How the Rooney Rule Can Advance Equal Opportunity

/in , /by
Author: Cyrus Mehri

As football fans gear up to watch the Rams and the Bengals clash in the Super Bowl this weekend, there’s another showdown happening off the field: the debate on how to best combat racial discrimination in the NFL. 

It’s a debate that has implications that extend beyond the football field and into board rooms across corporate America. Football, like many other industries, faces a glaring problem: despite diversity and inclusion efforts, many companies have failed to adequately increase racial diversity in their senior ranks.

The NFL’s hiring practices have come under intense scrutiny after a racial discrimnation lawsuit by Coach Brian Flores. Specifically, some advocates have called on the NFL to abolish the Rooney Rule, a rule that requires NFL teams to conduct in-person interviews with a diverse slate of candidates when hiring head coaches and general managers. 

Versions of the Rooney Rule have been adopted across many industries, so this discourse has significant implications and represents an ongoing debate: how do companies best establish equitable and inclusive practices that will increase diversity? 

As one of the creators of the Rooney Rule, I’m intimately familiar with this debate. I, along with late Johnnie L. Cochran Jr, advocated for the creation of the Rooney Rule starting in 2002 in response to the dearth of Black coaches in the NFL. And the Rooney Rule has had success.

Before the Rooney Rule, there were only a handful of Black head coaches in the NFL’s 80 year history. In the 19 years since the creation of the Rooney Rule, a person of color has been selected as an NFL head coach 27 times, including twice this month. That’s infinitely better than it was before, but it’s also significantly below where it should be. 

Clearly, the NFL still has a lot of progress to make. But abolishing the Rooney Rule would be a huge backslide. The Rooney Rule has taken the NFL from an abysmal situation to a better one, and it has the potential to truly transform the NFL — and other industries — if utilized in the right way. 

In my work across companies and across industries as a civil rights litigator, consultant and a reformer, I have learned a number of lessons on how the NFL, and other industries, can do the Rooney Rule the right way: 

Accountability Matters: First and foremost, accountability is key. This is the NFL’s current biggest area for improvement. In the early years of the Rooney Rule, the NFL strongly enforced the rule, but recently, it has turned a blind eye to blatant violations. No policy can be successful without enforcement.

Diverse Slates of Finalists, Not Diverse Pools of Applicants: Saying you have a “Rooney Rule” isn’t enough. Several major companies such as Facebook have established weak or symbolic versions of the Rooney Rule, like having a diverse pool of applicants while saying nothing about the finalists. The Rooney Rule requires interviewing a diverse slate of candidates for the final round. Don’t be fooled by what some companies say — if it’s not a finalist interview slate, it’s not likely to move the needle.

Address Bias in the Pipeline: There’s a bias in the pattern of NFL teams excluding coaches of color from the QB position coach and offensive coordinator, which results in those coaches also being excluded from the head coach pipeline. Programs dedicated to developing a diverse talent pipeline, such as the Arizona Cardinals QB Coach fellowship, and strong recruitment programs can help avoid a situation where companies claim there aren’t any outstanding candidates of color. 

Use Multiple Candidates from Underrepresented Groups: A study in the Harvard Business Review showed that when there are two or more candidates of color, a candidate of color is over 190 times more likely to be hired. The Rooney Rule has been updated to include multiple underrepresented candidates in the final interview pool, and with that modification, there are signs of success with women and people of color gaining ground as team presidents and other key positions. Any company using a Rooney Rule type policy should do the same. 

Start with Leadership, Then Expand: Companies should be strategic about which jobs should have a diverse interview slate requirement – starting with the key leadership positions where they are less likely to have diversity now and where the impact of each hire is greatest. At first, the NFL kept it just to Head Coach, then added General Manager. Now it extends throughout the League office and the Club levels to all senior leaders and now coordinators and it is reaping the benefits in many key areas. Changing how a company selects its leaders — and who they select – creates critical buy-in at the top and establishes this as part of organizational values.   

Use Diverse Interview Panels: Many companies use diverse interview panels as part of the decision making process with great success. The NFL has not done so and should.

Use Better Selection Criteria: Diversity is stymied unless decision-makers expand their talent pool by expanding the criteria used for a key position. There are a lot of skill sets and experiences that can lead to success, even if they’re not the ones traditionally used to fill a position. Continuing to select the talents a company already has actually reduces the overall quality of its hires, especially if the criteria have not been reconsidered recently. Use an open mind and open up the process. 

