Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The False Promise of Dismantling DEI

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 Promise in the Making: Thirty-Five Years of the ADA

Americans with Disabilities Act ADA and glasses.

Getty Images

A Promise in the Making: Thirty-Five Years of the ADA

One July morning in 1990, a crowd gathered on the White House lawn, some in wheelchairs, others holding signs, many with tears in their eyes. President George H.W. Bush lifted his pen and signed his name to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)—the most sweeping civil rights law for people with disabilities in the nation's history. It was a moment three decades in the making: a rare convergence of activism, outrage, and legislative will. The ADA's promise was simple—no longer would disability mean exclusion from public life—but its implications were anything but.

Thirty-five years later, the ADA remains a landmark, a legal bulwark against discrimination, and a symbol of hard-won visibility for a community that has been too often relegated to the margins. Yet, like every civil rights law, the ADA's story is more complex than a single signature or a morning in Washington. Its passage and its legacy have always been about more than ramps and regulations.

Keep ReadingShow less
Illinois Camp Gives Underrepresented Kids an Opportunity To Explore New Pathways

Kuumba Family Festival at Evanston Township High School

Illinois Camp Gives Underrepresented Kids an Opportunity To Explore New Pathways

Summer camps in Evanston, Illinois — a quiet suburb just north of Chicago — usually consist of an array of different sports, educational programs, and even learning how to sail. But one thing is obviously apparent throughout the city’s camps: they’re almost all white.

Despite Black or African American families making up nearly 16% of Evanston’s population, Black kids are massively underrepresented throughout the city's summer camps.

Keep ReadingShow less
Students in a classroom.​

Today, Hispanic-Serving Institutions enroll 64 percent of all Latino college students.

Getty Images, andresr

Tennessee’s Attack on Federal Support for Hispanic-Serving Colleges Hurts Us All

The Tennessee Attorney General has partnered with a conservative legal nonprofit to sue the U.S. Department of Education over programming that supports Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), colleges, and universities where at least 25% of the undergraduate full-time equivalent student enrollment is Hispanic. On its face, this action claims to oppose “discriminatory” federal funding. In reality, it is part of a broader and deeply troubling trend: a coordinated effort to dismantle educational opportunity for communities of color under the guise of anti-DEI rhetoric.

As a scholar of educational policy and leadership in higher education, I believe we must confront policies that narrow access and undermine equity in education for those who have been historically underserved. What is happening in Tennessee is not just a misguided action—it’s a self-inflicted wound that will harm the state's economic future and deepen historical inequality.

Keep ReadingShow less
Inclusion Is Not a Slogan. It’s the Ground We Walk On.

A miniature globe between a row of blue human figures

Getty Images//Stock Photo

Inclusion Is Not a Slogan. It’s the Ground We Walk On.

After political pressure and a federal investigation, Harvard University recently renamed and restructured its Office for Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging. MIT announced the closure of its DEI office, stating that it would no longer support centralized diversity initiatives. Meanwhile, Purdue University shut down its Office of Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging and removed cultural center programs that once served as safe spaces for marginalized students. I am aware of the costs of not engaging with ideas surrounding diversity and difference, and I have witnessed the consequences of the current administration's actions— and the pace at which universities are responding. It’s nowhere good.

I was forced to move to the United States from Russia, a country where the words inclusion, diversity, and equality are either misunderstood, mocked, or treated as dangerous ideology. In this country, a woman over fifty is considered “unfit” for the job market. Disability is not viewed as a condition that warrants accommodation, but rather as a reason to deny employment. LGBTQ+ individuals are treated not as equal citizens but as people who, ideally, shouldn’t exist, where the image of a rainbow on a toy or an ice cream wrapper can result in legal prosecution.

Keep ReadingShow less