Why "Either/Or" Inclusion Fails us: Lessons from the BAFTAs

The recent incident at the BAFTAs - where Tourette's campaigner John Davidson involuntarily shouted a racial slur during an award presentation - has sparked a global conversation about racism, ableism and what it means to build cultures of belonging.

It's a moment that sits at the uncomfortable intersection of two truths:

• A racial slur was heard by Black actors on stage and that caused real harm.

• The person who shouted it lives with severe Tourette syndrome and the utterance was involuntary.

Both truths matter and holding them at the same time is the work of inclusion.

---

Why this moment is so complex

Tourette syndrome can involve involuntary vocal tics, including inappropriate or taboo words. Experts and advocates have been clear: these tics are not expressions of belief or intent.

Davidson himself expressed that he was "deeply mortified" emphasising that the tic did not reflect his values.

At the same time, Black performers including Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo were placed in the position of hearing a racial slur directed toward them in a public, televised space. That impact is real, regardless of intent.

---

The false binary: Anti-racist or anti-ableist

Inclusion work often falters when we treat identities and oppressions as competing priorities. But belonging is not a zero-sum game.

The nuance that we must hold is:

1. Impact and intent are different - and they both matter. Anti-racism requires us to acknowledge the harm of racial slurs, full stop. Anti-ableism requires us to understand that involuntary tics are not expressions of prejudice.
   

2. Accountability doesn't always look like blame. In this case, accountability sits with systems - not the individual. Why was the broadcast not edited, especially when it was pre-taped? (and especially when they already edited out a "free Palestine" moment... but we won't go there today...) Why weren't safeguards in place to protect both the guest with Tourette's and the Black actors on stage? These are structural questions, not personal failings.
   

3. We can centre those harmed without vilifying those who had no control. This is the heart of intersectional inclusion: Validate the harm experienced by Black performers and viewers. Protect the dignity of disabled individuals whose conditions may produce socially harmful outputs without intent. Both can, and must, coexist.

---

What organisations can learn from this

1. Prepare for complexity, not perfection Real inclusion means anticipating moments where identities collide and harm happens without malice.
   

2. Build response frameworks that separate behaviour from intention A good framework asks: - What harm occurred? - What support is needed? - What systemic gaps allowed this to happen?
   

3. Train people in intersectional thinking If your anti-racism work doesn't include disability, it's incomplete. If your disability inclusion work doesn't include race, it's incomplete.
   

4. Communicate with clarity and compassion Host Alan Cumming modelled this in real time, reminding the audience that the tics were involuntary - but organisations must go further: acknowledge harm, explain context and outline next steps.

---

Belonging requires us to hold the whole picture

The BAFTAs incident is not a story about a racist man shouting a harmful slur. It's a story about how systems fail when they're not built with intersectionality in mind.

It's a reminder that:

• Anti-racism without disability inclusion becomes punitive.

• Disability inclusion without anti-racism becomes dismissive.

• Belonging requires both.

When we build cultures capable of holding nuance, we build cultures where everyone - truly everyone - can belong.

---

The Belonging Lab