Diversity: Moving from Token Accommodation to A Source of Strength
Growing up, I noticed an odd debate happening in the local masjid. The board was wondering how they could involve the youth. Should one of the youth be given a seat on the board? What if they made a youth group? Who would lead the youth group? What if instead of involving the youth, we start calling the family night program a “youth” program?
The people making the decision were all men, all roughly the same age, all from the same country, all spoke the same mother tongue, all were relatively wealthy, all had the same social circle … you get the idea. So who exactly was advocating the position of “the youth” and what they actually wanted?
Here’s the important question to consider. When this group meets, as an official decision-making body representing the community, how much of the community is truly represented?
When these types of concerns get raised, it is followed by a predictable response. Let’s put a youth on the board, or a sister on the board, or the token convert, and so on. The intent here is not so much to gain that person’s perspective as much as it is to pacify negative feedback and be able to say “we did something.”
Whenever I teach a leadership seminar, it has become inevitable that I receive a question that goes something like this:
I am the only (blank) on my board. No one listens to me, and I keep trying to get my voice heard but it seems futile. How do I know if I should keep fighting, or if its time to quit?
The blank here can be filled with what we spoke about - a young person, college student, sister, a person of color, etc.
In other words, when the people who feel marginalized in the community decide to step up, be a part of the solution, and get involved - they may end up feeling even more marginalized than before.
Diversity in this situation is a token accommodation for the organization when instead it should be a point of organizational growth and strength.
When it’s a token accommodation, it means there is still only one predominant perspective driving everything from how the masjid will be constructed, who the imam will be, what the sister’s section looks like, who runs the school, what the zakat policy is, and everything else.
Many masjids have a zakat policy that could be considered acerbic or demeaning at best. It is created in such a way that it operates on an assumption that everyone asking for zakat funds is somehow lazy and trying to cheat the system to get free money.
If the board members are all relatively wealthy, have never been in a position to need zakat funds to find a place to sleep or eat a meal, and work all day with others who hold the same opinions about issues like welfare - then how would we expect the masjid to have a zakat policy that has compassion for the poor?
How does a masjid spend upwards of $5 million on a new building and still have inadequate sister’s prayer area? Consider a masjid that builds a large women’s prayer space in terms of square footage but does not take the proper feedback from a diverse group of sisters in regards to needed functionality. That’s when you end up with a large space that has no visibility and young moms stuck inside small rooms with an overflow of kids. It creates the exact situation that a sister thinks about going to the masjid, realizes the juice is not worth the squeeze so to speak, and ends up staying home.
This is the type of collateral damage happening in our communities, and many of us are unaware.
In this case, the board made a decision - all with the best of intentions and sincerity - that ended up marginalizing and turning people away. And they probably have no idea their actions caused this.
The same happens with every segment of our community that is not properly represented in the decision-making process.
A strong decision-making process in an organization has a goal of minimizing biases and negative outcomes. It is to hash out something and make sure you have uncovered as many blind spots as possible.
It is impossible for this to happen when everyone on the board is essentially the same.
Diversity, therefore, is not a token accommodation, it is a strength. Diversity in the decision-making process is a shortcut that lets you uncover blind spots you would not otherwise see. It gives a voice to people who will be affected before they’re actually affected.
Diversity should be sought out and fought for. It empowers community members who otherwise feel isolated or marginalized to get involved and be invested in the growth of the larger community.
As your organization and community grows, those in leadership roles have to make an extra effort to ensure all the diverse segments of the community are properly represented, that their shura (council) is sought, and their voices are heard.
This does not mean every request will be fulfilled, but at the least, a more informed decision can be made that more substantially mitigates unintended negative consequences.
