I didn't know. I thought they were just really, really well behaved animals. Which, cool, like for me that's not a problem. So I think a lot of it came from my not necessarily misunderstanding but lack of understanding of a situation.  But yeah so she said that, and these are her words, "When I see a dog helping someone in the store or if I'm out at a restaurant I'm never concerned because I know it's not going to be a problem for me because it will be well behaved."  So  it was really interesting for me to hear that actually it's not something that worries her at all. Despite being incredibly allergic, it doesn't bother her because she's  assured of the fact that it's safe for her. She did also point out, because she works at a big food retailer. So obviously their standards for food hygiene are  impeccable, like second to hospitals and stuff.  But she said that essentially they have like, assistance dog handling training where she lives and actually their store allows them, the puppies, to come in - I would love this.

T: So cute!

H: So cute! I would love this, she clearly doesn't but!

T: I'd just lay on the floor and just let them walk all over me.

H: Truly.

T: Like, all the little puppies.

H: I don't think I could survive if I was allergic to animals. So their store isn't technically required to allow this to happen, the dogs are not functioning as assistance dogs. So they are purely in training, it's an entirely willing thing. And yeah, she was saying that  their store lets them  do it because  when the less trained ones do happen to kind of make a mess, or grab some sausages from the shelf or whatever it might be, the handlers kind of clean it up, they do it responsibly, they offer to cover the cost  and therefore even the partially trained ones aren't a problem for them.

T: Sure.

H:Yeah, she did also point out an interesting argument which I haven't really considered. So she lives down south, very down south, and she was kind of pointing out the fact that, in this article, the refusal happened in London, in central London. So  she was kind of wondering whether it was actually location based as well.  the point that I did really like that she mentioned was  she lives in a very affluent area  where people might encounter these kind of  disability protection sort of problems, issues, they've probably got firstly the money, the time, the education ability to kind of manage that themselves and push against it and the time it takes to fight that fight.

T: So they've been allowed more resource to be able to advocate for themselves.

H: That's the word! Advocate for themselves, absolutely. Whereas  that might not be the case  for instance in somewhere like London?

T: Maybe if you're in a less affluent area where resources aren't in abundance for these types of situations then you're probably less likely to have that clear understanding of how to advocate for yourself and for the people around you in the community to understand what's expected of them in terms of the legalities around this.

H: Yeah, this is the point that she kind of ended up saying was like not so much the fact that it obviously is up to individuals to fight these cases and people around her are a bit more in the capacity to be able to do that.  But also that forces supermarkets, and shops, and police to be more aware of that in tandem with that understanding. So that's kind of where she was at of services are a lot better  in her area, well, she's found anyway, potentially because the bar's been raised.

T: Okay.

H: Which I thought was an interesting point and I feel like it's probably not one that you could, you know, blanket over everything, but I do wonder if there's an aspect of it.

T: Yeah, maybe there is a difference.

H: Yeah, it was an interesting one.

T: Yeah, it's very interesting to hear a point of view though as an allergy sufferer for her to say, "Well actually I think that's a bit of a non-issue for me as a severe allergy sufferer, actually I'd probably be on one end of the restaurant, the dog would be at the other end of the restaurant, and then that's that. And I know that it wouldn't affect me because I know that the dogs would be well behaved and come nowhere near me." So, I think for me this really highlights a problem with the type of culture that we have across society and a complete lack of acceptance as well.

T: Yeah, and another thing, because I asked her about this: I was like, right, changing the situation, I just want to poke at things and see where they work or fall apart. I was saying like actually if you were already sitting in the restaurant and someone with an assistance dog was sat next to you, like as in they'd given them that place, would you do anything in that situation? And she was saying like, firstly probably not like especially if it was outside, wouldn't bother at all.  She said that if it was inside which is a bit more of a problem, she'd probably ask to move but she'd also talk to the person with the with the assistance dog saying, it's not because of you, it's because I'm really allergic to dogs. And so I think that point on actually it's the culture that surrounds it is definitely it. I mean especially in this case because they changed their answer but-

T: Well, exactly.

