My fear is that, instead of finding new, edgy, creative, ways to achieve their mission, organizations will take the path of least resistance and resort to plain vanilla appeals to the lowest, common denominator. The "lowest, common, denominator" almost always being a euphemism for the dominant culture. (In 2009, in America, that would still be WASP and male, still, overwhelmingly.) Acting to avoid the risk of alienating people, organizations could actually help entrench it further. Ettiquette "experts", such as Miss Manners, like to define their role as helping people avoid embarassment and conflict by educating people on accepted norms of behavior. But, "whose norms of behavior?" and "who accepts them?". Aren't they simply enforcers of the norms of the dominant culture? Anyhow, the issue to me isn't what is the "accepted" way of doing things. The issue is how one behaves when cultures inevitably clash. Ideally, one expresses themselves honestly and authentically. If another finds it offensive, the objection is honestly and authentically brought up. Discussion ensues, understanding is reached. No need for an arbiter/imposer of dominant cultural norms. Realistically, and particularly when one culture so overwhelmingly dominates, it gets very complicated very quickly. A situation that one person responds with "oh, she meant well, can't you just let it go?" or "that's only one or two objections, what was the overall response rate?" may yield a different response from someone who views it as yet another bias against them in a long line of biases. Unlike institutional biases faced everyday on fundamental levels, this one can be effectively responded to instantly: 1) DELETE 2) post/tweet/blog about how insensitive that appeal was, 3) Don't ever support that organization again.