Use Common Sense Guidelines: The first year of the Rooney Rule, Jerry Jones interviewed a white candidate for two days in person and a Black candidate by phone for just half an hour. We called on the League to develop common sense guidelines and they did. There is still room for improvement to ensure that interviews are being held as genuine interviews, not just to tick boxes. 

Whether in the NFL, or in companies large or small, we can achieve a level playing field and an inclusive economy if we stick to the principles of fair competition and implement the Rooney Rule the right way. 

 

Photo credit: REUTERS / Alamy

 

Best Practices to Increase Engagement, Productivity, Retention, and Innovation | Excerpts from Diversity, Inc.

/in , , , , /by

It’s been over a year since noted journalist and scholar Pamela Newkirk published Diversity, Inc., an essential account of the promises many companies made to strengthen diversity, equity and inclusion, the billions spent on programs and initiatives over five decades, and the huge gap that still remains in fulfilling those promises. This acclaimed book, which Time Magazine declared a “must-read”, is a deep study of how the most popular responses to calls for justice and equity at work have not only failed to make progress, but even led to declining numbers of Black leaders in Corporate America, a continued racial wealth gap and pay gap, and persistent discrimination in the workplace. Her book also highlights the rare examples of successful progress and the lessons from social science about what actually works to move the needle on workplace equality. 

In the wake of George Floyd’s murder last summer, companies again, as they have many times in the past, made statements and pledges to do more. While some of the responses are more symbolic, others have greater potential for meaningful impact – from shifts in corporate giving and community support to belatedly addressing longstanding criticisms of images, names and branding, recognizing the need to invest in changing systems and practices, and making concrete commitments to hiring benchmarks or other specific and potentially meaningful policy changes. But as Professor Newkirk shows, Corporate America’s track record on racial justice is not promising. Just as longstanding approaches to sexual harassment were more symbolic compliance than meaningful intervention, the world of diversity consulting is a story of as much as $8 billion a year spent with little to show for it.  So what can companies do that can actually make a difference?

In the new paperback edition of Diversity Inc., Professor Newkirk included a series of best practices provided by Working IDEAL — ways that companies can make good on their promises by applying best practices based on social science research and our experience with organizations large and small across multiple industries. 

Here are a few of those recommended practices that Working IDEAL recommends to our clients to hire and retain great people and increase engagement, productivity, retention, and innovation.  Want the whole list?  Get the book!

Expand Recruitment Through Intentional Outreach. For example, work to build relationships with programs in your field, industry and community to access talent, and then tailor recruitment plans to identify the best sources of diverse candidates for specific jobs or groups of jobs. 

Identify and Remove Barriers in Hiring, starting with how you identify and evaluate skills and criteria. Education and specialized training requirements can serve as unnecessary barriers to increasing diversity in key entry-level and higher-level positions, especially when there are equivalent or alternative skills and experience that may add value, or the potential to invest in on-the-job training.

Institute a “Rooney Rule” diverse slate policy but also take steps to ensure its success. This means defining diverse slates to require consideration of multiple women and people of color, and providing the training and tools for hiring managers and holding them accountable to follow the policy. 

Make information on pay practices transparent and accessible to employees.  Instead of guessing about what candidates will accept, or trying to underpay those with less market power or information, affirmatively provide starting salary information to job candidates.  Ensure employees can freely share information about pay — in most cases it’s legally required.

Measure your results like any business process, auditing your hiring, pay and promotion practices — and your culture and developing metrics to track them going forward. You can use anonymous tools like surveys, and internal discussions across functions and levels, to identify issues and source responses. Track attrition and understand why some groups of employees are more likely to leave. And make sure to regularly share all that information with leaders and decision-makers and use it to hold them accountable. 

Don’t ignore problem behavior. Have safe and accessible options to report, address, and resolve workplace problems, and make sure you act quickly to address toxic or harmful workplace culture at any level of the organization. 

Give people in your organization the power to make change.  If you have named an internal DEI leader or officer, make sure they have the information, access, and power needed to successfully carry out their responsibilities. If you are using an internal committee, resource group or affinity group to support and engage employees, provide the resources and processes that empower them to deliver meaningful value and support to leadership.