H: Like you say if that is speaking as someone as a severe allergy sufferer, like I can't take her anywhere she's allergic to everything, nightmare! But if she's saying  actually it's really not a problem.

T: Don't scapegoat me and my allergies-

H: Yeah!

T: For your ignorance.

H: Yeah, that's essentially what she said and I'll confess I was guilty of it when I first realised but yeah, this is what it's about right? Learning.

T: Very, very interesting.

H: Yeah.

T: So, mean, just continuing with the article, he goes on and he points out that the refusal happened after several others. So this is not the first time this has happened.

H: No, very much not.

T: To be honest it sounded quite frequent. And failing politely to persuade others that his guide dog was well behaved and reiterated that it's actually unlawful to prevent him access to these things  he's had mixed responses. So one voiced their disgust at the restaurant's attitude- I totally agree- but others said that it ruined the meal and that he should leave.

H: Which I find astounding 

T: Wow.

H: Yeah.

T: Ruined the meal how? I just don't get it, like what?

H: I presume it's like. "This person's caused a fuss and therefore the ambience has been spoiled!"

T: Oh, okay.

H: I don't know if that's true but that's kind of I don't-

T: Oh bless them. 

H: -See how else they could have ruined the meal? Like-

T: The fragility is wild.

H: Truly, yeah.

T: Okay so legally the Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful to discriminate against a disabled person because they have a guide dog and you can't stop them from accessing businesses or services. Which I'm hoping that our listeners are fully aware of! And businesses are bound by these laws and they know that they're not allowed to do this. But I definitely feel that some businesses like to push the boundaries of how much they can get away with when it comes to particularly the Equality Act and discrimination.

H: Well, there's another thing that my friend mentioned was that she's experienced in certain situations that, when she's requested things like reasonable adjustments for allergies, like, I don't know, when they weigh out nuts by weight, she can't go in that aisle because: danger! She will die! So obviously like a reasonable adjustment for her is  I'm not going in that aisle or anywhere near it  or anywhere near the peanuts generally. But she's been allowed those reasonable adjustments  because she knows how to advocate for herself.  She's encountered several occasions where those reasonable adjustments haven't been automatically granted, where she's had to kind of say, "No, that is the law, I know this, I've done my research."

T: Put it in place.

H: Sort it out. Yeah, so.

T: Interesting.

H: Yeah, what you were saying about like, you know, some corporations kind of push it a little bit.

T: Oh they do! They really do.

H: I think reasonable adjustments is definitely one of those things that works brilliantly when it's done well. If not...

T: See you in court?

H: Yeah, yeah pretty much. There it is!

T: Yeah, I absolutely agree with that. So yeah, we can't access business services. However, when taxis and cabs refuse service to assistance dogs or try to charge more, that's actually a criminal offence.

H: I love that. Love that they just whack it out.

T: Which I cannot believe that there's a situation where someone's drove up  to the curb ready to pick up their passenger and looked and seen that someone's got a visual impairment and a guide dog and thought I will charge this person more.

H: Or leave them there and drive off.

T: What kind of  absolute monster do you have to be to do that? Vile!

H: Yeah, like I think for anybody as well, but like particularly if this person's got no other way to get home.

T: Really, really, really terrible. 

H: Like, what? What crosses your mind? No. 

T: Abhorrent behaviour. No. So yeah, I agree, criminal offence, disgusting. When businesses and shops do the same though, this is where it gets a little bit tricky, it's a civil matter. And it's down to the individual to gather evidence, follow it through, which, yeah, from my context of understanding civil matters and pursuing them, really expensive to do it. So if you don't have the resources, you're not going to do it. If you don't have the sort of like, basic legal knowledge around pursuing a civil case, you're not going to do it. What I find odd is that if this happened in a workplace, you'd be able to go to an employment tribunal and that is nowhere near as expensive as pursuing a civil matter. So why the change here then? Why have we abandoned the support because it's a business or a different service that you're unable to access that isn't work related? I find that very odd.

