The Gatekeeper Problem – When Advocates Block the Change They Claim to Support
Not all resistance comes from institutions. Sometimes it comes from inside the movement itself — from those who say they want change, but slow it down when it starts to take shape. The gatekeeper problem reveals how advocacy spaces can end up protecting power instead of shifting it.
You’re pushing for change. You’ve mapped the power, built the pressure, told the story. And just when it starts to gain traction — someone from inside the movement steps in and says:
- “That’s not the right way to do it.”
- “You’re being too aggressive.”
- “We’re already working on this. Don’t rock the boat.”
What Is a Gatekeeper in Advocacy?
A gatekeeper is someone with positional or informal power in a cause space who controls who gets heard, what gets prioritised, and how fast change is allowed to move. They might be senior staff in organisations, sector “representatives” with government access, or well-known professionals who claim to speak for the group. Often, they believe they’re protecting the movement — but what they’re really protecting is their access, reputation, or comfort with decision-makers.
Case Study: Lois Curtis and the Battle for Community Inclusion
Background
Lois Curtis, a Black woman with cognitive and developmental disabilities, spent almost twenty years in institutions despite being capable of living in her community. She asked for inclusion — and was denied.
The Legal Breakthrough
She became the lead plaintiff in Olmstead v. L.C., the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled unjustified segregation of disabled people is discrimination. It was a monumental victory — on paper.
The Slowdown
Implementation dragged. Some organisations that had celebrated the win publicly were quietly slowing it behind the scenes — protecting relationships, funding, or reputation. That’s the essence of gatekeeping: saying “we support this,” while deciding who gets to act and when.
How to Spot a Gatekeeper
Gatekeepers often sound strategic — but their language hides control. Here are the tells:
- “Wait your turn” or “Slow down” — Ask whose comfort the delay protects.
- They won’t share media, meetings or platforms — Collaboration feels like competition to them.
- They call lived experience “too emotional” — They privilege tone over truth.
- “This isn’t how it’s done” — They defend a process that serves them, not those most affected.
Why It Matters
Gatekeeping slows progress not by open opposition, but through subtle management of tone and timing. It reframes urgency as impatience, dissent as risk, and innovation as threat. It tells the people living the issue to wait — while power remains comfortable and unchanged.
What to Do When You Encounter Gatekeeping
- Don’t fight for scraps — build your own platforms. If they won’t share the mic, create your own. Truth doesn’t need permission.
- Document their positioning. Gatekeepers often rewrite their role later. Keep receipts.
- Know the difference between caution and control. Caution protects people. Control protects power.
- Find others who move at the pace of urgency. Collective momentum outpaces gatekeeping every time.
Gatekeeping Isn’t Strategy — It’s Control
Movements don’t need more managers of the message. They need people willing to risk proximity for impact — people who understand that waiting quietly has never driven systemic change. If you’ve felt resistance from people on “your side,” you’re not overreacting. You’re meeting the quiet wall of control disguised as care.
The good news: You don’t need their approval to keep moving.
Gatekeepers remind us that advocacy isn’t just about fighting institutions — it’s about challenging comfort wherever it blocks progress. The real work of change belongs to those willing to act before permission is granted.