English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In this essay, I analyze a protracted public controversy about whether Holland, Michigan should adopt an ordinance banning discrimination in housing and employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity. I argue that the controversy reveals what I am terming the inclusion paradox of local deliberation. Ordinance supporters’ efforts to foster ethos within the status quo’s political processes and identify with opponents worked to legitimize the very logics and assumptions that enable exclusion. I illustrate the inclusion paradox in how supporters build identification, what arguments they made, where they advanced their claims, and the fact that they did participate in the controversy. As such, the essay provides insights for rhetoric and argumentation scholars as well as advocates about how local rhetorics can enable or undermine inclusion and justice.

The inclusion paradox of local deliberation: the case of Holland, Michigan’s LGBTQ+ non-discrimination controversy