Don’t DOG(E) on DEI

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is a framework that many schools, workplaces, and communities across the country have adopted in order to promote equitable values. The term encompasses a variety of programs that aim to foster more diverse and inclusive workplaces for those who have been historically excluded or underrepresented in these environments throughout the United States. Many megacorporations, such as Google and Meta, had adopted these programs in hopes of being seen as more inclusive.

However, due to a wave of conservative Trump administration rhetoric, these programs have been slandered for being too “woke” and “ruining” what would otherwise be meritocracies. The increasingly common narrative is that DEI allows unqualified minority applicants to take the place of qualified applicants solely on the basis of identity. On his first day in office, Donald Trump signed a number of executive orders dismantling DEI, both federally and in the private sector.

As a result, hundreds of private companies have begun to remove their DEI programs due to this political pressure. Just this February, Google announced the rollback of its diversity initiatives that were originally implemented in 2020 following the Black Lives Matter movement. Meta both eliminated their DEI programs and publicly stated they were ending their efforts to source from diversely-owned businesses. Both companies cited the Trump administration’s recent orders as the reason for these rollbacks.

 To make matters worse, DEI has been used as a scapegoat for various policy mishaps and American tragedies over the past year. For example, as wildfires raged across California and  devastated millions, high ranking officials pinned the blame for the natural disaster on Los Angeles fire chief Kristin Crowley being a “DEI hire.” However, this couldn’t have been farther from the truth. It was abundantly clear that Crowley was extremely qualified for her position: she tested in the top 50 of more than 16,000 firefighters from her department and served in nearly every LAFD department prior to becoming the first female LAFD fire chief. Unfortunately, this is just one blatant example of many from the past years. Scapegoating DEI, instead of implementing truly effective policy reform, prevents the U.S. from actually taking steps to solve the problems our country is actually facing. 

Not only has DEI been used as a scapegoat for countless political issues, but DEI has also been entirely misconstrued. These misconceptions are not only harmful because they tarnish the image of DEI, but they tangibly harm marginalized communities and slow or reverse progress on important issues. Critical “anti-wokeism” campaigns are led by powerful public figures such as Charlie Kirk and Elon Musk who publicly announce their skepticism of minorities in positions of power. This includes referring to diverse workers as “DEI hires,” implying that they were unqualified for their positions and did not earn them on their own merit. This rhetoric is offensive and makes many marginalized groups fearful of being viewed as “token diverse” and supposedly unfit employees. 

The idea that DEI programs are incompatible with maintaining meritocracy is inherently misguided. The most common misconception comes from the idea that the minorities hired under DEI programs are simply not as qualified as their counterparts, which is why they don’t gain the same opportunities as others without DEI initiatives. However, vast studies have time and time again proven that it is not a lack of merit but rather discrimination that contributes to this demographic makeup. A study conducted in 2020 found that non-minority applicants had 53 percent more callbacks and 145 percent more job offers than their equally-qualified minority counterparts. Factors such as ethnic names play a part in this; further studies have found that applicants with stereotypically “white” names had up to 50 percent more callbacks. These disparities have tangible consequences: they prolong inequalities for marginalized groups across America. Indeed, a study in 2014 found that despite the fact that more than 90 percent of the Black labor force had either a high school diploma or higher education, White high school dropouts had a significantly higher chance of being employed. When the rates of discrimination between equally—if not more—qualified candidates are not just statistically significant, but astronomical, it becomes clear that change and DEI is necessary.

Another misconception that leads to people believing that DEI programs and meritocracy are mutually exclusive is the idea that companies actively lower standards by establishing hardline diversity quotas and hiring people without experience. Racial quotas largely do not, and cannot, exist due to them being illegal under the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Furthermore, even using race as a means of tie-breaking hiring decisions has been deemed discriminatory and illegal. DEI does not aim to lower the standards of hiring at the expense of non-marginalized applicants, but it aims to increase the chances of qualified applicants who would otherwise be denied countless opportunities due to systemic injustices.

