When inclusion becomes selective
Who gets to be included in safe parking programs?
A proposed Safe Parking Program in Sequim excludes men and fathers with children, raising questions about true inclusivity. Meanwhile, taxpayer-funded OlyCAP highlights the inconsistency in public aid. If fairness is the goal, shouldn't it apply to everyone?
The Sequim Good Governance League recently shared an interesting post on Facebook, stating, “People who oppose diversity, equity, and inclusion must be in favor of segregation, privilege, and exclusion.”
This is a strong statement—but does it apply universally, or only when convenient?
Last year, the very person who posted that meme submitted paperwork to the Sequim City Council to establish a “small Safe Parking Program for 3-5 vehicles” due to open sometime this year. The proposal states that “guests would be limited to single women, women with children, and transgender people,” with all participants required to pass a background check.
Notably absent from the list of those eligible? Men. And more importantly, fathers with children.
If equity is truly the goal, why would a safe parking program explicitly exclude an entire group of people based solely on their gender? If DEI principles demand the dismantling of segregation and privilege, then shouldn’t those same principles apply here?
When Clallam County Watchdog reached out to Jim Stoffer for comment on whether this program aligns with his beliefs on DEI, he declined to answer. Instead, the Mission Committee Chair responded with a list of charitable programs the church supports—certainly commendable efforts, but ones that sidestepped the central question.
This raises another important issue: public funding and selective inclusion. The Sequim Warming Center, which provides shelter during cold weather, is operated by Olympic Community Action Programs (OlyCAP)—an organization that receives government funding. Peninsula Behavioral Health, Olympic Peninsula Community Clinic, and Clallam County Health and Human Services also receive public funding. If taxpayer money supports programs aimed at providing relief to those in need, shouldn’t those programs serve all vulnerable individuals, including men and fathers with children?
This isn’t about denying the need for safe spaces for vulnerable individuals. It’s about the inconsistency in applying the very principles some claim to champion. True inclusion doesn’t mean selectively deciding who is worthy of help based on identity politics. It means ensuring that aid and opportunity are extended to all—without bias, without exclusion, and without hypocrisy.
If we only advocate for “diversity, equity, and inclusion” when it suits a particular narrative, then we’re not actually upholding those values. We’re just rebranding exclusion under a more palatable name.
Last Equitable Wednesday, readers were asked if public town halls featuring elected officials should be promoted equally to all political parties to ensure true nonpartisanship. Of 168 votes:
93% said, “Yes, it’s taxpayer-funded.”
1% said, “No, one-party promotion is okay.”
5% said, “It depends on intent and audience.”
0% were unsure.
The most intolerant people are those that preach tolerance. Their very inability and unwillingness to tolerate anyone they deem intolerant renders their whole ethos irrelevant and worthy of ridicule.
Might be committing self immolation with my comment but I've just had enough of this baloney. I'm a middle boomer. I've seen cultural issues gradually drift to center. When in high school if I went on a date the first thing my mother would ask "Is your date Catholic?" Any possible relationship with a girl outside the church to my Depression born mother was a threat. Same sex marriage would've been inconceivable. Mixed race marriage was something that was okay but not for her and quietly she hoped wouldn't ever happen in the family. My long gone father-in-law (b1909) was definitely an Archie Bunker. With his passing I knew I'd never have to listen to his "separate but mostly equal" B.S. again. He was all for civil rights as long as they didn't own the home next door. I like to think in the last years of his life that he changed as many of the people caring for his needs were people that didn't look or talk like him. I believe he found some humility and grace. My children are colorblind. My grandchildren are as well. With the passing of each generation old prejudices pass with that person.
This rush to DEI is destructive. Its no different than my father in law going on about everyone needs to know their lane and stay in it. If you push you get pushback. Quit forcing things. There are better use of energies. Finally (here comes the self immolation) I think there are people who no matter what are just "busy bodies". They are small, petty and will continue to be small and petty. They want to be a force of something. They want recognition. They need to "right" a perceived wrong. You'll always have a few of these. Too bad they can't redirect to something that is constructive. Too bad they can't become more like Jean Pratschner who you profiled last month.
Wasted energy in my opinion. A tiny cause for a tiny advocate for a non issue.