H: This is another bit that my friend was very surprised at in that she was saying like she was surprised that it's a civil matter and that the police don't get involved instantly because I would.

T: Because it's illegal.

H: Yeah exactly and if taxis and cabs you can kind of say no actually that's a criminal offence why can't you do it in a situation where they're refusing you food? Like to me that seems equatable, right?

T: I agree. This is a situation though as well like we're not just talking about restaurants here we're talking about things like supermarkets.

H: Exactly. Pharmacies?

T: You know we are actually limiting people's access to food.

H: Yeah.

T: In the same way that we're limiting them access to get home safely we're limiting their access to sustenance but apparently that's fine. 

H: Yeah.

T: I find that very odd, find it really strange. So yeah, as I say, it's often costly, there's a lot of time and energy that has to go into pursuing it as a civil matter and mixed results on whether you're to win the case.

H: Yeah, it's not guaranteed, is it.

T: Exactly. So in regards to this difference then, where there's this legality and actuality, as it turns out, the onus falls on the disabled person to pursue that.

H: Yeah.

T: Is that not the most disgusting thing you've heard today?

H: It sounds incredibly counterproductive. And well we've mentioned beforehand, like, that's a design choice at that point. Like this is what we're talking about when we talk about, like, know, systemic injustice. Like, that's it. That's designed to make it hard to remedy.

T: Yes.

H: That's the problem. Right, so moving on then.  While more customers expressed shock at the refusal, the annoyed customers served to remind him of past refusals. And he shared those responses which have included demands to justify why he should want equal treatment, even threats of violence and death. So, this has even happened when the company has apologised and promised further training for staff, as Tesco did when some London branches refused Shaun service. I fear how far we have fallen as a society.

H: Genuinely and the fact that that's been allowed to fly as well? Like again is not a death threat a criminal offence?

T: Yes. I think so!

H: And yet people feel quite emboldened to do it. Especially over social media, which is one thing that he was mentioning kind of particularly is that a lot of this was on social media as opposed to in person, not that that really changes the fact that it was said

T: It doesn't, no. Minor differences in level of threat isn't it, like you know, if someone says it to your face you're probably in imminent danger.

H: Yeah, totally.

T: Whereas if someone says it online, that doesn't make it any less terrifying, it doesn't make it any less disgraceful.

H: Yeah, I'd argue that there's probably an aspect of it that makes it a bit scarier as well because someone's typed it out,  read it,  gone yeah I'm gonna post that anyway. That seems like a reasonable thing to do.

T: We're not talking spare of the moment stuff here.

H: Yeah, that's a bit more deliberated.

T: Yeah, it is.

H: So yeah, I guess to link back to the original question, with regard to this specific example, do you think true inclusion is possible? Has this swayed you in any particular way, or is it still a 'nah'?

T: I think in this very specific scenario, yes.

H: Yeah. You could just do the law.

T: Right? You know, there's no situation now where a business should look at a guide dog and go, nah. It's illegal. It's written in legislation that you shouldn't be doing that. Allergy sufferers are unlikely to have  an adverse reaction to a service dog.

H: And like you said earlier, I think the problem in this situation is very much the culture of it.

T: Big time.

H: And  like, yeah, the laws are in place. Like the legislation is there. What's not there is everybody's fundamental understanding of it, because I mean, if you're like me and kind of assumed that there would be problems when there aren't, actually, maybe everyone needs that.

T: Sure.

H: Intense disability training, which my friend has had, but I've never been in a situation that's required it. So that piece of information has gone straight over my head. But even without that, though, the death threats seem- like the extent of it.

T: It's just vile.

