Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The False Promise of Dismantling DEI

Opinion

The False Promise of Dismantling DEI

An illustration of the letters DEI, which stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Getty Images, Just_Super

After President Trump signed an executive order that targets diversity programs, protocols, and practitioners, my phone lit up with calls from pastors, academics, and corporate leaders. These weren't just concerned professionals seeking guidance; they were Americans watching their country wrestle, yet again, with its perpetual struggle between progress and retrenchment. The order, cloaked in the language of fairness and merit, represents something far more insidious: a calculated attempt to redefine American excellence by narrowing its parameters.

As global competition intensifies and innovation becomes increasingly crucial to national security, we are witnessing a deliberate effort to constrict America's talent pipeline. In my work across for-profit organizations, non-profit board rooms, and halls of tertiary education, I've observed firsthand how diversity and equity initiatives serve as crucial mechanisms for identifying overlooked talent, fostering innovative thinking, and offering unprecedented opportunities that have historically given America its competitive edge. The incoming administration's approach doesn't just threaten social order; it imperils our national interests in ways few seem willing to acknowledge.


This assault on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how excellence emerges in complex societies. When I counsel organizations on building inclusive cultures, I emphasize that diversity isn't a charitable endeavor—it's a strategic imperative. The same nation that celebrated sending diverse teams to Mars now seems fearful of diverse teams in its federal agencies. This contradiction exposes the hollow core of the administration's logic: they claim to champion merit while systematically undermining the very conditions that allow merit to flourish.

The current backlash against DEI programs follows a familiar American pattern: progress, followed by panic, followed by extreme rollbacks. But this iteration carries unique dangers in our rapidly evolving global landscape. When I speak with young entrepreneurs and researchers, they express disappointment and genuine concern about America's future competitiveness. They understand intuitively what the Trump administration seems determined to ignore: innovation thrives on diversity of thought, experience, perspective, and people. The executive order doesn't just harm historically marginalized groups; it hamstrings America's ability to compete in an increasingly multipolar world.

What's particularly troubling is how this move misreads the actual challenges facing American interests. In conversations with business and civic leaders, as well as educational administrators and alike, the real struggle isn't with diversity initiatives but with maintaining our nation’s leadership in key sectors, enterprises, marketplaces, and social consequences. The aforementioned draws from the broadest possible talent pool and creates environments where innovation can flourish. The Trump administration's approach does the opposite, creating artificial constraints on the nation’s brain pool and workforce, and at the moment, we need to expand it.

Paths forward require a fundamental reframing of what's at stake. DEI isn't merely about social justice or corporate policy—it's about America's place in the world. When I work with organizations that are implementing such initiatives, we focus on creating systems that identify and nurture talent wherever it exists. These programs don't lower standards; they eliminate artificial barriers that keep qualified individuals from contributing their full potential. The administration's characterization of these efforts as "reverse discrimination" reveals more about their short-sightedness than the programs and practices they seek to dismantle.

Any response to this challenge must be both principled and pragmatic. As I advise leaders who seek my counsel, retreating isn't an option—but neither is mere resistance. We need a new narrative that connects DEI to America's core strengths: innovation, competitiveness, and the ability to adapt and evolve. As one suggested, a narrative means moving beyond defensive postures to articulate a vision of institutional excellence that embraces diversity, not as a burden needing to be managed but as an asset to be leveraged.

Leaders across the public, private, and third sectors must be more assertive, not diminutive. For example, when major corporations and industry leaders speak about diversity as a competitive necessity rather than a social obligation or political expediency, the conversation shifts from being ideological to strategic. Likewise, “lighthouse” institutions must step up to fill the void left by federal agencies' retreat, not just with funding but with new models of inclusive excellence that demonstrate why diversity initiatives are essential to institutional success.

The ultimate tragedy of the administration's approach lies in its profound misreading of American history. Our nation's most significant achievements from the Manhattan Project to the digital revolution emerged from our ability to harness diverse talents toward common goals. By attempting to turn back the clock on diversity initiatives, the administration risks turning off the engine of American innovation. The answer isn't to retreat from our commitment to inclusive excellence but to deepen it, grounding it more firmly in our national interest and competitive necessity.

Navigating this challenging moment brings to remembrance this fact: American progress has never been linear. Each period of retrenchment has eventually given way to renewal. Many times in ways that strengthen versus weaken our nation's fabric. Through deliberate action and results, our response must demonstrate that diversity isn't just about doing good—it's about holding to the truth that all are equal as endowed by their Creator, not a Commander-in-Chief.

Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community, " and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.

Read More

Pluralism or DEI - or Both - or None?

equity, inclusion, diversity

AI generated

Pluralism or DEI - or Both - or None?

Even before Trump’s actions against DEI, many in the academic community and elsewhere felt for some time that DEI had taken an unintended turn.

What was meant to provide support—in jobs, education, grants, and other ways—to those groups who historically and currently have suffered from discrimination became for others a sign of exclusion because all attention was placed on how these groups were faring, with little attention to others. Those left out were assumed not to need any help, but that was mistaken. They did need help and are angry.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pluralism or DEI - or Both - or None?

equity, inclusion, diversity

AI generated

Pluralism or DEI - or Both - or None?

Even before Trump’s actions against DEI, many in the academic community and elsewhere felt for some time that DEI had taken an unintended turn.

What was meant to provide support—in jobs, education, grants, and other ways—to those groups who historically and currently have suffered from discrimination became for others a sign of exclusion because all attention was placed on how these groups were faring, with little attention to others. Those left out were assumed not to need any help, but that was mistaken. They did need help and are angry.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people in business attire walking into an office.

Dr. Valentina Greco reflects on how accent bias, internalized gatekeeping, and hidden prejudices shape academia—and how true change begins by confronting our own discomfort.

Getty Images, Marco VDM

How Do We Become the Gatekeepers?

“Do you have a moment?”

I turned and saw my senior colleague, Paul (not his real name), a mentor and sponsor, at my office door.

Keep ReadingShow less
So DEI doesn’t work. OK, what would be better?

Conceptual image of multiple human face shapes in a variety of colors illustrating different races

Getty Images

So DEI doesn’t work. OK, what would be better?

It is no secret that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs are under attack in our country. They have been blamed for undermining free speech, meritocracy, and America itself. The University of Virginia is the latest to settle with the government and walk away from its DEI initiatives rather than defend its programs or find a new solution.

Those who decry DEI say they do so in the name of meritocracy. They argue that those who benefit from DEI programs do so at the expense of other, more qualified individuals, and that these programs are weakening professions such as our military, science, education, and healthcare. But these arguments have it exactly backwards. DEI programs were never designed to give privilege to underrepresented people. They were put in place to chip away at discrimination and nepotism, both concepts that are antithetical to meritocracy.

Keep ReadingShow less