To address Charlie Moog’s points about the Inclusion Coordinator, I agree that there are many complexities to this position. There is no doubt about that. Where Charlie and I fall differently is in our understanding of the position. It is not a coincidence that two out of the three inclusion coordinators are women and that all three are people of color. The reason is we understand the deep need for there to be someone to speak up for marginalized voices in this school. There is such a disparity of power in this school that those who hold the most privilege are unable to empathize with those with less privilege.

Charlie is calling for a required supermajority vote to allow this position to become an official position on cabinet. A supermajority vote requires a two-thirds majority to pass. This school has very little diversity, from race to socio-economic background. We are lucky enough to have a more diverse cabinet this year than we did last, but if this year’s cabinet voted to kill the position, what can we expect from a far less inclusive and diverse student body? To be able to say we should put this position to a vote while being able to overlook the lack of diversity in this school is a manifestation of privilege, and those of us who know what it is to be in the margin are not having that.

To comment on Charlie’s petition for a debate to discuss the particulars of the position, I agree. The position is underdeveloped. Priscilla and I had a very difficult time trying to move forward with the position given the very ambiguous description the position has. Despite this, I do not think this is a conversation we should all be having. This position was meant to benefit marginalized groups in the school. I know it is undemocratic to exclude voices from a conversation, but I feel this is necessary until there is a fully drafted proposal for the position. This position’s purpose is to provide equity, and to give students with privilege and power a say in what the position should and shouldn’t do, and confusing equity with “equality” is depriving those who directly benefit from the position’s existence. No democracy is perfect, but if we allow everyone to have a voice in this position, our democracy will have failed the people it was meant to empower.

Sincerely,

Carlos Lopez Martinez ‘19