Working IDEAL provides trusted and innovative advice on inclusive workplaces, diverse talent, and fair pay. Contact us to learn more about the services we offer.

Author: Pam Coukos

A Just and Inclusive Workplace is Essential to Sustain Our Democracy

/in , , , , /by

In 2017, the increased public visibility of the #MeToo movement made clear we were not doing enough to make the workplace safe from sexual harassment. In 2020, #BlackLivesMatter organizing similarly forced a broader and overdue reckoning with how deeply racial inequity runs in many institutions — including our nation’s workplaces, which need to be more inclusive.

The images of the first week of 2021 – a Confederate flag carried through the halls of Congress, people in the crowd breaking into the Capitol wearing shirts emblazoned with slogans about genocide of the Jewish people, a Black police officer against a mostly white crowd of insurrectionists – reinforce the urgency of our work to build a just and inclusive society.

As Cyrus said in December, in a recently-published interview in the Wall Street Journal, “Our democracy is not sustainable if don’t embrace equal opportunity.” 

But to do that we need truly innovative approaches. We must expand our thinking about what the barriers are and how to break through them.  As we welcome a new Administration that has committed to make racial justice and economic empowerment top priorities, and a new Congress that can move this agenda forward, we want to highlight some key innovations in government policy and workplace practices that can have the biggest impact.

1. Have the Security and Exchange Commission require transparency on diversity and inclusion. All large, publicly traded companies should make standard disclosures about hiring, representation, leadership and pay. As Cyrus explained to the Journal:

Merge SEC disclosures—annual reports, 10Ks—with advancing equal opportunity. For example, require companies to disclose race and gender data for their top 200 highest-paid employees. It’s a way to understand where the glass ceiling is. Do it by total compensation so it includes stock options. It’ll tell you who’s in the decision-making pool of the company. 

And as we explained in our 2016 proposal to the SEC, this empowers investors, workers, customers and community stakeholders  to make informed choices about where to spend their money.

2. Make your default hiring practices more inclusive, by ensuring you interview multiple women and people of color.  Cyrus explains why this disrupts default assumptions:

If you have one woman versus two women on a slate, when you go to two women, it’s 79 times more likely that a woman will be selected [than if there was only one woman in the pool]. When you go from one to two people of color, the number goes up like 190 times. If there are multiple diverse candidates, they’re multiple times more likely to be hired. Why is that? When you have isolated, coveted jobs, you need to do something to change the norms because the presumptions and stereotypes are so deeply rooted. 

Congress can lead the way by adopting the Rankin-Chisholm rule for its own hiring (a “Rooney Rule” for the Representatives), and by encouraging members to practice #CampaignEquity when they run for re-election.  

3. Make our nation’s first civil rights law a more effective tool for racial justice, so it can work to close the racial wealth gap, ensure real equal access to credit, capital, employment and economic participation. Amending Section 1981 would enable it to live up to its promise.

4. Understand how building racial justice at work includes ensuring fair pay. As Pam shared in an online presentation last fall:

Make equity a top priority when you make decisions, take actions, design programs and measure results. Gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, or any aspect of your identity should not determine your outcomes in the workplace – including pay.

The Administration can do its part by reinstating and expanding pay data collection and reinvigorating equal pay enforcement – and by ensuring that we do not just talk about the gender pay gap. We must recognize and address pay gaps based on race and ethnicity and the particular impact of both on women of color.

5. Promote an inclusive workplace culture free of harassment, bias and discrimination – starting with the people who do the people’s work in our federal and state governments.  Assessing culture, ensuring inclusive policies and practices, and acting quickly to address disrespectful behavior before it becomes toxic should be standard practice. President Biden should consider an Executive Order directing all federal agencies to adopt effective initiatives to promote equal employment opportunity and inclusive workplaces, and revoking a series of anti-DEI actions from the fall.

At the end of the day, Cyrus’ observation from December of 2020 seems even more true in January of 2021: 

There is a moral case for diversity and inclusion. And there’s a business case: long-term value is tied to diversity and diversity is tied to innovation. But the last few years have told us there is a democracy case, too.

 

Working IDEAL provides trusted and innovative advice on inclusive workplaces, diverse talent, and fair pay. Contact us to learn more about the services we offer.

