I’ve been reading Kim Block’s excellent summer series:
- Part 1: Duty to Accommodate – Power of the Human Rights Code
- Part 2(A)- Duty to Accommodate – Discrimination Test
- Part 2(B): Duty to Accommodate – Reasonable Justification
- Part 3 – Duty to Accommodate – Meaningful Inquiry
- Part 4 – Duty to Accommodate – Duty to Consult
- Part 5 – Duty to Accommodate – Duty to Facilitate
- Part 6 – Duty to Accommodate – Pulling it all together
I’m grateful for the clarity and courage her writing brings to this conversation. Her work reminds me that human rights are not abstract ideals, but living obligations owed to every child.
At the same time, I’ve experienced real blowback when using legal language in meetings. Sometimes the mention of a right is perceived as a threat, and the invocation of a Code is received as conflict. I’ve been meditating on what it means to speak from that legal foundation while still remaining collaborative in tone—especially when what I want is care, understanding, and change.
This document is my attempt to hold both: a values-driven way of speaking that makes room for dignity, while still making clear that the duty to accommodate is neither optional nor cosmetic.
Cultural uses of “light” that obscure severity
I’ve also been thinking about how advocates—especially women and mothers—are often required to soften our tone, temper our truths, and present only the light version of what we know to be urgent. “Light,” in these contexts, becomes a mask we wear to be allowed in the room.
- Gaslight: a deliberate manipulation that makes someone question their own perception of reality—now a shorthand for coercive control.
- Sadism light: the version of cruelty that comes with plausible deniability; softer tone, same damage.
- Trauma-lite: distress sanitised for workplace conversation; tears removed for palatability.
- Patriarchy light: equal pay slogans on top of structural inequity, often served with pink logos.
- Compliance light: the illusion of choice offered to students who are already cornered.
- Exclusion light: you’re not suspended, you’re just invited to leave and come back when you’re “ready.”
- Oppression light: when policy harms are described as “unfortunate outcomes.”
- Control light: when institutions coerce without threat, because the structure itself does the disciplining.
And yet, the word light also carries possibility. A light in the dark. A way through. A way to speak that illuminates.
Tips
So here are some legal light responses—firm, grounded, softly spoken, and sharp. I hope they offer a light in the dark for your advocacy efforts.