H: Yeah, vile. That's very much the word, isn't it? It's like even if you were slightly unaware, you wouldn't respond to that with "Well you can't come in." You'd probably say, "Would you mind if we sat you over here, away from people it might affect?"

T: Yeah.

H: The answer isn't a flat-out no, if you've got that willing understanding. 

T: No. Yeah, absolutely disgusting. Well, I hope Sean has much more success in the future with actually accessing the things that he is more than entitled to be able to access, and I'll be looking out for more of his articles actually in the future to see what else he talks about in terms of having that disability and navigating the world around him.

H: Yeah, he has actually done a few on similar topics, yeah, it's interesting because this is very much the most recent one, but there have been others. The example which we mentioned with Tesco with some London branches refusing, that's an article in and of itself. So yeah, they are interesting reads.

T: I think it's important to share people's lived experience about that though so that they're not so, what's the word I'm looking for, they're kind of like distant from it, that  it doesn't feel real, there's no...

H: Yeah, no  humanising element to it.

T: Yes, yeah exactly. So I think when you do read things like that and understand that it affects real people, real everyday people trying to buy a sandwich on their lunch break, trying to get home after a long day at work, it really brings the kind of issues and systemic injustice that we have in this country to life and I think that's really important.H: Yeah.

MUSIC

T: So next then we're going to look at the key findings from a hiring discrimination study from Cardiff University in our second article today. The study looked at employer discrimination in hiring between disabled and non-disabled job applicants in the UK and was conducted in five British cities applying for over 4,000 job vacancies from October 2022 to July 2023. Some applicants were listed as wheelchair users, some weren't, and the applications targeted accountants and financial accounts assistants, so there would be no direct impact on worker performance. This article was published a year later in October 2024. So, I mean, initial thoughts on that setup for that study then? 

H: I mean, it sounds really obvious to say because obviously it's Cardiff University study. Obviously it's set up quite well with good measures, good control groups, like the bits that they are measuring are quite clearly whether  the wheelchair users are discriminated against as compared to non-wheelchair users. I find it interesting that they were like, we've got a whole world of work to apply to and they've picked accountants. Which makes total sense from what they're saying in that...

T: Do you know why I think they've picked accountants though? Because you have to have really, like, stringent qualifications around it.

H: Yeah, that's true. So there's a very clear like yes or no.

T: Yes, exactly. So there's less, yeah, there's less parameters to actually view in terms of suitability for the role. It's like, you've even got these qualifications or you haven't. So think that's probably why.

H: The time at which the study applied there was a real need for accountants which obviously helps because, you know, you can't whack out 4,000 job applications if there aren't 4,000 job roles. 

T: Yes, exactly. So the key findings included that the disabled candidates had had a 15% lower callback rate. I'll be honest, I thought it would be a lot more. And the discrimination was stronger for the assistant role at 21%. Interestingly, the study tested whether improving a disabled applicant's qualifications would reduce the gap, but it actually widened it by disproportionately benefiting non-disabled candidates suggesting a taste-based discrimination rather than concerns about productivity. Thoughts?

H: I think this goes way back to what we were saying in the first article about the culture as opposed because they've just proved, very well, that it's not  about productivity, it's not about what this person can or can't do, it's just that we don't want them. 

T: It's so sad isn't it?

H: Yeah and  it must be embarrassing to say the least- I don't know, I wonder if there is any kind of thought that goes into this after it happened and goes like, oh yeah that was us. Is there a cognitive awareness in there? That's what I'm kind of wondering or if it is just fully based on biases that aren't really consciously aware that they're doing it? That it's just a...

T: I might say something controversial now.

H: Go on.

T: I don't think that unconscious bias really exists, if I'm honest. I think it's just a really polite way of making people who use their biases to make decisions feel a little bit better.

H: I think it's a very nice eloquent way of saying you're just a bit lazy.

