Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Introduction

The acronym DEI stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion. It refers to organizational frameworks that aim to advance “the equitable treatment and complete involvement of all individuals,” with a focus on categories “who were previously underrepresented or victims of discrimination” due to disability or identity. Diverse, equitable, and inclusive concepts collectively signify “three interconnected values” that organizations want to codify using DEI frameworks. Inclusion and diversity should occasionally be separated, according to some academics. The term “equity” is replaced with equality in certain frameworks, mostly in Britain i.e. equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). Justice, equity, diversity and inclusion (JEDI or EDIJ), diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging (DEIB), and diversity, equity, inclusion and access (DEIA, IDEA, or DEAI) are some more versions.

Diversity is the existence of variation in identity as well as identity politics within the employees of an organization. It covers things like opinion or age as well as culture, gender, religion, ethnicity, handicap, and class, among other things. The term “equity” alludes to ideas of justice and fairness, such as substantive equality and fair remuneration. More precisely, equity typically entails addressing societal inequalities, providing tools and “power to make decisions to communities that have traditionally been marginalized,” as well as taking “individuals’ particular situations into account, modifying attitudes in accordance to ensure the final outcome is equal.” Last but not least, inclusion is defined as developing an environment within the company where “all workers believe that their opinions will be acknowledged” and where they have a feeling of integration and belonging.

Most frequently, “training” initiatives like diversity training are referred to as DEI. Even while DEI is most commonly associated with training in businesses, it is used in a wide range of organizations, including academic institutions, healthcare facilities, and schools.

DEI policies and initiatives have come under fire in recent times. Some of the criticism has focused on the instruments themselves, like diversity training, and how effective they are; others have covered topics such as their impact on freedom of academia and free speech, in addition to more general philosophical and political issues.

History

USA’s Affirmative Action plan gave rise to the DEI policy. A clause requiring federal contractors to “take proactive steps to make sure that candidates get hired and workers are handled [fairly] throughout employment, with no reference to their creed, national origin, national origin, or race” appeared in “Executive Order 10925,” that was enacted by John F. Kennedy (President) on 6^th March 1961. This is when the expression “affirmative action” gained legal traction. It was employed to encourage acts that lead to equal treatment. Executive Order No. 11246 (Sep 1965) issued by Lyndon Johnson (President) mandated that government organizations “hire with no regard to religion, national origin, and race” and “accept affirmative action in order to guarantee that workers receive equal treatment during work, with no regard to color, race, sex, national origin, or religion.” Discrimination based on national origin, race, religion, color, or sex was outlawed by the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

The Civil Rights Act and the executive order both prohibited group favors. Hubert Humphrey, the Senate’s floor leader for the legislation, said that it “would outlaw special consideration for any specific group” and that “I will be eating my hat if legislation leads to discriminatory quotas.” Despite the absence of a clear legal provision authorizing discrimination in favor of marginalized groups, affirmative action would come to be associated with goals, objectives, and quotas as determined by Supreme Court rulings. Racial biases have been expressly prohibited by various state legislation, and attempts to explicitly legalize racial preferences were met with failure.

With affirmative action, underrepresented groups in society are meant to be less underrepresented and given equal chance at opportunities as the majority group. There are a number of reasons behind the policy’s conceptual foundation, such as restitution for prior discrimination, rectifying inequality in the present, and fostering diversity in society. This is frequently used in political and educational contexts to guarantee that members of a society’s designated groups are granted access to all possibilities for training, education, and promotion.

Proponents of affirmative action have said that it is necessary to address current discrimination as well as make up for historical discrimination, persecution, or exploitation by a culture’s ruling elite. In recent times, the notion of preference for historically marginalized populations has expanded to encompass inclusion, equity, and diversity, rather than just discrimination.

Diversity now entered the constitutional law equation in the well-known Regents of the University of California v. Bakke ruling of 1978. Quotas were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, although taking race into account was permissible when attempting to promote “diversity” in the classroom.

The mid-1980s saw a surge in the popularity of diversity topics. During the 1980s, as Ronald Reagan (President) warned to repeal affirmative action and equality regulations, US employers employed equality and affirmative action experts to make the case that workforce diversity should be viewed as an advantage instead of merely a legal restriction. Their main point was that businesses should encourage diversity since it is beneficial to them rather than because it is required by law. Following that, scientists began examining several theories on the financial advantages of diversity & diversity management—a concept described as the “economic scenario for diversity.”

Workplace multiculturalism & diversity management have been defined as having both operational and conceptual strategies and initiatives within the companies that guarantee the ability of the diverse groups that make up society to take part at various levels of the organizations in an effective and meaningful way.

