Going through the differences between diversity, equity, and inclusion made me realize why representation alone ininstitutions is often seen as insufficient. I have seen many organizations focus solely on the physical presence of people (the "who") without asking whether these people actually experience power, safety, or influence once they are there. After further thought, this led me to consider that systems can differ radically on the surface while still preserving the same old hierarchies. The framing questions in the text, especially those revolving around who is given the right to the decision, making the table, and whose ways of being are appreciated, serve to reveal that inclusion is not just about the count; it is about the radical change of structures. This is tightly linked to the fact that leadership is very often presented as being neutral or objective, whereas in truth it reflects the values of the dominant culture. The focus on cultural humility and accountability shifted leadership from a possession or personal attribute to an engagement or doing. Instead of assuming that what is fair is already there, leaders must be ready to interrogate policies, practices, and norms that give advantages to some groups rather than others. Such a stance aligns with justice-oriented and systems-based approaches that emphasize the well-being of the community as a whole and simultaneously address the root causes of inequality. This section really made me think about how my own experiences as a young woman influence the way I navigate different spaces. I have had moments when I was expected to change myself to fit existing norms to be accepted, rather than places changing to accommodate new perspectives or different ways of being. Learning about equity, inclusion, and cultural humility gave me the words to describe why those moments felt likea threat or a limitation to me. This chapter reminded me that leadership is not just a matter of the right intention, but also of being attentive to those who arepressured to conform and those who feel comfortable being themselves.

Counterintuitive solidarity involves people in powerful positions trusting the experiences of oppressed people over their own gut feelings. However, what does this mean inreal leadership contexts, particularly when it conflicts with a leader's feeling of control or authority? How can leaders genuinely do this and not just superficially listen?

Separating diversity, equity, and inclusion helped me to see that it is very common for institutions to think only about who is there without considering power or participation. What is your opinion about organizations' preference for putting diversity ahead of equity or inclusion when equity and inclusion entail significant structural changes?

This thought made me reflect on the fact that common sense is usually assumed to be neutral, while it is actually influenced by culture, power, and socialization. How can leaders tell that a common-sense thing is actually continuing dominant norms instead of being fair or inclusive? What kind of accountability do leaders have to the act of questioning the norms that are natural to them but may be harmful to others?