ABSTRACT
There’s a huge emphasis on inclusion in this cultural moment: inclusion is good, exclusion is bad, end of story. But this good/bad dichotomous thinking is usually presented by telling only the ‘good’ side of the story – namely, describing the goods of inclusion to those who would otherwise be excluded. As with any complex moral issue, it’s important to put all considerations on the table before making an assessment. Just as the benefits of restricted speech should be weighed against the harms of compelled speech, the benefits of inclusion (to those who would otherwise be excluded) should be weighed against the harms of inclusion (to those who would otherwise exclude others). I argue that sometimes the exclusion of one group is instrumental in the ultimate pursuit of another group’s inclusion; and sometimes the pursuit of important values other than inclusion supports exclusion, including freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of association.
