This is something I come across once in a while, and have had at least one argument with someone over. A group of people put on some creative project, and someone notices that there’s a lack of representation of X Minority for whatever reason, sometimes noting that they themselves are in the minority. The people organising the project get defensive and say “But we’re not excluding anyone! We are open to everybody! They just need to sign on!”

There is a huge difference between not being exclusive and being inclusive.

People who come from underprivileged minorities are usually very experienced in the art of being excluded. Sometimes it’s overt - “we don’t like your kind” - but many times it’s subtle. They’re told that they’re “not quite right”, or they “don’t have the right look”, or “don’t have the right experience”, or just aren’t told anything. At the same time, they are surrounded by all sorts of imagery and communique about how they don’t quite belong, about how they have to change themselves to fit in, about how they are undesirable. They do not see a lot of examples they can relate to; even the ones that come close tend to stick out for being “Exotic”, being a token. They already have a lot of barriers against them and are already of the mind that they’ll more likely be rejected than accepted.

After a while you just don’t try anymore. After a while you just go “ah who cares, I’ll just be rejected again”. After a while you start to disbelieve anyone who says you’ll be welcomed, because you’ve been burned too many times by people who mean “We’ll accept you…as long as you conform to X, Y, and Z”.

Then they come across a place that may seem more accepting than others. A place that prides itself on being a home for freaks - perhaps like themselves. A place that perhaps deals with another kind of minority. Perhaps they’ll accept me.

But then they see the same old faces. The same old people. The same imagery, the same communique, the same tokenism. You are undesirable.

Out of strength, or out of apathy, they comment - “where is the diversity? Where are the people like me?” But they get brushed off.

“How dare you call us racist/prejudiced/not inclusive! Your comment was out of line!” - tip: people in the majority do not get to decide what is discriminatory or not. If someone from a minority says they’re feeling discriminated against, listen.

“We didn’t intend to!” - Intent, despite what some The Secret devotees might tell you, is not magic. Harm and exclusion can still happen whether you want to or not.

“But this is awesome! Why are you complaining?!” - just because some parts of something are great and well-liked doesn’t make it immune from any sort of critique. Quite a few people who do the critiquing actually do like the project, they just want it to be better for themselves and for each other. It does take a lot of courage to critique something from within.

“But we are being inclusive! It’s all behind the scenes!” - last I checked, mind-reading hadn’t been invented yet. Also, the proof is in the pudding - no point giving empty promises when people have been badly burnt before by similar hopes.

“People of X Minority haven’t approached us! We’d totally include them!” - not everyone shares the same resources you do when it comes to marketing. How are you promoting the project - is it through the same old (exclusionary) circles? Are you making sure that ingrained ideas of “Acceptable”, which often exclude minorities, aren’t affecting your judgement? Are there barriers to entry that have not been considered, such as location, cost, or possibility for public humiliation?

“Well do it yourself then!” - People in the minority usually do not have the ability or the resources to just “do it themselves”, that’s why they went to you. Also, even if they did “do it themselves”, they may not always have the power or draw of attention to create the same impact as you.

Here’s an example, which I am disappointed to say comes from a website I otherwise really really like (but in this case suffered Response Fail): Partway through their Girls of Autostraddle series, Jacqueline comments on the general lack of size diversity in their pictures, both for the Calendar Girls and for the site in general. While Autostraddle has been better than many places with having a diverse range of people featured, she does have a point in that a third of the way through the year, 3 out of 4 of the people featured do tend to be on the thin side.

Suddenly there were WAVES of people - mostly from the site writers and regulars, which was even more disappointing, saying a lot of the above:
“It’s not even a year, how dare you judge?!”
“It’s a hot girl, what’s there to complain about?”
“But we are totally inclusive! See? Look at this gallery of Curvy Girls!” 
“We don’t have enough diversity in the applications! Come on girls, apply!”
And of course, the overwhelming one, “do it yourself!”.

Jacqueline had any right to judge, like the people who judged this to be awesome. (Besides, seasons don’t even last as long.) If she brought it up when the project was over then it would have been counter-productive.

Just because there’s something of value (in this case, a hot girl) doesn’t mean the project can’t be examined and improved - benefiting everyone.

The gallery of Curvy Girls is no guarantee of true inclusivity, and could be seen as a gesture of tokenism, if not backed up by other features.

Minorities - whether curvy/fat people, in Jacqueline’s example, or otherwise - may be reluctant to apply, either because it’s an ingrained taboo (“It’s not in my culture or my interests to be part of a project like this”) or they’ve been burnt and doubt they’ll be accepted (“Yeah right, as if you’d pick me, I’ll definitely be rejected”). There hasn’t been many overt guarantees of acceptance and diversity, so why should they take your word?

And if Jacqueline, or any other “detractor”, did it themselves, would they get as big of a response or a following as Autostraddle - who, in just over a year, have an audience of thousands and a lot more clout? Who would hold more prestige and power, Jacqueline (who at this point is a nobody) or Autostraddle? If it was so easy to run a Calendar Girls project why isn’t everyone doing it?

In this case, instead of the Autostraddle commentors berating Jacqueline for her call-out, the onus is on Autostraddle to back up their claims of inclusivity. This means actively seeking out minority & non-traditional girls to be part of their Calendar Girls project and be part of the website. It means having more diverse portrayals of women in their galleries instead of just having one gallery dedicated to Exotic Aspect X. It means taking into consideration what Jacqueline said, thanking her for having the guts to speak up, say what you’re currently working on, and not admonishing her or patronising her for speaking up.

If you’re running a project and you do sincerely want to be more inclusive and diverse, you need to do the reaching-out. Which means using different types of promotional media other than the usual suspects, actually talking to minorities and accepting their feedback (including criticism), being aware that due to having been burnt before people may regard you with skepticism, and constantly working on issues of privilege and exclusion that show up.

You say you’re too tired to do all that? That you don’t have space in the budget to consider another media source? That you don’t have any minorities in your circle and so you can’t be bothered to look them up? Well, that’s your wish. People are allowed to run their projects however they like. Just don’t be so shocked and appalled when someone comes up to you and says “Hey, how come everyone in your project looks/acts just the same?”.