Museums must recognise class inequality in their EDI work

Across the UK, museums have embraced equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) with conviction. We have worked hard to widen participation, challenge discrimination and ensure our institutions reflect the communities we serve. These aims matter deeply, and they are transforming our sector for the better.

But there is a growing question we can no longer ignore: are we overlooking the people who are already the most disadvantaged, particularly white working‑class boys and men, because class is not included in our equality frameworks?

This is not a culture‑war argument, it is a structural one. And museums, as civic institutions, must be willing to confront it.

The evidence is that class disadvantage is real, persistent and measurable.

White working‑class boys eligible for free school meals have the lowest educational attainment of any major demographic group in England. They are least likely to progress to university, least likely to enter cultural professions, and least likely to visit museums.

These outcomes do not stem from EDI policies, they are the result of decades of economic change, deindustrialisation and declining social mobility. But because class is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, this disadvantage often sits outside the scope of our inclusion strategies.

In other words, the group performing worst in key indicators is the one least recognised in our equality work.

The risk is that when people feel invisible, division grows.

EDI aims to reduce inequality – but any framework has limits. When people feel those limits exclude them, resentment can grow. Research shows that individuals who perceive themselves as overlooked by inclusion initiatives often experience:

- status threat;  
- alienation;
- a sense of cultural displacement;
- the belief that “equality is for everyone except us”.

These feelings do not emerge because EDI is discriminatory, but because people who are struggling do not see themselves reflected in the conversation.

Museums cannot afford to ignore this. We are trusted public spaces. If we want to build social cohesion, we must understand where division comes from- and how to prevent it.

Challenge for museums

Museums have made significant progress in representing ethnic minorities, women, LGBTQ+ communities, disabled people and other groups who have historically been excluded. This work must continue.

But we must also ask:

- Where do working‑class communities fit into our inclusion strategies?  
- Do our programmes reach the men and boys who statistically engage least with culture?  
- Are we addressing the structural barriers that prevent them from entering our sector?  
- Do our narratives reflect their histories, labour, and identities?

If we do not ask these questions, we risk reinforcing the very inequalities we aim to dismantle. Class is not a protected characteristic, but the biases remain.

A way forward

Museums must expand inclusion without diluting it. Recognising class disadvantage does not mean reducing our commitment to other groups, it means strengthening EDI by making it more complete.

Museums can:

• Integrate class and socio‑economic background into audience development  
• Partner with schools and colleges serving disadvantaged communities  
• Create pathways into museum work for young people who have never considered it- and with apprenticeships and not university courses.
• Tell stories of industrial heritage, labour history, and working‑class creativity  
• Ensure our spaces feel welcoming to people who may not see museums as “for them”

This is not about shifting focus. It is about widening it.

Inclusion must mean everyone

EDI has helped museums become more open, more representative, and more socially responsible. But if we want to build truly inclusive institutions, we must recognise that class inequality intersects with every other form of disadvantage, and that ignoring it leaves a gap in our mission.

White working‑class men are not “the problem”. They are part of the public we serve.  

They deserve to be seen, heard, and included – not because of political narratives, but because the data shows they are among the most disadvantaged groups in the country.

Museums can lead the way by acknowledging this openly and responding with empathy, evidence and action.

Inclusion must mean everyone – and that includes the people who have been left behind the longest.

Alexander Goodger is the director of Stourbridge Glass Museum