When inclusion becomes selective

Who gets to be included in safe parking programs?

A proposed Safe Parking Program in Sequim excludes men and fathers with children, raising questions about true inclusivity. Meanwhile, taxpayer-funded OlyCAP highlights the inconsistency in public aid. If fairness is the goal, shouldn't it apply to everyone?

The Sequim Good Governance League recently shared an interesting post on Facebook, stating, “People who oppose diversity, equity, and inclusion must be in favor of segregation, privilege, and exclusion.”

This is a strong statement—but does it apply universally, or only when convenient?

Last year, the very person who posted that meme submitted paperwork to the Sequim City Council to establish a “small Safe Parking Program for 3-5 vehicles” due to open sometime this year. The proposal states that “guests would be limited to single women, women with children, and transgender people,” with all participants required to pass a background check.

Notably absent from the list of those eligible? Men. And more importantly, fathers with children.

If equity is truly the goal, why would a safe parking program explicitly exclude an entire group of people based solely on their gender? If DEI principles demand the dismantling of segregation and privilege, then shouldn’t those same principles apply here?

When Clallam County Watchdog reached out to Jim Stoffer for comment on whether this program aligns with his beliefs on DEI, he declined to answer. Instead, the Mission Committee Chair responded with a list of charitable programs the church supports—certainly commendable efforts, but ones that sidestepped the central question.

This raises another important issue: public funding and selective inclusion. The Sequim Warming Center, which provides shelter during cold weather, is operated by Olympic Community Action Programs (OlyCAP)—an organization that receives government funding. Peninsula Behavioral Health, Olympic Peninsula Community Clinic, and Clallam County Health and Human Services also receive public funding. If taxpayer money supports programs aimed at providing relief to those in need, shouldn’t those programs serve all vulnerable individuals, including men and fathers with children?

This isn’t about denying the need for safe spaces for vulnerable individuals. It’s about the inconsistency in applying the very principles some claim to champion. True inclusion doesn’t mean selectively deciding who is worthy of help based on identity politics. It means ensuring that aid and opportunity are extended to all—without bias, without exclusion, and without hypocrisy.

If we only advocate for “diversity, equity, and inclusion” when it suits a particular narrative, then we’re not actually upholding those values. We’re just rebranding exclusion under a more palatable name.

Last Equitable Wednesday, readers were asked if public town halls featuring elected officials should be promoted equally to all political parties to ensure true nonpartisanship. Of 168 votes:

• 93% said, “Yes, it’s taxpayer-funded.”

• 1% said, “No, one-party promotion is okay.”

• 5% said, “It depends on intent and audience.”

• 0% were unsure.