T: Oh yeah.
H: Like, it just means that you're not thinking about it.

T: Yeah, 100% because I-

H: Which you should be doing, as a recruiter.

T: I think if we're looking at this study specifically where we're thinking about wheelchair users and people with a visible disability versus the people who have applied who don't, I don't think that there has been sort of this unconscious bias, if you like, happening in this situation. I think someone's looked at that situation and been like, "Ugh, hard work."

H: Yeah and I think especially because this is talking about callback rates. So this is based entirely off a written CV, which I think just doubles that point that you'd have to read it, understand and go "No, but it's not because of anything else that is written on this page in front of me, it's that little phrase that says I require ramps." 

T: Yeah.

H: I mean I do still think it's incredibly lazy but I think  that idea of  unconscious bias, whatever that might mean, feels a bit more, I don't want to say understandable because it's not, but I understand where it's coming from a little bit more if it's visual? Because your brain makes those connections very very quickly.

T: Sure.

H: If it's written, that slows down that process that gives you more time to be like-

T: To process it.

H: Yeah, and also, it's a callback process: surely you'd be comparing these CVs, going well this one's got that this one doesn't and to have one in a pile that goes well this one's on the no pile because they're a wheelchair user. Like, that's so conscious! Like, I mean, if you're a recruiter and you're doing it all in person, that's also not  an appropriate way to do it. Like, unconscious bias is still a stupid thing to be like, yeah, I was just really lazy in thinking about this. 

T: I just wanted to see one that looks exactly the same, does exactly the same, has all the same lived experiences and we can all go out and do the same things and be best friends forever.  

H: Exactly.

T: Kay.

H: But having it written, there's an extra layer of awareness that you're avoiding that particular person for me anyway, like you were given the help and you were like "Nah. Not today."

T: Yeah, it just doesn't sit right at all does it?

H: Agreed.

T: So some other findings were that where the job required teamwork or direct customer interaction showed worse discrimination  possibly due to employees anticipating prejudice.  Okay.  But also that remote job opportunities didn't narrow this gap either. Great, we're even preempting-

H: What do you want from people?

T: D'you know what I mean? So what we're doing, is we're anticipating discrimination so we're being discriminatory. Right.

H: Yeah. Well it's like the first article, like we assumed that there would be a problem so we sent you packing.

T: Just, I despair sometimes when I read things like this because it just seems so obvious to me that if you are a business, say that you've got, I don't know, five job vacancies that you need to fill, and you're looking at that situation and you're being like, "Oh, actually, I think if we just  hire more of the same, we'll have a better result for this organisation."  Don't get it. Don't understand.

H: And especially  given that,  you know,  the person who left, left for a reason. If you're now hiring the same person, what do you reckon's going to happen? Could it be that maybe actually they'll also leave?  Maybe trying something different is sensible in these situations?

T: Just a bit of innovation, just a bit of creativity, just, you know, bring a different flavour to a team because of lived experiences, because of the person that they are, because of the, probably the injustices that they've experienced their entire life, why would you not want that in your team in order to make them a better, more well-rounded team with different voices, different perspectives? 

H: Yeah, I'd be interested to see how, like obviously this is with accountants because it's easy to  get those control variables, whatever, science words,  they're all checked. I'm assuming the Cardiff University does this very well. But I would be interested to know, provided you could do it in a similar way, I'd be interested to know how other sectors would respond to that because, like you're saying, with that creative approach - I feel like I'm just being mean to accountants now - but in a sector like, for instance, the police force or a job role like ours where there is a real emphasis on people skills and talking to people and interacting with them. I'm not saying that accountants don't do that-

T: But it's different isn't it?

H: It's a different capacity to it. I would be interested to see if that was similar, different, worse, better. Because like you said, the 15% was surprising in that it was quite low. It's now made me doubt my assumptions for other sectors.  So I'd like to see where that lands. So for instance with, I don't know, teaching, I would have assumed that actually having very different experiences, as you say, is a really obvious way of getting good people in. I'd  like to see whether that... Well, maybe I wouldn't like to see whether that was true on paper.

