In 2019 we will be welcoming the newly elected members into the 116th Congress, who bring a diversity of experiences and backgrounds with them, and who are prepared to bring some much-needed change to the floor.
As my colleague Catalina Pinto noted in her post a few weeks ago, there have been a number of election “firsts” this year, including the election of two Muslim women, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. The changing face of Congress will bring new perspectives, new representation, and a new need for making Congress an inclusive body. For example, Congressional Democrats are moving to clarify a 181-year-old rule banning all headwear from the floor of the US House of Representatives. This clause currently states that “During the session of the House, a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not wear a hat or remain by the Clerk’s desk during the call of the roll or the counting of ballots.” This rule could be interpreted as a ban on any type of headwear, religious or otherwise, and these politicians are aiming to create space for faith-based headwear.
Ilhan Omar confidently stated, “No one puts a scarf on my head but me. It’s my choice – one protected by the first amendment. And this is not the last ban I’m going to work to lift.” Foreshadowing at its finest.
When I first saw the headlines around the clarification of this ban, I instantly smiled. It brings me joy when we recognize diversity and take a step towards inclusion. Historically underrepresented groups could look at these two Muslim women, holding these elected positions while also honoring their faith-based practices, and look forward to the future.
It also made me think on a larger scale about the “bans,” policies, or rules that govern this country in a way that negatively impacts historically underrepresented or marginalized groups. Rules, regulations, structures and policies determine what we consider right from wrong. We use these as a standard to determine what is appropriate behavior – a supposedly objective truth. But what we fail to acknowledge is that these policies are always written by subjective beings, viewing the world from their own subjective lens. While there is nothing inherently wrong with viewing the world from our own lens, there is something inherently wrong about believing our lens as the only and “right” lens. We have to allow people to challenge structures that impact them negatively, even if—and especially if—those who write the rules don’t take their experiences into account. To create structures that serve all of us, we should be actively seeking out discourse to challenge our own lenses and to learn through the lens of others.
While there is nothing inherently wrong with viewing the world from our own lens, there is something inherently wrong about believing our lens as the only and “right” lens. Share on XQuite frankly, it shouldn’t have taken the election of two Muslim women to call attention to an antiquated ban. Are we going to continue to lay blanket conditions with no regard toward cultural difference? Will we continue to allow policies to inhibit an individual’s ability to bring their entire selves into a given setting? It’s imperative that we continue to take issue with structures that uphold the values of one group while diminishing the importance of others. I encourage us all to take a critical eye to what we know to be “the rules” and question them. Are they equitable? Are they inclusive? Do they marginalize a group either implicitly or explicitly?
As we continue to have conversation around creating inclusive spaces via our language, communication, and interactions, let’s not neglect the structures that have long stood and prohibited conversations before a word has even been spoken. Let’s dismantle them.
As we have conversation around creating inclusive spaces via our language, communication, & interactions, let’s not neglect the structures that have long stood & prohibited conversations before a word has even been spoken. Share on X
