One of the more divisive issues among homeschoolers at present is "inclusivity" (or "exclusivity"). It may be described as some one group of homeschoolers (or an individual) excluding other homeschoolers. It is alluded to indirectly when a support group or organization terms itself, "inclusive". Although the venue in which I’ve most frequently seen this issue broached has been in online homeschooling discussion forums, I’ve also received complaints about the issue in private correspondence. I’ve found that, when one looks past the often strong emotions, there are realities and misperceptions in the issue. The emotions are important though, as they mirror the hurt in those realities and misperceptions. Occasionally the criticisms are the products of unstated stereotypes or prejudices regarding the types of homeschoolers who are the subjects of the criticisms.

Using general terms, the real, problematic, attitude and action of exclusion could be described thus: a group of associated homeschoolers of similar beliefs or practices (or an individual) refuses to assist, associate with, or even acknowledge a homeschooler or group of homeschoolers of differing beliefs or practices. The segment of the homeschooling community that is most frequently accused of such exclusion is homeschoolers who are theologically conservative Christians. So what purpose is served by describing the problem in general terms? First, it will help to discern between real and misperceived exclusion. Second, it has been my observation that the problem, that which is real, is not unique to just one segment of the homeschooling community.

In the rest of this article I will examine the issue of exclusion - the real, the misperceived, and the misrepresented - with the hope of supplying some perspective that will reduce misperceptions and maybe deflate or deflect some of the misrepresentation. I also hope that at least some people who - whatever their motives - really have excluded people, per the description above, might see themselves and the hurt they can cause, and be motivated thereby to change. I will also offer ideas to encourage working toward real (in my view, of course), I think achievable, inclusivity.

So as not to risk being perceived as concealing the personal perspectives I bring to this issue and to provide a little general background, here are a few pertinent autobiographical data points. As of the time of this writing, Spring of 2002, our family is completing its 15th year of homeschooling. Along with my wife Becky, I’ve participated in starting and leading a homeschooling support group, editing its newsletter, and publishing a resource directory for local homeschoolers. I am also a theologically conservative Christian.

The latter being the case, and because theologically conservative Christians are most frequently the subjects of complaints of exclusion, a group of theologically conservative Christians will be used as players in a hypothetical but realistic scenario to illustrate real and misperceived exclusion. Mary Smyth (our hypothetical homeschooler who is "different") is an atheist (she could just as well be a Wiccan, a New Ager, a theologically liberal Christian, a Muslim, etc., but this choice establishes a strong contrast of views). She has been looking for a homeschooling support group, and is visiting a particular support group for the first time, one that is run by theologically conservative Christians. Being a visitor, Mary is asked to introduce herself, which she does, and is asked, among other things, what church her family attends. When Mary responds that she and her family are atheists, she hears someone remark, "Well, this is a Christian group." As the evening proceeds, Mary finds herself pretty much left to herself until the end, when a leader approaches her. The leader repeats the substance of the comment made earlier, that it is a Christian support group, hands Mary a document titled "Statement of Faith", and informs Mary that group members are required to sign their agreement to it. At a glance, Mary recognizes that she cannot, with honesty, sign it, and says so to the leader. In response, the leader tells Mary that, since she cannot be a member, Mary should look for a another support group. The leader then turns her attention to other people. Mary has failed to find support in this group, and has been rejected on a personal level - quite an unpleasantly memorable night!

Keep in mind that this hypothetical situation is at once designedly worst-case and realistic. In the scenario, Mary and the homeschooling support group she visited are basically not very compatible - she would probably not fit in with the group, nor would the group’s discussions and activities be likely to be of much interest to her. For example, Mary’s children may have favorite games, books, music, or TV programs which member families do not allow for their children. And member families are likely to have interests that are similarly unsuitable in Mary’s view. While being an extreme contrast, the scenario is also closely modeled on the complaints I’ve seen from real people who described their personal experiences.