T:Yeah, the disability employment gap is absolutely massive in this country. And it is compounded when you add things like multiple disabilities and co-morbidities, when you add things like visible versus non-visible disabilities, when you have things like ethnicity and sexuality and if someone's transgender on top of all of that, it just becomes like so compounded.

H: Layers upon layers upon layers...

T: The point of even getting through the door to interview is basically impossible. And it's like we said at the start, this is all a culture that we have within this society to see people with visible disabilities especially as incapable and it's simply not true.

H: Yeah, it's assumptions that come with it, isn't it?

T: Yeah. 

H: Well, it's flawed, fundamentally they're wrong. 

T: Yeah, it's kind of like twofold isn't it, you know, if you are the type of person that has a visible disability and you get through the door and you start the job, that's not where the problem ends though is it, you know, you've got this assumption that  people with disabilities are less capable, so you've overcome that barrier but then the next barrier is making sure that you're set up for success in your role. Things like reasonable adjustments, we've just said, not always  implemented in the best way or at all sometimes.  So it's just this never-ending barrage for people that have got a disability  to just keep overcoming these hurdles that we put in place and this is why we were saying earlier this is exactly what systemic injustice looks like, this is how ableism manifests itself  so negatively for people who have got a disability, it never ends. 

H: Yeah, it's like the effect is compounding as well, as well as the oppression that gets put on it, the effect also builds and builds and builds and builds.

T: It's awful.

H: Yeah, I would be very interested to see how this transfers or doesn't to different sectors, but also I... maybe the full study does tell this and kind of give some examples, but obviously this is talking about callback rate. I would be interested to see how many people  that did get through to interview stage succeeded in getting the job. I mean, obviously this is a test, the 4,000 applicants didn't exist so they probably didn't get the jobs.  But again, like you said, you've got the compounded effect of where they've got through the first layer. Was the interview room accessible? 

T: Oh exactly.

H: Could they attend the interview? Did that change anything? Did people realise that they were gonna, I know, maybe be put in a different room and therefore go, oh well that kind of tells me something about the job, I'm gonna withdraw. Like it's very much only one angle of this whole aspect.

T: Just one, and you've already got a 15% less likely of even getting the job in the first place. 

H: Yeah.

T: I've never said this on this podcast so far, but it's truly depressing. It is really depressing. So, lastly, they found no significant reduction in discrimination for employers advertising as equal opportunities. Oh, don't even get me started on that phrase, or those involved in the disability confidence scheme, raising questions about the effectiveness of those initiatives. Hm. The conclusion that was drawn is fairly predictable. Professor of Economics, Melanie Jones, said that we find a range of mechanisms thought to narrow the disability employment gap are ineffective in addressing hiring discrimination, highlights how difficult a challenge it is for policymakers despite it being unlawful in the UK under the Equality Act. Which is exactly what we've just said, haven't we? You know, there are so many points in the process where if you are a disabled person, this is just so stacked against you. At every stage, every possibility, every point in your existence.

H: Yeah, well you made a point, I can't remember what we were talking about, but the idea of we were talking about person first language so it's slightly off topic but the idea of like actually it's society that disables a person it's not the person's disability that puts them at a disadvantage, it's the way that society interacts with that person.

T: It was the idea of challenging the perception of medical model disability, and it said that some of the language that we'd started using was persons with disabilities. 

H: That's it, yeah.

T: And I said, whilst that sounds nice in theory, what I've now come to learn and come to appreciate is that when we categorise someone as a disabled person, I'm not actually saying that the person is disabled. 

H: No, it's an adjective.

T: They are disabled by the environment around them. That's the problem. Everything to that person is disabled around them because they don't have access to it. And I just think that distinction is really important, actually.

