When Inclusion Excludes
As I have begun applying for journalism internships, I’ve encountered a disquieting truth: some opportunities today are not open to everyone.
For the HarperCollins Traineeship 2026, the eligibility criteria read:
‘You must be from one of the following ethnic groups:
Asian or Asian British: Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese, Any other Asian background
Black, Black British, Caribbean or African: Caribbean, African, Any other Black, Black British, or Caribbean background
Mixed or multiple ethnic groups: White and Black Caribbean, White and Black African, White and Asian, Any other Mixed or multiple ethnic background
Other ethnic group: Arab, Any other ethnic group
White: Roma Gypsy or Irish Traveller.’
Both initiatives aim to broaden access to an industry that has historically lacked diversity. Yet reading these criteria, and noticing that ‘White’ (other than Roma, Gypsy or Irish Traveller) is not included, I could not shake the sense that inclusion had started to exclude.
The logic behind such schemes is clear enough: to open doors for those who have faced structural barriers. When these efforts explicitly restrict opportunity based on ethnicity, they risk reviving the very practice they were designed to abolish - judging people not by their abilities or ambitions, but by the category they fall into.
We rightly condemn the racial quotas and segregation of the past. Yet we now find ourselves defending policies that similarly sort applicants by skin colour or heritage, only under a different moral banner. The justification - that ‘under-represented’ groups require preference - may be well-intentioned, but it can still feel unjust to those excluded by it.
In practice, these policies also overlook a growing reality: privilege is not confined to any one ethnicity. A child of wealthy parents from Lagos or Shanghai, educated at top international schools, enjoys far more opportunity than a working-class applicant from a struggling post-industrial town in Britain. Yet under current schemes, the former may qualify for ‘under-represented’ status while the latter may not. Similarly, children of ‘white’ families who have worked hard - sending their children to good schools, funding university, or navigating difficult personal circumstances such as divorce - may find that their effort and sacrifice are overlooked, despite having earned success through perseverance.
Applicants are increasingly asked to disclose ethnicity, gender identity, and parental income, ostensibly to level the playing field, yet in practice this can privilege some while inadvertently disadvantaging others who have still had to struggle. Achieving a first-class honours degree is no trivial feat, nor is growing up in challenging circumstances; injustice exists everywhere, from bullying to the economic circumstances into which we are born. Inverting disadvantage in this manner is not justice - it risks reproducing old hierarchies under a new banner. By continuing to categorise people according to race or identity, we paradoxically reinforce the distinctions we hope to eliminate, rather than fostering a truly meritocratic and inclusive society.
These schemes are also condescending to the very people they seek to help. By linking opportunity to ethnic background, they imply that talent is inherently lacking in certain races - as if merit were determined by skin colour rather than effort or ability. Real empowerment comes from removing genuine obstacles, not lowering expectations based on assumptions about identity.
If the goal is to help those genuinely disadvantaged, the fairest approach would be twofold:
Create targeted programmes that address socioeconomic or educational barriers - open to anyone who has had fewer opportunities, regardless of race.
Run these alongside merit-based, open applications where names, schools, and personal details are concealed, allowing ability alone to shine through.
Such a system would support fair election; acknowledging the complexity of modern society, where hardship cannot be reduced to colour or category.
Inclusion should mean broadening the circle, not redrawing it. When we begin to measure worth by identity rather than merit, we risk replacing one hierarchy with another. True equality is not achieved by exclusion - it is achieved by fairness.