A recent debate started by an article has caused me to begin questioning the worth of good intentions. Specifically, is a good, well-meaning intention enough to justify poor execution?

For light context, this was an article that sparked debate about the lack of initiatives within the Queen’s Commerce Program supporting among other things, diversity in income, hiring, admissions, and support for marginalized groups. It examined the notion of privilege within the program, and the lack of help for those without said privilege. However, in it’s writing, it was an article that was, in my opinion, one that failed to perform the adequate research ahead of time or provide meaningful solutions.

To backtrack, I whole-heartedly agree that there should be some more supportive diversity initiatives within this program and school. I love this school, and it has provided me with opportunities to meet executives, hone my skills, and meet like-minded people. There are more opportunities, amazing people, and challenging ideas here than I have experienced anywhere else.

Racism continues to exist, with racist graffiti being sprayed on the walls of my school and students being assaulted for their race in this city. Privilege exists. I have sat through meetings where my peers complain about how once their father had spend $1500 to cover their cellular data overuse penalties, the $50+ Uber expenses sent to parents because they didn’t want to walk a few meters, what a pain it is to have to fly often to international destinations, and the heirloom LV bag waiting for them once they got a job. People skip class or loaf through this program because they have a job lined up or enough money that it does not matter, when there are those struggling to complete the program or choose to not attend for financial reasons. These are some real issues, though they are not always top of mind

I say this to highlight that the intention of the article was amazing. That the cause certainly has merit. But the execution was terrible. I could not agree with this article.

In failing to adequately research the article, it resulted in a piece of writing that was indefensible. It was full of holes, came off as a rant, and misrepresented statistics. This had the consequence of diluting its very real message and infuriating a good portion of the program, minorities included. No one listens when they are angry. And it’s important that people listen, particularly those who fail to agree, because the purpose of starting a debate is to convince these people that there is a need for change and to listen. Otherwise, you aggravate an “us vs them” mentality that is not helpful when tackling multi-lateral issues.

In a way, this article undermined the author’s cause, which is a shame.

When stating or assuming that “good intentions are enough” it brings to mind the quote “the mean justifies the end.” It doesn’t matter how you act to achieve a goal, so long as the goal is achieved. In parallel, the assumption here is that as long as good intentions exist, it doesn’t matter how you achieve this goal.

Donald Trump is the perfect example of this. I’m sure in his mind, he has some good intentions. He wants help the blue collar workers, reduce illegal immigration, and create jobs. Admirable goals, good intentions. In reality, he started a trade war which has hurt farmers,separated families at the border, and caused an iconic manufacturer to leave the country. Poor execution.

So intention needs to be supported by effective, tactful action and execution. Failing do so puts you in the company of someone like Trump, no matter how good your intentions might be. Trump’s intentions are good too. Actionably, for any initiative, this means at a minimum, doing thorough research ahead of time, consulting with key stakeholders, and reflecting thoughtfully on how messages or initiatives will be perceived by these stakeholders.

Good intentions are not enough.