In 2003, businesses invested $8 billion a year in diversity. In 2019, Time magazine claimed how the DEI sector “exploded” in terms of scope following the presidential victory of Donald Trump (2016) and the spread of the BLM and #MeToo movements. According to a 2019 study conducted in academia, funding for DEI initiatives had grown by 27% during the 5 academic years prior.

The inclusion and diversity market is expected to be worth $17.2 billion until 2027, from a 2020 projection of $7.5 billion, and of that, $3.4 billion comes from the US. DEI has become more prevalent than D&I & encompasses a wide range of approaches.

Following George Floyd’s death in 2020 (May), New York magazine reported in 2021 that “the business grew astronomically bigger than ever.” As reported by The Economist, surveys conducted by multinational corporations reveal that since 2010, the proportion of persons hired for positions with the terms “inclusion” and “diversity” in the job description has nearly quadrupled.

By 2024, the language around affirmative action has been progressively replaced with a focus on inclusion, diversity, and equity; nine states have completely banned its usage in the hiring process. In the 2023 case of Harvard v. Students for Fair Admissions, the US Supreme Court categorically disapproved of racial affirmative action for college admissions. According to the ruling of the Court, affirmative action policies “lack clear objective ends, include prejudice, and are not sufficiently targeted and measured to justify the application of race. Admissions procedures have never been allowed to operate in that manner, therefore we won’t let it continue today.

Techniques and Arguments

DEI proponents stated in an article from 2018 that as firms and enterprises are a part of the wider world, they are not completely autonomous from societal problems. The authors contend that in order to enhance teamwork and relationships among coworkers, DEI is necessary. Hiring and retaining staff, establishing efficient channels of communication, providing pertinent training, and enforcing workplace conduct are just a few of the actions that organizations specify in a DEI strategy.

By 2022, numerous US colleges and universities began committing to DEI in a variety of ways, such as by developing policies, and plans, and hiring US-based staff people who are specifically focused on the initiative. Nowadays, supporting DEI is required by many accrediting bodies. By 2014, in educational institutions, DEI knowledge was widely available to both faculty and students and several of them mandated training sessions and conferences on the subject. In addition, promoting diversity is a secondary goal of many university grants and opportunities. Higher education diversity can be challenging since diverse students frequently feel that they’re required to meet a “diversity quota,” and it can be quite emotionally taxing.

In the field of medicine, DEI reflective teams have been utilized to improve mental health practitioners’ cultural awareness. In immediate clinical work involving clients, their loved ones, and larger systems, and even in professional oversight and teams, these reflective spaces support mental health workers’ reflexivity and understanding of DEI-related concerns.

In an effort to assist kids who are confronting social inequalities, DEI posts also aim to create advocates for students at public schools by providing staff training and resources. Some allyship proponents believe that spontaneous speech is an essential ability for supporters to act authentically in their words and behaviors in daily life.

Controversy and Criticism

The Chronicle of Higher Education claims that colleges are responding defensively to the critique. Certain educational institutions are eliminating the term “diversity” from employment titles and workplace names; others are shutting down spaces on campus designated for students based on their identities; a few are discontinuing diversity education; and still, others have stopped requesting written confirmations of their dedication to inclusiveness from each of their teachers and staff.

Diversity Training

One prominent tactic in DEI initiatives is diversity training, which has been criticized time and time again for being unproductive or even harmful. “Academics are beginning to agree that a lot of anti-discrimination laws are ineffective,” according to The Economist. Worse, they frequently go wrong. It’s a common misconception that these initiatives serve primarily as litigation defense. The absence of varied Diversity Managers and a general DEI approach that ignores particular problems Black professionals encounter have also been cited as reasons for the absence of progress made in establishing ethnic diversity in business leadership, especially for Black employees.

“No advantages in a typical workplace” were found in diversity education in a 2007 research of 829 organizations spanning 31 years; nevertheless, if education was required, the results were negative. Professor of sociology & diversity researcher, Frank Dobbin of Harvard University states that, “Generally speaking, historically marginalized populations such as Black women and men, Asian-American women and men, Hispanic women and men, and White women do not benefit from the all-hands-on-deck, “everybody needs to undergo diversity training” model that is popular in large firms.”

Diversity declarations within academic institutions

It has grown contentious and drawn criticism for academic institutions to require applicants and faculty members to submit “diversity statements” outlining their “past efforts” and goals “for furthering DEI” should they be hired. Asserting that “ambiguous or ideologically driven DEI declaration policies can easily work as a litmus test for compliance to current ideological views on DEI” and that “faculty members are penalized for keeping different views on issues of general concern,” the FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) has branded such procedures as an assault on freedom of academia.