Authors: Pam Coukos and Cyrus Mehri

The Real Reason We’re More Likely to Elect a Woman in 2020

/in , /by

Studies tell us there’s a huge difference between having just one versus multiple women competing for a job.

By Cyrus Mehri

Originally published in Politico

 

Cyrus Mehri, Esq., has developed innovative and effective diversity and inclusion tools across various industries — stemming from groundbreaking employment cases that benefit employers and workers. He has worked with major companies and leading organizations to develop board diversity and accountability strategies. Cyrus is the originator of the “Rooney Rule” diverse candidate slate requirements that have become best practices.

 

The contest for the presidency is like an elaborate job interview process with the American people. For decades, the interviewees have mostly been white men. This time, we’ll choose from the most diverse candidate pool in history.

With nearly two decades of experience helping organizations from Coca-Cola to the National Football League put together diverse candidate pools for their hiring processes, I can say this with confidence: In the 2020 Democratic primary, the playing field is substantially more level for diverse candidates than it has ever been—and that means we are more likely than ever to elect a woman or person of color as president.

 

You might ask: Isn’t this just because there are more women and people of color running than ever before?

It’s not that simple. My experience as a civil rights attorney addressing systemic employment discrimination shows there is a world of difference between processes in which only one diverse candidate is interviewed (the 2016 presidential elections, for example) and processes in which two or more diverse candidates are interviewed (the 2020 Democratic primary). A single diverse candidate faces an enormous headwind—and a tiny chance of being picked for the job in the end. In contrast, when interviewers take the time to interview multiple diverse candidates in a fair and competitive process, the dynamic shifts norms and expectations, and creates a situation in which a diverse candidate is much more likely to end up winning the position.

 

A 2016 study by Stefanie K. Johnson, David R. Hekman and Elsa T. Chan published in the Harvard Business Review revealed just that. Their research showed there is statistically zero chance of a woman being hired if she is the only woman in the finalist pool. But those odds go up dramatically when she is joined by a second female finalist. The same effect was seen when examining pools with more than one person of color. The difference was staggering: Companies were 79 times more likely to hire a woman and 194 times more likely to hire a person of color when the finalist pool included more than one woman or minority. This held true regardless of the number of finalists. (The researchers looked at pools ranging from three to 11 candidates, with an average size of four).

 

What’s going on? Companies are known to prefer the status quo, which in most cases is hiring white males. So, if only one diverse candidate ends up in an interview pool, companies will favor hiring a white man. But, as the authors of the study found, when multiple diverse candidates enter the field, the status quo actually changes, and company decisions do, too. The playing field starts to level out.

 

I saw the importance of a diverse interview pool in practice nearly two decades ago when I helped the NFL develop its Rooney Rule, which requires NFL clubs to interview at least one candidate of color for head coach and general manager openings. (I had first used the “diverse slate” concept in a lawsuit settlement against Coca-Cola for racial discrimination—at the time, we referred to it as a proposal for the company to engage in “fair competition.”) Fifteen years after the Rooney Rule’s 2002 enactment, 22 minority candidates were selected for head coach, compared with only four in the prior 15 years. Since 2007, 10 NFL Super Bowl teams have had a minority head coach or general manager, underscoring the nexus between diversity and success, and the credibility of a fair and inclusive process.

As proud as I am of those results, over the years, we noticed a potential flaw in the process: The only time a person of color got the job was either when that was the only person truly considered, or when the hiring team cast a wide net, ensuring there were multiple people of color in the finalist pool. That’s why, in 2017, we updated the Rooney Rule to include an expectation (not a formal rule) that decision-makers on NFL teams would interview more than one person of color.

 

Today, I’m working with another major company to adopt their version of the Rooney Rule. Under the company’s pilot program, when there was only one woman in the candidate pool, she was never selected, but when two or more women were in the candidate pool, women were frequently chosen. The “aha” moment of this pilot program finding has led this major company to interview at least two women and one person of color for competitive management openings.

 

Of course, presidential election “interview” processes aren’t exactly equivalent to corporate hiring. Business applicants for a job typically come to the table with similar qualifications, and get the same amount of face time with those doing the hiring. In a pool of electoral candidates, qualifications and experience vary widely. And we can’t, and don’t, expect all candidates to be given equal speaking time or media coverage. But elections, like corporations, are also plagued by the status quo, and single diverse candidates can face a daunting uphill battle. Multiple diverse candidates in politics can help break barriers in the same way they can in business.

