I think that "our doors are not open to everyone" and "membership is a privilege that may be refused or revoked" is redundant.  Again, I get whiplash when you say "we want anyone" and then "we aren't open to everyone".  Inclusiveness implies that we *are* open to everyone, every person.  The idea that membership can be revoked or refused is implicitly based upon *behavior*, whereas "we are not open to everyone" sounds implicitly ad hominem.  Ad hominem is not okay by me.

Membership implies participation; we outline that separately in other values.  Why are we explicitly naming it here?  Are there other things that are implied by membership that we're leaving out?  By adding "participation" on to "membership", we're actually decreasing the scope of the statement.  If the intent is to say that "you must be a member to participate", then say that, but that's a different point to make entirely.  Is the issue the word "membership"?  What about "Your relationship with NIL is a privilege that may be refused or revoked."?

I don't just want people to *feel* safe and valued, I want them to *be* safe and valued.  I don't like the lack of parallelism in "background, identity, or [level of] experience" : I think "level of" is implied by "experience", but removing "level of" also expands "experience" to mean so much more than that.  And for something this absolutely central, I don't think we should "want" to be something (I can *want* to be hugh heffner but that won't make me any better in bed), I think we should be more active than that.  We should strive, or make every effort, or aim, aspire, pine for the fjords, etc.

Updated suggestion:

>  NIL values inclusiveness and diversity. We strive to create a space where everyone is safe and valued, regardless of background, identity, or experience. Your relationship with NIL is a privilege; it may be refused or revoked.