A 2022 poll by the American Association of University Professors found that 45.6% of American universities and colleges with a student body size of over 5,000 incorporate DEI considerations in their tenure norms, making up a fifth of these institutions. A few colleges have started giving diversity declarations a lot of weight throughout the hiring process. For instance, during the 2018–2019 recruitment cycle, the University of California (Berkeley) disqualified 75% of candidates solely based on diversity remarks for five professor posts in the Department of Life Sciences.

Mandatory diversity statements should be abolished, according to the AFA (Academic Freedom Alliance), who claim that doing so “encourages skepticism and deception” and “removes the line between expertise in academia and ideological obedience.” In opposition to required diversity declarations, Jonathan Haidt (social psychologist) quit the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. Haidt claimed that “required diversity declarations compel numerous academics to abandon their quasi-fiduciary obligation to the reality by twirling, spinning, or developing some uncertain relationship to diversity,” given that “the majority academic study has little in common with diversity.” Additional critiques include the claims that it undermines the First Amendment, “disregards merit,” is associated with affirmative action, or serves as a pledge of allegiance.

According to a FIRE survey of 1500 respondents, faculty members have strong opinions on diversity assertions. Of them, half believe that they are “an ideological evaluation that breaches academic liberty,” while the remaining half believe that their opinion more closely matches the meaning of diversity declarations as “an acceptable prerequisite to getting a position at a college or university.”

Legislation prohibiting required diversity declarations has been enacted in a number of US states.

Equity vs Equality

As per the DEI models, “equity differs from equality since equality means treating everybody with the assumption that their life experiences are essentially the same.” It is general knowledge, particularly among detractors, that equity refers to “equality of result” and equality to “equality of opportunity.” Instead of emphasizing equality, some have objected to equity, claiming that the latter is incompatible with non-discrimination and an emphasis on merit. Charles Lipson (Political scientist) has argued that “equity” represents an “obligation to discriminate,” endangering the idea of “equality according to the law.” Meanwhile, Jordan Peterson (Canadian psychologist), an ardent DEI critic, has dubbed equity “one of the most unacceptable, entitled, ignorant and risky” of the 3 concepts that name DEI.

The discussion has also strayed into the field of politics. A representative for Governor Greg Abbott of Texas responded to the claims made by the governor that DEI projects are “illegal,” saying that the problem is not diversity but rather that equity and equality are not the same. People in Texas are given opportunities to progress depending on their talent and aptitude.

Impact of DEI regulations on academic freedom and free speech

High-profile instances of disagreement on university campuses in the last few years have spurred discussion about how DEI affects free speech, freedom of thought in academia, and the campus atmosphere. Dorian Abbott’s (astrophysicist) 2021 guest lecture at MIT was canceled due to his criticism of DEI programs, which caused a stir in the press. MIT appointed a panel to look at the condition of freedom of academia in the university as a consequence. When Stanford Law School’s Associate Dean (DEI) Tirien Steinbach joined demonstrators in opposing Kyle Duncan’s (Judge) of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit visit on campus in 2023, it caused controversy and media attention. Wall Street Journal’s editorial board expressed their opinion that DEI facilities have “developed into instruments to silence and restrict speech” following the incident.

The next week, the Journal published a response by Steinbach headlined “Diversity and Free Speech Can Coexist at Stanford.” Additionally, a ten-page paper outlining Stanford Law School’s stance on free expression was released by Dean Jenny S. Martínez, addressing the matter. Martinez wrote in it that she thought “the belief in DEI really implies that we have to safeguard the free dissemination of every view” and added that the institution’s dedication to DEI “should be executed in manners that are in line with its dedication to academic liberty and free expression.”

She stated that the dedication “wouldn’t entail the administration of the school announcing institutional stances on a variety of contemporary political and social issues, regularly announcing positions on current events in the news, or barring or denouncing speakers who have opinions on political and social matters that certain individuals or a large portion of our community find offensive.” This description of an “inclusive culture” has drawn criticism from her, who said that it “may result in establishing and upholding an institutional doctrine.”

A paper outlining a “conflict in the scientific community between conventional liberal standards” and a “fresh postmodern perspective,” which the authors perceive as being “enforced by DEI agents and bureaucracies,” was published in April 2023 by a team of twenty-nine scientists, which included Arieh Warshel and Dan Shechtman (both Nobel laureates). The authors further contend that this “endangers the whole scientific enterprise.” After being rejected by the leading journals and published in the Journal of Controversial Ideas, authors Jerry Coyne and Anna Krylov, argued in the Wall Street Journal op-ed that their focus on worth—”once innocuous and permissible […] now outré and controversial, even within the hard sciences”—was the reason behind this.

