Championing Diversity: Unpacking the Lululemon Inclusivity Debate

A woman walks past a Lululemon Athletica store on December 10, 2013 in Miami, Florida.

As we usher in 2024 with optimism, it's a sobering reminder for me, as a disability advocate, that the journey toward true equality and inclusivity is still a work in progress. The recent remarks by Chip Wilson, the founder of lululemon, starkly exemplify this. He told Forbes, “And I think the definition of a brand is that you’re not everything to everybody… You’ve got to be clear that you don’t want certain customers coming in.” This perspective, shockingly blunt yet not unfamiliar, resonates deeply with many who have felt marginalized by corporate ideologies.

Sonia Thompson, in her Forbes article, navigates the complexities of inclusive marketing, a concept Wilson seems to have misinterpreted. She asserts that being an inclusive brand doesn’t equate to including everyone but instead involves being intentional about which identities you serve. She rightfully criticizes Wilson's approach of excluding customers based on identity, a tactic that is neither common nor widely accepted in marketing.

Wilson’s words cast a long shadow, particularly for those of us who have tirelessly fought for recognition and inclusion. His blatant admission that certain customers are unwelcome reflects not merely a business strategy but a deeper societal issue of discrimination and exclusion.

Reflecting on Chris Rock's sharp commentary from his 2023 Netflix Special 'Selective Outrage', which I had the privilege to attend in Baltimore, the issue gains an even sharper edge. Rock humorously yet incisively remarks, “They sell $100 yoga pants. They hate somebody... They sell $100 non-racist yoga pants.” His humor underscores the absurdity of exclusion based on economic status, a sentiment that resonates profoundly with the disabled community.

The stark contrast between Rock's humorous perspective and Wilson's grave stance underscores a broader societal trend of companies profiting while selectively choosing their customer base. This practice is not only ethically questionable but also counterproductive to fostering a culture of inclusivity and respect.

Thompson highlights Lululemon's growth since expanding their sizes, directly contradicting Wilson's assertion that inclusivity is detrimental to a brand. The backlash against Wilson's comments signals the public's increasing intolerance for discrimination in any form. Effective marketing illustrates how a product supports the customer in addressing their needs, not in excluding them for not fitting a certain image.

As we forge ahead in 2024, let's confront these outdated narratives and champion true inclusivity in all facets of business and society. It's time to transition from mere words to actions that demonstrate a genuine commitment to diversity and inclusion for everyone.

What Lululemon Founder’s Comments Got Right And Wrong About Marketing

Navigating the Ableist Undertones of the Return-to-Office Movement

Two men in suits, sit across from each other at a conference table for a meeting.

October, a month dedicated to raising awareness about disability employment, has always been pivotal. But this year, it’s underscored by a concerning trend in the corporate world: the push to return to the office.

A recent article in Fortune by Paige McGlauflin and Joseph Abrams highlighted a startling reality: "90% [of CEOs] plan to reward those who work in person with favorable assignments, raises, and promotions.” This approach, while seemingly a strategic move to revitalize in-office culture, casts a shadow of exclusion over the disability community, particularly when we’ve seen the positive impact remote work has had on disability employment.

Since becoming full-time remote in 2020, I’ve experienced firsthand the energy conservation, reduced chronic pain, and enhanced focus that comes with remote work. It's not just a convenience; it's a necessity for many of us in the disabled community.

The pandemic brought an unexpected boon for us, enabling more disabled individuals to participate in the labor market effectively. But the current push for physical presence in the office, especially when tied to career progression, is not just a step backward; it’s a leap.

Julie Kratz, in her insightful Forbes article, emphasizes the importance of “practicing everyday acts of inclusion, shifting your language, getting respectfully curious, and staying committed to allyship long-term” But where does penalizing remote work fit into this inclusivity?

The disability community is not a monolith. Our needs, capabilities, and contributions are as diverse as we are. We’ve navigated a world that often forgets us, innovating and adapting, but the message sent by rewarding physical presence is clear: our efforts, adaptability, and skills are second to our ability to be present in the office.

It’s time to challenge this narrative. Let’s foster a dialogue that pushes companies to recognize value beyond physical presence, ensuring that disabled employees are not relegated to second-class citizenship in our own jobs.

CEOs are so desperate for a return to office that they’ll give employees who come back raises, promotions