 

In other words, it’s too much to ask one woman to break the glass ceiling. But collectively, the half dozen women running for the nation’s highest office can do it.

 

A poll by the ESPN’s Undefeated shows that approximately 70 percent of NFL fans—a good proxy for Americans in general, as these fans represent a remarkably broad cross section of America—“somewhat” or “strongly” support the Rooney Rule. There are good reasons for Americans to support a diverse 2020 field, too. For one, a fair fight increases the chances that the best and most impactful candidate will be selected in the end.

Research has also long shown that increasing diversity in company leadership leads to increased innovation and better returns for shareholders. This year, a candidate pool that is diverse in terms of race, gender and sexuality, as well as life and work experience and geography has already put forward a wide array of innovative policy proposals and new ideas. That’s no accident. The data from the past 20 years indicates that the process used in the 2020 primaries will result in a diverse national ticket and Democrats will have the opportunity to catapult the country forward in countless ways.

Making California’s New Gender Inclusion Law for Boards of Directors A Success

/in , /by

By Cyrus Mehri

Governor Brown and the California Legislature took a major step to advance the U.S. economy by requiring publicly traded companies based in California to have at least two female members on their boards of directors by 2021. The wisdom of this new law is beyond reproach.

As the former Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission — Mary Jo White — declared two years ago, “I have seen first-hand what the research is telling us — boards with diverse members function better and are correlated with better company performance. This is why investors have — and should have — an interest in diversity disclosure about board members and nominees.“

By expanding the gender diversity of their boards, California companies will have a competitive advantage over companies based elsewhere. Several studies have linked gender diversity and increased innovation. A key 2014 study by Credit Suisse found that women on boards improved business performance on key metrics such as stock performance and earnings.

Yet despite these unmistakable advantages, female membership on boards of directors remains stagnant. Throughout this decade approximately 2/3 of U.S. boards of directors have had either no female members or only one female member of the board. This is an irrational outcome.

Companies are acting against their interest in terms of stock performance, innovation and earnings, because too many companies simply don’t know how to achieve a gender diverse board — nor, for that matter, do they know how to achieve a racially diverse board.

Based on my first-hand experience working with organizations to address organization and board diversity through the Rooney Rule and other key reforms, I know that there is a road map for success.

California companies can take concrete steps today to meet and exceed the new state benchmarks for gender board diversity, first by starting to ensure criteria for board membership is flexible enough to cover all the skills and attributes that succeeds in a competitive global economy. Board members should collectively represent a broad range of skills, experience and perspectives, which will help cast a wider net. Companies should also consider expanding the size of its board of directors.

When there is a vacancy on the board of directors, it’s important to commit to interviewing in-person a diverse set of candidates that includes at least two women and one person of color for each vacancy. This process should be included in a well- thought out nominations policy and guidelines tailored for the company. As we learned through experience with the Rooney Rule, a diverse pool of highly qualified women and people of color isn’t enough to move the needle. It matters who gets in the room to meet with the final decisionmakers.

Work through affinity groups and community and industry partners and develop a Ready List of potential board candidates who can strengthen a board of directors by bringing diverse life and work experiences and valuable perspectives. This includes going beyond the C-suite and considering experienced and talented leaders in the non-profit, public and education sectors. It also includes considering younger individuals earlier in the careers.

Companies need to also make sure that board nominating and governance committees are fully trained on interviewing a diverse slate of candidates and carrying out the policies, mission and goals for building equity and inclusion across the organization.

Finally, establish an effective communications strategy for rolling out a commitment to seriously interview and consider diverse candidates for the board of directors. This creates public accountability and make it easier to attract great candidates who bring new perspectives and experiences.

This road map for success is achievable right now. There are existing resources to draw on. There is no reason to wait until 2021 to advance innovation and earnings through the power of diversity.

Originally posted on Medium.

Can “Inclusion Waivers” Create More Equal Opportunity in Hollywood?

/in , /by

By Cyrus Mehri & Pamela Coukos

Originally Posted on the Working IDEAL Medium Page.