Given this lack of compatibility, for the members of the support group to recognize and "respond" (actually, being unresponsive) accordingly is not intrinsically exclusion. The real exclusion in this scenario is found in the group leader’s total failure to offer any assistance to Mary, though to a lesser degree, the group’s mute passivity was a contributing factor. While forcing the group to change its purposes would no more be right than would be forcing Mary to compromise her convictions, what might the leader or members of the group have done that would have avoided excluding Mary? That would depend in some degree on the homeschooling resources available in their community. Likely possibilities would include: referring Mary to a more compatible homeschooling support group (giving her a contact person’s name and phone number); giving Mary the names and phone numbers of some similarly minded homeschoolers; giving Mary the contact information for a statewide organization that might be able to refer her to a compatible group in the area; if Mary knows other similarly minded homeschoolers who are not in a support group, the leader could advise them on how to start a group. The leader or helpful member should also follow up with Mary to check on progress and see if further help may be needed. In short, the member and leaders should have "acknowledged" Mary and enabled her to find or create the resources to satisfy her needs. And in these possibilities, neither the support group nor Mary would be forced to compromise what they are, yet Mary’s needs would be met, i.e. support would take place. The reader should understand that the roles of this scenario - Mary being an atheist (Wiccan, New Ager, etc.) and the group being theologically conservative Christians - could realistically be reversed and the actions that would comprise exclusion or inclusion, and the consequences would be pretty much the same.

I’m sure at least a few readers would take exception to my idea that helping Mary find support outside of the group is "inclusion", or at least not "exclusion". Keep in mind that, in saying what I did, I wasn’t precluding the group deciding to amend its purposes, or Mary deciding to associate with the group as a frequent visitor. Though I touched on the reasoning behind my idea, it can bear further explanation. Using general terms again, Mary’s life views could be described abstractly as "A", with those of the homeschooling support group being "B" (both being assumed to be legal). Further, "A" and "B" are very different from each other. If the homeschooling support group is expected to respect Mary’s views, "A", then the group’s views, "B", should be afforded like respect. This is simply being fair and consistent. Thus neither Mary nor the homeschooling support group should be compelled or pressured to compromise what they are. The respect implicit in inclusivity must be mutual, or what obtains is coercive and counter-exclusive. It should be noted, though, that "respect" need not mean acceptance as being equally correct (more on this later), nor would it preclude informative or persuasive discussion between the parties. However, recognizing when the incompatibility is of sufficient scope so as to make non-association the better course - one that avoids fruitless conflict - is simple prudence.

What about the group having ignored Mary? Isn’t that exclusion? Their silence is equivocal, as it could have arisen from another cause or a combination of causes. Of course the silence could have been motivated by a conscious refusal on the part of every group member to have anything to do with Mary. But it also could have been the result of a combination of a lack of commonality, and coincidentals such as members being busy, shy, and so forth. Whatever the cause(s), the effect for Mary, however, was the same - a discouraging silence. Depending on her personality, past experiences, expectations, and mood, Mary might have perceived the silence as an oddity, a disappointment, or rejection. For this reason, it was critical for the support group’s leaders to have taken action to mitigate the possible hurt resulting from their group’s silence.

While the support group’s leaders could have altered what the group as a whole did during Mary’s visit by seeing to it that she was offered assistance, they could not control how Mary perceived the overall experience. However excellent and helpful the leaders’ (or the group’s) assistance, Mary may still have failed to recognize the incompatibility between the group and herself and perceived being referred elsewhere for support as a personal rejection. She might even so reject the life views of the members of the group that she doesn’t respect the group’s right to hold and act according to their own views. Should that happen, a rejection, an exclusion, will have happened, but it will have been Mary who has done the rejecting and excluding. And that would be Mary’s responsibility, not the group’s or it leaders’.

This broaches something I’ve noticed in discussions of "inclusion" and "exclusion". As noted earlier, most frequently it is theologically conservative Christians who are the subjects of complaints about "exclusion". One term frequently used to identify theologically conservative Christians in such complaints is "Fundamentalists". In some cases - as discerned from the wording and context of the complaint - the use of the term is obviously intended pejoratively. So far in this article I’ve not used the term, as its usage in homeschooling contexts is usually inaccurate, and the term is the object of irrelevant stereotypes and popular prejudice. Explaining why the usage of the term is inaccurate exceeds the scope of this article. As a whole, however, I do not perceive real Fundamentalists as a group negatively. I do want to be reasonably accurate and to avoid using a term whose connotation is distracting and even a bit inflammatory. That said, the complaints that use the term pejoratively are usually worded something like, "Those Fundamentalists are so intolerant! When I introduced myself, they told me they are a Christian group. And the group has a Statement of Faith for members to sign. I couldn’t do that!" It is instructive to note the focus and consider the underlying assumptions and wording of such complaints. The focus is on criticizing the "Fundamentalists" instead of on some need for support. This focus on criticism brings into question the motives of the one voicing the complaint. The major assumption is that all homeschooling support groups should accept as members any homeschooler who shows up and be a fit for their family. It isn’t hard to word this idea in a way that makes it sound reasonable. But in the wording of the complaint, the persons demanding respect for his/her beliefs are denying the subjects of the complaints the right to have and act on beliefs that happen to be different. In other words, the ones complaining of intolerance are, in the substance of their complaint, being intolerant. Another assumption lies in the tendentious wording of the complaint. It doesn’t inquire as to the motives of the subjects of the complaint. It simply assigns a motive to the subjects -"intolerance" - ignoring the possibility of there being other, less unpleasant, motives (which is usually the case). This is called a strawman argument - falsely attributing easily refuted or outrageous views to one’s opponent and then attacking those views. Also of note is the fact, noted earlier, that, sometimes at least, the usage of the term "Fundamentalists" is consciously, intentionally, pejorative. The assumption is that using the word will gain listeners’ (readers’) sympathy by appealing to their negative concepts and misconceptions of what a Fundamentalist is. This is called an ad hominem attack, a logical irrelevancy. Ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments, being false, reflect on the ones making the irrelevant and emotive attacks and arguments. I don’t have the ability to discern with certainty the motives of such persons - only a few, in my experience - but I do think it appropriate to point out the use of manipulative arguments. I invite the readers of this article to take note when people do this and to consider the possible motives underlying the use of such manipulative techniques.