A fresh round of debate over DEI in job settings and its effects on free speech was sparked by the suicide of Richard Bilkszto, an ex-Toronto principal, in 2023. Following an incident during a DEI instructional seminar in 2021, Bilkszto filed a suit against the District School Board-Toronto. He alleged that the workshop and its repercussions had damaged his image and was eventually diagnosed as having “anxiety due to an office event.”

Bilkszto’s attorney has openly connected his client’s passing to the event and its fallout. Following Bilkszto’s passing, Stephen Lecce, Minister of Education- Ontario, declared that he had requested an investigation and “alternatives to revamp training for educators and improve responsibility on boards of education in order to ensure that this doesn’t happen again.” He described the accusations made by Bilkszto prior to his passing as “significant and disturbing.” A handful of well-known right-wing activists who want to “roll back projects (DEI)” have also taken notice of the incident, as reported by The Globe and Mail. The event’s anti-racism instructor expressed their gratitude for Lecce’s review and claimed that the event has been “armed to undermine and impede the efforts of individuals dedicated to DEI”.

By exploring 10 ways on how to build an inclusive work culture you can address criticisms and enhance DEI’s effectiveness.

Antisemitism

DEI was charged with disregarding antisemitism or perhaps fueling it. Antisemitism has not received much attention within the DEI education, according to Canadian Antisemitism Education Foundation’s Andria Spinde. Following the Hamas onslaught on Israel on October 7, 2023, and the ensuing conflict in Gaza, the connection between antisemitism and DEI on campuses came under increased examination. As a critic, Tabia Lee (formerly the director of DEI at De Anza College (California) asserts that DEI structures, with their “tyrants and the persecuted” dichotomy—in which “Jews are unequivocally put in the tyrant category” and called “white oppressors”—promote antisemitism. She asserts that she faced resistance when trying to bring Jews into the DEI.

One counselor specifically mentioned her initiatives to put Jewish students “on a comparable footing as marginalized groups” when her detractors requested the College Board to remove her from the position. Additionally, the Brandeis Centre highlights that the Stanford University DEI committee claimed that “Jews, as opposed to different minority groups, have privilege as well as authority, Jews and subjects of Jew-hatred are not deserving of or require the focus paid by the DEI group” in response to students’ complaints about anti-Semitic acts on campus.

Several Republican legislators blamed DEI for a spate of anti-Semitic acts that occurred in American colleges during 2023–2024. Burgess Owens claimed that DEI activities “are not at all friendly for Jews.” Bill Ackman (businessman) and Heather Mac Donald (columnist) also criticized DEI for failing to include Jews and for encouraging antisemitism. One donor withdrew a $100 million gift from the University of Pennsylvania following the issue surrounding antisemitism “since he believed the institution was prioritizing D.E.I. over improving the academic standing of the business school.”

Ideology and politicization

Some have argued that DEI has politicized higher education by transforming it into an individual philosophy or “political mission.” American universities have come under fire from CNN journalist Fareed Zakaria for “having fallen this far on an ideological road” that “these institutions and their presidents are unable to make the argument convincingly that at the center of an educational institution is the freedom of speech of ideas.” He claims that “the glaring absence of diversity in universities, diversity in politics, which obviously impacts the capacity to analyze numerous problems, is not handled.”

Dog-whistle diversity

The phrase “dog-whistle diversity” was first used in 2017 for TIME by writer Christine Michel Carter. Inspired by the expression “dog whistle politics,” dog whistle diversity refers to the recruitment of groups that have historically experienced discrimination or underrepresentation from organizations due to social issues related to social, corporate governance, or the environment. Recruiting these groups implies the company lacks good governance of diversity or participation, but to the groups employed, it signals the company is more receptive to a varied workforce, which is an indication that is classified for stakeholders and investors.

Disability community

DEI projects unintentionally marginalize people with disabilities, said some detractors. Stephen Friedman, a professor, stated in a 2017 essay for The Conversation that “entities who are genuine about DEI have to embrace a framework for creating mutually beneficial outcomes where both commercial and community goods coexist”. In 2023, a story in Time stated that “Individuals who have disabilities are constantly neglected”.

Numerous DEI activists and leaders have expressed agreement with this viewpoint. Sara Hart Weir, the Commission for Disability Employment’s cofounder and the ex-chief executive officer and President of the NDSS (National Down Syndrome Society), contends that in order for DEI to succeed in the US, employers and policymakers must be proactive in reaching out to the disabled population that they have historically shunned – “If you promote diversity, but neglect disability, you’re actually doing it incorrectly,” asserts Corinne Grey.