Last night, when Frances McDormand accepted her Oscar, she brought a new phrase to our workplace equality lexicon — calling on the industry to adopt “Inclusion Riders.” Based on an idea from the Annenberg Inclusion Initiative, an Inclusion Rider sets goals for hiring more members of underrepresented groups on film productions. As Dr. Stacy Smith explained in a 2014 article, an inclusion rider is a benchmark for tertiary speaking roles, and should reflect the gender representation of the film setting.

So will this work?  This is a structural design level diversity & inclusion reform – and that’s good!  That’s the kind of approach we know is more likely to succeed. BUT, without guardrails it can become a meaningless check the box exercise.

Good (and stated) intentions do little to move the needle on workplace #inclusion.  We need  what Iris Bohnet calls “equality by design” and what we call structural reform.

A structural reform or a design-level intervention means changing the process at the front end to address the biases and institutional barriers that reinforcing existing problems in order to remove barriers and disrupt biases. It means structuring decisions and aligning incentives so your standard operating procedure produces more of the outcomes you want – like improved diversity, equity, and inclusion. As Frank Dobbin & Sandra Kalev and others explain, structure and design matters – especially transparency, accountability, & measurement.

A classic example of a structural, design-level intervention is the NFL’s Rooney Rule. Cyrus and the late Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr. issued a statistical report in 2002 showing that for Black coaches, “superior performance” translated to “inferior opportunities.” Under the leadership of the late Pittsburgh Steelers owner, the NFL adopted the requirement that at least one minority candidate be interviewed for each head coach or general manager vacancy.  This resulted in a record number of minority head coaches and general managers.  Showing the power of diversity, 10 Super Bowl teams over the last decade have been led by a minority head coach or general manager including among others Coaches Tony Dungy,  Mike Tomlin and Ron Rivera.

The story of the Rooney Rule has important lessons in thinking about Inclusion Riders. In the face of existing barriers keeping talented African-American and other minority coaching candidates from being hired as head coaches, the league agreed to a simple but powerful new step in its standard operating procedure. This simple reform led to dramatic improvements, and has now been increasingly adopted by corporate America. Notably, Smith includes a Rooney Rule style requirement as an additional key gender equity  complement to inclusion riders.

Similarly, inclusion riders could be a meaningful, structural, design-based reform that requires action. They set a SMART goal – Specific, Measureable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-Based.  But there are a few key elements that could determine whether inclusion riders have as big an impact on Hollywood as the Rooney Rule did on the NFL.

First, as Smith and the Annenberg Center make clear, the discussion can’t be limited to gender representation. It must include goals based on race and ethnicity, and LGBT and disability inclusion, and should incorporate intersectional perspectives. Metrics besides representation — like pay equity and workplace harassment — are also important markers of inclusion.

Second, we believe, based on our own work, that reforms must go beyond the cast to include the crew. In 2017, Working IDEAL performed a gender pay equity study for a California union local representing some female dominated crafts working on film, television and commercial production crews. In the process we learned that film crews overall are highly gender segregated. The hiring process is often based on word of mouth and existing networks, making it hard for outsiders to break in. The kinds of jobs that are more open to women are likely to be lower paid with fewer protections. Sexual harassment is also a significant problem for women on film and television crews.  While a lot of attention has been paid to the barriers to women getting certain key jobs like director, creating inclusion goals and reforms to address crew positions across the board is also critical.

Third, inclusion riders must incorporate an accountability mechanism. How do you enforce and make sure qualifiers like “representation that reflects the film setting” don’t end up becoming work arounds?  How do you ensure equal opportunities for jobs on film crews across departments, instead of meeting targets by channeling underrepresented folks into lower paid or shorter-term positions?

One immediate option is full transparency.  Every Inclusion Rider should include contract language providing a public reporting mechanism, that kicks in at multiple steps in the process These reports will create pressure but also reward those who do the real work, can follow through and show results.

Over the long term we need more capacity building. Unions, studios, and production companies should be working together on aggressive recruitment, outreach and training plans. They should also be reporting their results. Together they could also develop benchmarks based on the available pool of talent that could bolster the Inclusion Rider targets.

One of the most effective moments last night was when Tiffany Haddish and Maya Rudolph provided a hilarious but pointed caution: making a better effort to recognize and reward Black talent didn’t mean #OscarsSoWhite was no longer a problem. These are deep challenges that won’t be easy to solve. But “inclusion by design” is a good place to start.