(This short essay was related to a question regarding my perspectives of diversity and inclusion within state and federal government.)
As an English major, I would first clarify that language and meanings of words change with time; they are not fixed like anchors into a seabed; words change and evolve with time. The word "diversity" evokes quite a different meaning today than it did a century or two ago, and its meaning is likely to change again in the coming years. At present, Diversity refers to the collection of people from different backgrounds and cultures. Inclusion, on the other hand, describes the way these people are included or valued within an organization. (In the past, the word "assimilated" might have been used, but today it has fallen out of favor as it suggests that members of unique groups must surrender a degree of their uniqueness in the process of belonging.) In one sense, however, inclusion or welcoming of diversity boils down to respect, courtesy, and a willingness to listen and try to understand members of different groups.
The second part of the question could be taken a few different ways. For instance, the external nature of courtesy and respect has not changed so very much over time. What has changed is a tendency in modern culture to try to re-package familiar concepts or ideas in such a way that we may sometimes fail to recognize them for what they are. Be that as it may, I would suggest that diversity and inclusion hold a particular importance for the Modernization Unit due to the interaction of unit members with such a wide and varied audience of people--from external technicians and advisors to members of the legislature or internal staff. If respect for others fails to exist, it could be damaging to the agency's reputation as well as the project's timeline towards completion.
As a demonstration for my attentiveness for this area, I Raised Concerns years ago about serious OED failures in its communications with those for whom English represented a second language (ESL). A number of us pointed out, for instance, that required letters for new employers were unavailable in Spanish or Russian. I also raised concerns regarding a cultural perspective within Tax that believed ESL speakers could understand English "if they really wanted to do so." (A former Tax manager told this to me behind closed doors.) Today, OED is a much more respectful place for minority business owners.
Sounding a note of constructive criticism, however, I would suggest that some of the recent state training in this area is guilty of two primary errors. First, the simplistic nature of the cultural differences section encourages racial stereotypes; this is hardly helpful. Second, a concern has been raised among some that elements of the training seem to support something akin to a religious position concerning what could be described as secular humanism. This is a complex discussion with philosophical, religious, and constitutional dimensions, and this is likely not the appropriate place to address these in significant depth--except to say that to fully understand these complicated issues one really needs to be a deep thinker rather than a follower of the crowd. Be that as it may, though, for me diversity and inclusion really boil down to respect and courtesy, and these are behaviors I demonstrate each and every day of my life.