H: Yeah. It's kind of what we're saying about this article is that very much, I mean, the study has shown that the person is not the problem. 100%. It's everything that's put onto that person, the assumptions, the perceptions of prejudice. And there's no real escape from that unless you can really fundamentally change people's minds, quite swiftly.

T: I agree. So I mean the question posed at the very start of this is is true inclusion possible and we've said no. But actually when we're sat here having this conversation all the way through, based on the context of this chat we've had today, definitely yeah. I mean we're not even trying according to some of these things we're not actually trying. 

H: Yeah, I think like we were talking about last month with politics, the things in and of themselves that are put in place should work.

T: Yes.

H: That's what theory means, that's what ideology means, like all of these kind of, you know, the Equality Act, recruitment law, employment law should mean that true inclusion is possible.

T: Yes.

H: That's the aim, right?

T: Yeah.

H: What's variable in this situation is the people enforcing those.

T: Correct.

H: And I, hm, I don't know, I would love to believe that it is possible. I just don't think it is in the society?

T: We've got the right level of capability.

H: Yeah, I don't think also society's not- this is gonna get very deep very quickly- I don't think society is made for people to want to be treated with equity? I think people benefit from being selfish  and that's gonna obviously clonk on the people who are already at a disadvantage a lot more powerfully.

T: I mean, I have said this on a number of occasions throughout these podcast episodes and I'm just gonna drop it in there again and run away.

H: Yeah, let's repeat it. 

T: Capitalism. 

H: Yeah.

T: Yeah. It's, whilst we live in a capitalist society, true inclusion isn't possible because people don't want it.

H: Yes, I think that's it.

T: We don't want it.

H: These things, I mean, the Equality Act was in 2010.

T: Yeah.

H: I would argue that's quite outdated. 

T: We've still got legislation in place from 1884!

H: Exactly! So like, for a lot of these things, the legislation has been long-standing. There has been so much time to ingratiate this in society, to allow it to become comfortable. We talk a lot in work about actually things do just need a bit of time to settle, for people to become familiar with them.

T: For sure.

H: That's kind of been the case with this.

T: Oh, don't. And then, you know what?

H: We're talking in two years or so. This is not.
T: But even before this, before there was the Equality Act 2010, there were all the bits of legislation that existed to talk about equal opportunity at work, to talk about race discrimination, to talk about race relations. So these things existed. They're not new. They haven't been new for a long time. So until we are ready to move along as a society and develop into something that is post-capitalism, no, true inclusion isn't possible. People don't want it. Is the honest truth, people don't want it.

H: Yeah. 

T: Sad fact.

H: And think we can do as much as we can individually to kind of help that, and whether that's individually in terms of like a company, or a particular country, city even, or individually as in one person, we can do as much as we would like to to encourage it and advocate for it, and I think that does make a difference. I think I would be- I wouldn't be the idealist that I am if I didn't think that that helped, at least to an extent, but yeah, I think on a worldwide societal scale, I think, like you say, we're trained into being quite selfish because it benefits people, and until you're willing to go yourself, "Yeah, actually, you know what, I'm gonna, not even sacrifice, but like, I'm gonna focus on someone else for a while," I don't think it's gonna be fully possible.
T: That's it, that's it, you know, you have to be completely selfless in order to really push these things forward. I believe in the utopia that is true inclusion, I do, but whether I think it's actually realistically possible  is very different, I think.

H: Yep.

MUSIC

T: So just going on to the FAQs then. So question one, if approached with a situation where various protected characteristics were seen to conflict in terms of accessibility, how might you settle that situation? 

H: Well, it's an interesting one because I think based on the first article predominantly, I think if you're assuming that conflict, you're already kind of  shooting yourself in the foot, like, again, like, I think I probably would have been guilty of before actually having this conversation and before  investigating it.  I think I would have been quite keen to avoid that conflict from the offset.  Now my opinion's very much changed, like, it's surprising to me that it has changed, actually, because I think I've applied this in other situations and it's worked so it's surprised me that it hasn't immediately considered!

