Inclusion and Kant: Are We Treating Clients as Ends or Means?
When we talk about inclusion, we often talk about policy, access, enrollment, and services.
But there is a deeper question beneath all of that:
Are we treating children receiving therapies as ends in themselves or as means to something else?
The philosopher Immanuel Kant gave us a moral principle that still challenges institutions today. He argued that human beings must never be treated merely as a means to an end. In simple language: people must not be used.
Not for profit.
Not for reputation.
Not for convenience.
Not for performance.
They must be respected for who they are.
What Does This Look Like in Practice?
Let’s bring this into the world of therapy and inclusion.
A child enrolls for speech therapy, occupational therapy, behavioural support, or learning intervention.
The centre says:
“We are inclusive.”
“We provide specialized services.”
“We care deeply about progress.”
But we must ask:
Are therapy plans designed around the child’s real needs?
Or around what the centre can manage comfortably?
Are parents informed honestly about limitations?
Or are expectations raised to secure enrollment?
Are therapists supported properly?
Or overloaded because they are capable?
When therapy becomes a business model first and a service second, the child quietly shifts from being an end to being a means.
Signs a Child Is Being Treated as a Means
Enrollment is prioritised over preparedness.
Caseloads are expanded without increasing staff.
Progress reports are rushed or generic.
Parents are left to coordinate support alone.
Services reduce when financial returns reduce.
The child becomes:
a number,
a fee,
a marketing proof point,
or a symbol of being “inclusive.”
That is not inclusion.
That is instrumentalization!
What It Means to Treat a Child as an End
To treat a child as an end means:
Building structure before expanding enrollment.
Being honest about capacity.
Saying “we are not ready” when necessary.
Investing in therapist wellbeing.
Accepting that progress takes time and may not be dramatic.
Prioritizing dignity over display.
It means doing the right thing — even when it is not the most profitable thing.
The Hard Question for Us All
This reflection is not only for institutions.
It is for consultants.
For therapists.
For school owners.
For educational leaders.
Are we:
Sustaining inclusion?
Or performing inclusion?
Are we:
Protecting children’s dignity?
Or protecting our image?
Kant reminds us that morality is not about outcomes. It is about duty.
If we cannot sustain proper support, we have a duty not to pretend.
If we cannot serve well, we must pause.
If we expand beyond capacity, we must restructure.
Because children receiving therapies are not stepping stones to institutional growth.
They are human beings.
And human beings are never means.
They are ends.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to Relis Educators Hub Ltd.,
where we help you help every child thrive.☘️
Like & follow us on our:
Join our community for ongoing support:
Comments
Post a Comment