Hi everyone and I’m Christian Robicheau of the Sterling Creations team.
It’s the final week of August and for today I am pleased to share our president’s editorial with you.
Today Donna J. Jodhan discusses the differences between avoiding and ignoring.
She would like to hear from you with your thoughts.
Write to her at donnajodhan@sterlingcreations.ca.
Enjoy your weekend.
+++++++++++++++
Avoid Or ignore?
By Donna J. Jodhan
There is a quiet but important distinction between avoiding something and ignoring it. At first glance, the two appear almost identical. Both involve absence. Both can produce silence, inaction, or delay. Yet beneath the surface, they are driven by very different forces — and understanding those forces matters deeply, especially in conversations around accessibility, diversity, equity, and inclusiveness.
To ignore something is often to dismiss its existence or significance. Ignoring can be passive, careless, or deliberate. It says, in effect, this does not deserve my attention. Avoidance, however, is more complicated. Avoidance frequently acknowledges the issue but hesitates to engage with it. It may stem from discomfort, fear, uncertainty, guilt, fatigue, or even confusion about what action to take.
This distinction matters because the impact may appear identical even when the motivation is not.
Consider a workplace discussion about accessibility. A leader who ignores accessibility concerns may simply refuse to recognize barriers affecting employees or customers. They may see accommodations as unnecessary expenses or distractions. In that case, the issue is not uncertainty but indifference.
Another leader, however, may avoid the conversation entirely. They may worry about saying the wrong thing, fear criticism, or feel unequipped to navigate complex conversations about disability or inclusion. Their silence is still harmful, but the source of the silence is different. One dismisses; the other retreats.
The challenge is that from the outside, both behaviors can look exactly the same.
This is why attitude plays such a critical role in determining which it is. Attitude shapes intent, tone, consistency, and willingness. Someone avoiding an issue may still display signs of concern. They may listen carefully when the topic arises, express uneasiness, or admit they do not know enough. They may hesitate, but there remains an openness to learning.
Someone ignoring the issue often demonstrates the opposite. There is resistance instead of hesitation. Deflection instead of curiosity. Dismissal instead of discomfort.
Still, attitude alone is not enough to make the distinction. Actions matter more than words.
A person who claims to care about equity but continually postpones meaningful action may eventually cross the line from avoidance into effective indifference. Intentions lose credibility when patterns never change. In social and institutional settings, repeated avoidance can become indistinguishable from ignoring because the outcome remains the same: barriers persist, voices go unheard, and inequities deepen.
That raises an uncomfortable truth. Sometimes people avoid issues because confronting them requires sacrifice. Accessibility may require redesigning systems. Inclusiveness may require surrendering privilege or control. Equity may demand uncomfortable reflection about past advantages. Avoidance can become a shield against accountability.
Yet it is equally true that modern conversations about diversity and inclusion can feel overwhelming for many people. Language evolves rapidly. Expectations shift. Public mistakes can bring harsh judgment. Some individuals retreat not because they reject the principles, but because they fear public failure. This does not excuse avoidance, but it helps explain it.
The deeper question, then, is not simply whether someone is avoiding or ignoring an issue. The more revealing question is this: What happens when the opportunity to engage is repeatedly presented?
Do they move closer to understanding, or further away from it?
Growth leaves evidence. So does indifference.
A person who is avoiding may eventually ask questions, seek guidance, or attempt imperfect participation. An institution that was hesitant may begin implementing policies, training, or accessibility improvements. Progress may be slow, awkward, and incomplete, but movement exists.
Ignoring rarely produces movement at all.
In the end, the distinction between avoidance and ignoring is not merely semantic. It is ethical. One may reflect fear or uncertainty; the other often reflects disregard. But both carry consequences, especially when dealing with human dignity and belonging.
Accessibility, diversity, equity, and inclusiveness cannot thrive in silence. Whether silence comes from avoidance or ignorance, the result is exclusion. The responsibility therefore falls not only on identifying the difference, but on overcoming both.
Because a society that continually avoids difficult conversations may eventually become one that ignores them entirely.
I’d like to leave you with this for your consideration.
A polished corporate conference room hums softly with low conversation and the glow of presentation screens. At the far end of the room, a CEO in an immaculate tailored suit walks at a measured, deliberate pace, posture composed but subtly tense. His gaze is unfocused, caught somewhere between distraction and internal calculation.
Ahead of him sits a man in a wheelchair near the edge of the conference table. The man leans forward slightly, one hand raised just enough to signal a desire to speak or be acknowledged. His expression carries restrained urgency — hopeful, but uncertain whether he is being seen.
The CEO notices him. A flicker of hesitation crosses his face. His stride slows almost imperceptibly as competing thoughts seem to surface: whether to continue forward and engage, or quietly redirect himself to avoid the interaction altogether. The moment hangs in uncomfortable silence.
The emotional tension comes not from overt hostility, but from avoidance — the subtle, human discomfort of someone debating whether connection will require emotional effort, accountability, or vulnerability. The wheelchair user remains still but attentive, waiting for recognition, while the CEO’s body language suggests an internal conflict between empathy and self-protective detachment.
Image = A close-up shows a hand arranging three small wooden sticks on a textured purple surface, with the top stick reading IGNORE in red, the middle reading VS in black, and the bottom reading AVOID in red, suggesting a comparison or decision between ignoring and avoiding something.
To learn more about me as an award winning sight loss coach and advocate visit http://www.donnajodhan.com