T: Every day's a school day.

H: Truly. So yeah I think it's I think it's working out whether you're assuming that conflict or not. If it's something that you know for a fact is conflicting, fair enough, but I think the way to settle it in any situation is going to be talking to the people that are involved.

T: Oh I agree yeah.

H: And again on small scale but also really big ones like I think I think you need to hear the voices of those that are impacted.

T: I agree and I think that the best piece of advice here is something you've already said: do not make assumptions!

H: Yeah.

T: Ever.

H: Yeah. And if you do because they happen, listen when someone says. Be ready to be corrected.

T: That's it.

H: It's great. Love it.

T: I agree.  And if there is a conflict in terms of accessibility, so let's say, for example, you've got someone who isn't tech-ready and you are running a session that's only online, you could maybe provide them with a written condensed version after the fact. So whilst they might not be able to attend the session virtually, there's a way of getting the information over to them at a later date.

H: Yeah.

T: Sometimes that's the way it is, you know, it's not perfect, and we're not striving for perfection but we are striving to make sure that people are included in some way, shape or form. Yeah exactly, and there's obviously the obvious things as well in that situation of like, maybe someone can help get them online in the first place. You know, I appreciate that that's not always a thing that is achievable, possible, logistically feasible, but, yeah, I feel like the obvious things are less the question here and more like, there is a conflict.

T: Yeah.

H: Yeah, talk to people.

T: Yeah, don't make assumptions. Speak to people. Love it. Okay, number two. I think it's obvious that our conclusion that true inclusion is not possible. What might you suggest in its place?

H: I don't think this is a new idea from me. 

T: No.

H: Listen to people, talk to them, mediate, de-escalate, I think is a big, big one, especially in Article 1 where actually part of the problem was the response to it. I think that deescalation is a really important one. But yeah, I think we've mentioned it time and time again of if you're talking to one disabled person you are talking to one disabled person. That is not a universal experience, it's not necessarily a common one either. So yeah, I think talk to people, listen to them, hear their experiences. Remember that they're people which sounds incredibly obvious, but I think is one that often gets forgotten. 

T: Well, I think I'm  gonna kind of thread on from that actually. It's like if I'm replacing the term true inclusion, maybe I'm replacing it with something like compassion first.

H: Yeah, I was gonna say like something a bit more action focused, I guess.

T: Humanising.

H: And achievable, tenable.

T: Yes. It is achievable to be compassionate. When we act with compassion, I've made this distinction before because for me it's very important the distinction between empathy, sympathy and compassion. Because they're three very different things, especially for my autistic brain.  But I think when you act with compassion and when you recognise that this is a person stood in front of you with  a very real life that they've lived  with different points of view and experiences that you will have never had, it's important to meet them with compassion first and foremost, I think.

H: Yeah, and I think that kind of ties in with that whole, understanding is different. And like you hear it a lot of, "I just don't understand that" or "It just doesn't make sense to me." Like it doesn't have to. Just believe them.

T: Respect.

H: Yeah, treat them like a human. You're good. Like that's literally  the whole process is talk to them like a human being.

T: I agree.

MUSIC

T: Thanks for joining us for this episode of D&I Digest. It's been really nice to hear other people's thoughts outside of us two as well. That's great. It was nice to delve a little bit more into disability because I think we've touched on it maybe last year but it was nice to have more of an in-depth discussion about it and compounded factors.

H: Yeah, we talked a lot about neurodiversity and neurodivergence, but not necessarily on physical disability as well, so that's quite nice.

T: Absolutely. So with that in mind, please remember that you can follow us on our website and on social media. You can also ask us questions that we answer in this podcast very frequently.

H: Please do.

T: So until you come back to us next month, it's bye from me. And it's bye from me. Bye.