Public and political reaction

1. Corporate

Companies established specialized diversity, equality, and inclusion units in the wake of George Floyd’s 2020 murder, signaling their significant dedication to equity based on race. The Washington Post revealed at the start of 2024 that Business America is seeing a shift away from hiring internal DEI staff members and towards outsourcing the task to outside consultants. Before declining by five percent the following year as well as eight percent the following year, the amount of DEI positions peaked at the start of 2023. About twice as many people have left DEI employment as have left non-DEI positions due to attrition. An upsurge in lawsuits and political hostility to systematic efforts to improve race equality has coincided with the reduction of DEI programs.

2. Higher education

Legislators controlled by Republicans in state legislatures have been debating anti-DEI proposals since 2023, mostly pertaining to state universities and colleges. There are strong legal pressures around the downgrade. With its ruling in Harvard v. Students for Fair Admissions in June 2023, the Supreme Court completely overturned long-standing equal protection legislation. Although employers were unaffected, this decision essentially outlawed the application of affirming criteria in university admissions. However, since then, conservatives have banded together to undo racial laws in a number of economic sectors. Seventy-three proposals were put forward in state legislative bodies in 2023–2024, according to a February 2024 Chronicle of Higher Education report. Only eight of these bills have passed into law; the remaining twenty-five are still pending. Texas and Florida passed two bills into law; North Carolina, Tennessee, North Dakota, and Utah passed one apiece. As of today, job opportunities, admission, or advancement at public colleges in Florida cannot be contingent upon passing “political loyalty evaluations.” Unless mandated by federal regulations, another Florida legislation forbids public institutions from using federal or state monies for DEI. One Texas legislation forbids DEI procedures or initiatives—including training—that do not align with the Texas Constitution’s equalities clause. Compulsory diversity training and DEI facilities and staff are prohibited by the other statute. Moreover, it outlaws identity-based diversity declarations that express a preference for a particular race or gender.

3. Media and Entertainment

Several well-known directors and actors in the film business have criticized recently imposed diversity rules, including those of the Academy Awards. Starting in 2024, a movie must satisfy 2 of the 4 diversity requirements for it to be considered for the nomination of best-picture. Richard Dreyfuss (actor) claimed that moral legislation should not apply to the arts and said that the inclusion and diversity requirements of Academy Awards “make me puke. A number of prominent cinema filmmakers who are Academy Award voters have openly stated their disapproval of the diversity rules in the New York Post, calling them “contrived. Armond White, a film critic, compared the new requirements to the infamous Hays Code and denounced them as “forward-looking fascism”.

Conservative media outlets, like National Review, additionally have frequently attacked DEI, claiming it is anti-meritocratic and dictatorial, according to columnist George Leff.

4. Politics

Particularly in Texas’s state legislature and that of other states controlled by Republicans, DEI gained prominence in US politics during the 2020s. Regulation addressing DEI in government agencies is being considered in multiple states or has already been passed. An amendment prohibiting the use of public monies for DEI programs at colleges & universities was enacted by the Texas Legislature’s House of Representatives in March 2023. A law prohibiting DEI-promoting offices and programs at publicly financed colleges & universities was passed in Texas in May 2023. March 2023 saw the advancement of a measure in Iowa that forbids funding of DEI at public universities.

Numerous well-known Republicans, such as Greg Abbott (Texas Governor), Ron DeSantis (Florida Governor), and 2024 presidential contender Vivek Ramaswamy, cast themselves as opponents. Federal and state funding for DEI programs at colleges was outlawed by the Florida Education Board in 2024 (January).

DEI structures have also been implemented in the armed forces, which has been a major source of political controversy. Republicans have long criticized these efforts, calling them “divisive” and damaging armed forces recruiting and effectiveness, while the Democrats have stood by them as bolstering and advantageous. Along with party lines, the House of Representatives decided on July 14, 2023, to prohibit all DEI facilities and projects within the military and the Pentagon. Four Republican lawmakers and all Democratic members opposed the move. With the Senate controlled by Democrats, nothing has been done.

5. Public boycotts

There has been political pushback against corporate DEI initiatives in the US, especially against “woke” marketing. As a result, politicians and activists have called for the rejection of specific corporations, including Disney, Anheuser-Busch, Chick-fil-A, and Target. These boycotts, according to The Hill columnist Jonathan Turley, have “some success.”

Progressives have responded by accusing a few of these firms of “stepping back” or not fulfilling their DEI pledges due to the incidents.