"Tolerance" has become a frequently used, highly connotative, buzz word of late, the popular connotation being oxymoronic in use (as noted above). "Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary" (1951 edition) defines "tolerate" thus: "To suffer to be, or to be done, without prohibition or hindrance; to allow or permit by not preventing." This is quite in contrast with the modern connotation, which falsely equates "tolerance" with approval of what is "tolerated".

Homeschoolers are a highly varied lot - religious views, homeschooling philosophies, economic status, cultures, and more. Relations among homeschoolers may sometimes become heated rather than warm - if we let them. Religious differences, as alluded to above, have been the occasion of considerable tension. I won’t pretend that preventing or defusing conflicts will be easy, however the investment of energy required to prevent conflicts accomplishes a great deal more than does the energy invested in continually stirring up and thrashing out conflicts. Where to start? How might the definition given above of real tolerance be applied in real life, specifically in homeschooling contexts?

A good starting point would have to be acknowledging within oneself that, however much (or little) one might wish to persuade a person to different views of life, that person has a right to their own views. This is Webster’s definition - "to allow or permit by not preventing" - at the attitude level. Actions are moved by attitudes.

In action, it means being respectful or courteous toward persons of differing views. It is possible to point out to another person the areas of difference without being rude or cold. Even a lack of commonalities can be explained in a caring manner. In other words, one should disagree without being disagreeable (even if the other person is being disagreeable) and avoid escalating a difficult situation, if possible.

It means trying to be helpful, even when there are substantial areas of difference between you and another person. Support group members should be encouraged to seek to assist others, including those whose views of life differ from the members’ views. This helpful attitude is particularly imperative for support group leaders. Leaders should get to know the homeschooling community in their area so as to be better able to assist homeschoolers with different backgrounds whom they may encounter. It also means support organizations should be cooperate with regard to common interests. Just being helpful and cooperative can accomplish much - for the individual receiving assistance and for a reasonable degree of harmony in the homeschooling community.

It means - this is a hard one - that persuasive discourse and disputation should be carried out using facts, reason, and respect, not with deception, strawman arguments, personal (ad hominem) attacks, and arrogance. It means removing the chips from one’s own shoulder: ceasing to be hyper-sensitive; not reacting to every slight (real or imagined); not playing gotcha-games or the provocateur. It may mean speaking up when someone with whom you have much in common is being rude or unhelpful to someone with whom you have little in common.

Have I gored everybody’s ox yet? These are things we - agreeable readers and I - can do. We cannot, however, dictate how others respond. Whether it is due to persistent misperception or some worse motive, the other person may reject our best efforts. And that is their right. So our wisest course is to be prepared - recognize the possibility of rejection - and if we do encounter it, don’t become embittered or discouraged from continuing to do our earnest best to be helpful to others.

Personally, I don’t expect to see a single, universal homeschooling organization at the national or state levels. I do, however, think it is possible (even necessary!) for the various groups - at the national, state, and local levels - to be able to work together when common interests are at stake. This does happen sometimes, to the benefit of involved homeschoolers. Sometimes, too often in my opinion, this working together doesn’t happen, and less is accomplished than might have been. And this, dear reader, is where you and I may be able, bit by bit, to make a difference between greater or lesser benefit.