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

A teacher passing out papers to students in a classroom.

California’s teacher shortage highlights inequities in teacher education. Supporting and retaining teachers of color starts with racially just TEPs.

Getty Images, Maskot

There’s a Shortage of Teachers of Color—Support Begins in Preservice Education

The LAist reported a shortage of teachers in Southern California, and especially a shortage of teachers of color. In California, almost 80% of public school students are students of color, while 64.4% of teachers are white. (Nationally, 80% of teachers are white, and over 50% of public school students are of color.) The article suggests that to support and retain teachers requires an investment in teacher candidates (TCs), mostly through full funding given that many teachers can’t afford such costly fast paced teacher education programs (TEPs), where they have no time to work for extra income. Ensuring affordability for these programs to recruit and sustain teachers, and especially teachers of color, is absolutely critical, but TEPs must consider additional supports, including culturally relevant curriculum, faculty of color they can trust and space for them to build community among themselves.

Hundreds of thousands of aspiring teachers enroll in TEPs, yet preservice teachers of color are a clear minority. A study revealed that 48 U.S. states and Washington, D.C have higher percentages of white TCs than they do white public-school students. Furthermore, in 35 of the programs that had enrollment of 400 or more, 90% of enrollees were white. Scholar Christine Sleeter declared an “overwhelming presence of whiteness” in teacher education and expert Cheryl Matias discussed how TEPs generate “emotionalities of whiteness,” meaning feelings such as guilt and defensiveness in white people, might result in people of color protecting white comfort instead of addressing the root issues and manifestations of racism.

Keep ReadingShow less
Mamdani, Sherrill, and Spanberger Win Signal Voter Embrace of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Zohran Mamdani, October 26, 2025

(Photo by Stephani Spindel/VIEWpress)

Mamdani, Sherrill, and Spanberger Win Signal Voter Embrace of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

In a sweeping rebuke of President Donald Trump’s second-term agenda, voters in three key races delivered historic victories to Democratic candidates Zohran Mamdani, Mikie Sherrill, and Abigail Spanberger—each representing a distinct ideological and demographic shift toward diversity, equity, and inclusion.

On Tuesday, Zohran Mamdani, a 34-year-old democratic socialist and state Assembly member, was elected mayor of New York City, becoming the city’s first Muslim mayor. In Virginia, Abigail Spanberger defeated Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears to become the state’s first female governor. And in New Jersey, Mikie Sherrill, a moderate Democrat and former Navy helicopter pilot, won the governorship in a race that underscored economic and social policy divides.

Keep ReadingShow less
Charlie Kirk’s White Christian Nationalism Tent Wasn’t Big Enough for Gays
people holding flags during daytime
Photo by Yana y on Unsplash

Charlie Kirk’s White Christian Nationalism Tent Wasn’t Big Enough for Gays

When Charlie Kirk was tragically shot and killed on September 10th in Utah it sent shock waves through the country and raised a number of profound questions about his legacy and the views he spread through his Turning Point U.S.A. organization. Many went to the internet to find his quotes to perhaps hold a mirror up to his brand of white nationalism.

One quote should send chills down your spine. On a June 11th, 2024, episode of The Charlie Kirk Show, Kirk makes references to “stoning” and “putting gays to death” as the perfect law in response to Youtuber, Ms. Rachel who used the bible to suggest Pride month and support for it was an example of loving thy neighbor. While Kirk did not explicitly state or advocate the stoning of gays, his tongue and cheek usage of the passage described by some as a “joke” demonstrates a much longer history of gay hate in the United States and how the bible has been used to support anti-gay legislation.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Ivory Tower is a Persisting Legacy of White Supremacy

Conservative attacks on higher education and DEI reveal a deeper fear of diversity—and the racial roots of America’s “ivory tower.”

Getty Images, izusek

The Ivory Tower is a Persisting Legacy of White Supremacy

The Trump administration and conservative politicians have launched a broad-reaching and effective campaign against higher education and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts in particular. These attacks, often amplified by neo-conservative influencers, are not simply critiques of policy or spending. At their core, they reflect anxiety over the growing presence and visibility of marginalized students and scholars within institutions that were not historically designed for them.

The phrase ivory tower has become shorthand for everything critics dislike about higher education. It evokes images of professors lost in abstract theorizing, and administrators detached from real-world problems. But there is a deeper meaning, one rooted in the racial history of academia. Whether consciously or not, the term reinforces the idea that universities are–and should remain–spaces that uphold whiteness.

Keep ReadingShow less