Instead, DEI programs investigate and eliminate the barriers that cause the aforementioned statistical disparities. This means asking important, sometimes uncomfortable, questions. Do our interviewers disparately hire White individuals as compared to equally qualified minority applicants? If so, why is that the case? Are we only recruiting from primarily White institutions? If companies truly aim to create merit-based workplaces composed of the most qualified individuals, it is within their best interest to try to eliminate these clear racial barriers. This makes DEI not only justified but essential. When practiced well, DEI achieves these goals—it doesn’t compromise on hiring standards but opens up closed doors to equally qualified candidates. 

DEI programs, when implemented correctly, have had massive success. In regards to promoting inclusion, these programs have led to a steady decrease in unemployment for marginalized communities. Moreover, DEI is not only helpful in leveling the playing field for minorities, it is also highly beneficial to companies’ successes. Studies have shown that companies with ethnic diversity financially outperformed their counterparts by 27 percent, and companies with higher gender diversity became 25 percent more likely to have a higher profitability than non-diverse companies. These figures result from the fact that more inclusive companies boast a wider variety of perspectives and more attractive work environments. Apple, which has maintained DEI programs despite intense pressure from the Trump administration, has adopted workshops on unconscious bias and inclusion among its leadership, as well as partnered with Historically Black Colleges and Universities to widen applicant pools. None of Apple’s policies include illegal diversity quotas. The results of these investments have been highly advantageous—Apple has continually cited them as being a source of economic success.

However, it is still important to recognize that some currently implemented DEI programs may be ineffective and potentially harmful. This is not because of an inherent issue with the concept of DEI but instead because these programs were designed and implemented carelessly and even in violation of the law.

In certain companies, there is pressure to hire based on implied racial quotas. DEI should neither decide who to hire based on race nor clearly violate the EEOC. This means no implied quotas or ‘reserved seats’ are legal. Instead, programs should be oriented to aid potential applicants in earlier obstacles. This could include collecting data to find the disparities that might be affecting the demographic makeup of an applicant pool: rates of discriminatory interviewing processes, recruiting from primarily white institutions, unfair promotions or layoffs, or perhaps unsafe workplaces that are discouraging to applicants. Then, knowledge of these disparities can aid in transforming hiring practices into being more fair. This could include deconstructing biases in interviewing, encouraging blind resume viewing to eliminate biases based on identity, and reaching out to possible candidates to diversify recruitment pools. None of these processes compromise on merit—they only eliminate identified barriers.

In other cases, even if programs are designed with the right intentions and in accordance with the law, they could be ineffective due to a variety of different factors. For example, investment in poorly designed diversity training may do the opposite of what is intended by increasing resentment. Procedures framed as mandatory punishments for current employees lead to bitterness surrounding said initiatives. However, when these initiatives are presented as voluntary, they find major success in reducing biases. 

Alternatively, when the intention behind implementing these programs is solely to increase the optics of a company or to receive executive funding, the initiatives are hastily implemented, setting the programs up for failure. In the case of Lululemon, its “IDEA” DEI program was designed with so few parameters to prevent discrimination that the company is currently facing a lawsuit for misrepresenting itself. A former supervisor of the program stated that IDEA was always meant to be a temporary program—not a serious commitment, which was how the project was framed.

Recognizing the underlying flaws in these programs is crucial. Nevertheless, solutions for these problems exist, and research has proven that when companies reform these programs rather than get rid of them, there are overwhelmingly positive results. Ultimately, to generalize all initiatives as hiring unqualified individuals just because they are minorities is not only inaccurate, but it also undermines the achievements of minorities across America. Thus, when flashy headlines blame a tragic event on DEI, it is important to be critical and to ask yourself whether this was actually the case or if there was something else at play.

DEI cannot be the sole change in our society. Companies cannot simply institute these programs—especially when they’re performative—and then pretend that all problems are solved. In the words of Angela Davis, “Diversity without structural transformation simply brings those who were previously excluded into a system as racist and misogynist as it was before. […] There can be no diversity and inclusion without transformation and justice.” Society as a whole has a long way to go to rectify these inequalities, and although it has unfairly earned a bad reputation, DEI is one important step in that direction.