Over the weekend, I found myself in a conversation that hit on a growing cultural friction. Someone asked a question that has been echoing across social media lately: “Who gets to decide what’s racist?” (or ableist, or sexist).
It’s a question often designed to find a loophole. It suggests that if we can’t agree on a singular, perfect definition, then the problem itself is up for debate. It frames systemic exclusion as a matter of personal taste or “subjective” opinion.
In reality, this is a move to shift the burden of proof onto the person experiencing the harm. It implies that unless the “accused” agrees with the definition, the harm hasn’t actually occurred.
As I sat there, my mind went straight to the core of my own work: Who gets to decide what ableist is?
1. The Ghost in the Machine: The “Default Worker”
In most organisations, the “deciders” are almost exclusively the people with the least amount of skin in the game. To understand why, we have to look at the concept of Design Bias.
Traditional corporate structures were built for a “Default Worker”—a demographic ghost that the system assumes is the standard. This person:
- Has no sensory sensitivities or physical barriers to movement.
- Processes information in a strictly linear, neurotypical fashion.
- Has an infinite capacity for “high-pressure environments” without the need for recovery.
To this “Default Worker,” the system feels “smooth.” Because they don’t experience friction, they conclude it doesn’t exist. This is known as Survivorship Bias: making decisions based on those who “survived” the existing hurdles while ignoring those who were blocked by them.
The Reality Check: When a disabled employee points out a barrier—be it digital, physical, or cultural—they are often met with the ultimate gaslighting phrase: “No one else has complained about this.” This assumes the majority experience is the “truth” and the minority experience is merely an “opinion.”
2. Intent vs. Impact: Where Progress Goes to Die
When we treat ableism as subjective, we get stuck in the “Intent vs. Impact” loop.
Intent is subjective. Statements like “I didn’t mean to exclude them” are explanations of internal character. They are designed to protect the “goodness” of the individual. But in the context of corporate governance and risk, intent is largely irrelevant.
Impact is objective. * If an employee cannot access the payroll system, they cannot get paid. That is a functional failure.
- If a high-potential hire cannot use the internal CRM, that is a productivity bottleneck.
- If your office lighting triggers migraines for 15% of your staff, that is an environmental hazard.
The person who “gets to decide” if a door is locked isn’t the person holding the key; it’s the person standing outside who can’t get in.
3. The Governance of “The Decider”
This is not just a social issue; it is a Data Risk. If your organisation only listens to the people the system was built for, you are operating with a massive blind spot in your risk register. You are essentially allowing the people who built the barriers to be the sole judges of whether those barriers exist.
From a leadership perspective, this is dangerous. It means you aren’t making decisions based on reality; you’re making decisions based on a curated, comfortable version of the truth. When you ask “Who gets to decide?”, you are really asking: “Whose discomfort am I willing to ignore to keep the system moving at this speed?”
4. Shifting to Objective Alignment (The SDG Framework)
To build an organisation that actually “holds,” we have to move the goalposts away from “Who gets to decide?” and toward “Does this meet the global standard?”
When we align inclusion work with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the “decision” is no longer an opinion. It becomes a diagnostic fact.
- SDG 8 (Decent Work & Economic Growth): It isn’t a “matter of perspective” if your recruitment AI filters out candidates with gaps in their CV caused by health fluctuations. That is an objective barrier to economic participation.
- SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption & Production): It’s not a “difference of opinion” if you procure a digital platform that violates WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines). You have produced a defective environment.
- SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, & Strong Institutions): It’s not a “misunderstanding” if your board has zero representation of lived disability experience while signing off on a disability strategy. That is a governance failure.
The End of the Debate
When we move from Subjective Intent to Systemic Alignment, the question of “who gets to decide” disappears. The Framework decides. The Data decides.
By removing the “personality” from the problem, we remove the defensiveness. We stop arguing about whether a leader is “ableist” and start looking at whether their work is actually fit for purpose.
Launching: The Disability Inclusion Outcomes Framework
I have spent years watching organisations “try their best,” only for their progress to evaporate the moment a key leader leaves, or a budget is cut. This happens because they are still operating in the realm of the subjective.
I am officially launching the Disability Inclusion Outcomes Framework.
This tool is designed to end the “Opinion” phase of your inclusion journey. It is a clinical, SDG-aligned system that shows you exactly how your current efforts align with global standards. It moves the power away from “subjective feelings” and grounds it in structural integrity.
Whether you choose to implement the Toolkit with my coaching or engage in a Strategic Partnership to rebuild your foundations, the goal is the same: To stop guessing if you’re inclusive and start proving you’re functional.
Over To You
The next time you hear someone ask “Who gets to decide?”, try reframing the question: “What is the objective impact of this decision on the people it affects most—and do we have the data to prove it?”
If the answer is “no,” you aren’t leading an inclusive culture. You’re leading a subjective one.
👉Book a Framework Strategy Call
👉 Get your Workplace Disability Inclusion Profile
Work with me
I’m available for – Disability Inclusion Policy and Action Plan Development/Reviews, Inclusive Committee Reviews, CoDesign, Co-Facilitation, Stakeholder Engagement, The Inclusion Lens Advisory, and The Disability Inclusion Outcomes Framework
You can book an intro chat to discuss your organisation’s specific needs.
