In the ordinary course of events, policies are designed to address problems and then fade away once those problems are resolved. DEI, despite its good intentions and occasional short-term successes, has failed to fulfill its promises.
High-minded ideals and a sincere effort to address historical discrimination against minorities in the United States culminated in the signing of Executive Order 10925 by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, directing government agencies and contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated [fairly] during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin.”
By the 1980s, this principle had expanded into the private sector as corporations adopted their own diversity initiatives, often in collaboration with universities, at a time when Critical Theory was gaining traction in academic institutions.
As these social theories became more influential, the focus of such policies gradually shifted from ensuring access to opportunity toward broader efforts to address ‘systemic inequalities,’ with bias training programs emerging as a key method to counter what was perceived as implicit bias and structural racism within American institutions.
More often than not nowadays, DEI efforts lack a clear endpoint because the issues it aims to solve are continuously reborn and redefined in different forms to keep them going in one way or another.
Significant political, legal and cultural opposition has resulted because of this change from original intent, leading to the conservative backlash that was crucial to President Donald Trump’s 2024 reelection. His win, which was fueled in part by public dissatisfaction with DEI-related measures, represents a significant shift in the national dialogue on corporate activism, identity-based initiatives and the larger cultural war.
People who had little to no understanding of what it was or how it even operated were drawn to rhetoric such as “DEI” being short for “didn’t earn it.”
To avoid being less than candid, I’d argue that it’s genuinely difficult to find anyone who opposes the values embodied in the plain meaning of diversity, equity and inclusion. That, however, is not the real point of contention. The real concern with DEI is its inability to withstand scrutiny against the cliché, yet profound, ideal of a colorblind society in which individuals are treated without respect to their certain characteristics and without the artificial manufacturing of outcomes.
Indeed, many who have worked in institutions where affirmative action and DEI policies exist can attest that no one is hired solely because of their race, sex or nationality. Instead, these traits are framed as part of a holistic approach where that characteristic is one factor among many, but never the deciding one.
Yet, this begs the question: If these characteristics are not supposed to matter in the final decision, why consider them at all?
The clearest example is race which is a trait that, in itself, is never a direct cause of ability, performance or potential. The core issue with DEI then is whether these factors are being treated as meaningful, whether benevolently or strategically. And if they don’t actually matter, why are they included in the equation in the first place?
In the long run, the social rejection of DEI that is embodied in politics today primarily runs on this critique.
Many argue — and I half-heartedly agree — that DEI policies seem to prioritize identity over qualifications, undermining institutional integrity and fueling skepticism about the legitimacy of hiring, promotions and college admissions. On the other hand, this may not be the case at most institutions. But many people, particularly college students, have serious concerns about the fairness of these entities and whether they are valued as much as their classmate who happens to be a certain demographic.
Employees and students are becoming increasingly resentful as a result, wondering if their accomplishments are evaluated based on personal merit or preset demographic standards. Businesses and institutions that aggressively promoted identity-based policies suffered financial losses and public reaction as a result of the “Go Woke, Go Broke” movement, which was sparked by the widespread notion that DEI undermines fairness.
Corporate shortcomings like the widely talked about incidents with Bud Light, Disney and other businesses who supported DEI-driven advertising efforts have strengthened the notion that “woke capitalism” is not only turning off consumers but is also not sustainable.
If it were companies with a progressive stance, like Ben & Jerry’s, which openly supports abortion rights, or conservative ones like Hobby Lobby which is known for advocating against abortion, there would be no controversy whatsoever. Disney and Bud Light however, have had consistently neutral views on politics and these DEI initiatives feel so forced and fake that they don’t resonate well with the public.
Audiences who believe that traditional storylines and creative integrity have been compromised in favor of ideological messaging have resisted Hollywood’s emphasis on identity-driven casting and storytelling. Employees of companies that actively promoted DEI training programs, meantime, have started to voice their disapproval of work settings that put ideological views ahead of professional expertise.
I wonder what changed in the past two or three months?
Companies and institutions are now discreetly reducing their DEI activities in order to prevent backlash, lawsuits and a decline in public trust as legal challenges increase and public attitude changes.
If a single election was enough to send corporate America scrambling to reverse course, then perhaps their commitment was never about principle but about politics and the bottom line all along.
