In this episode of the "Collage" podcast, Rev. F. Willis Johnson interviews Rev. Aaron Rogers, director of the St. Stephens Episcopal Church in Ferguson, Mo.. Their conversation acknowledges the forthcoming 10-year remembrance of Michael Brown's death and the Ferguson uprising. Johnson and Rogers discuss the "pilgrimage" that introduced them to one another and impacted their vocational endeavors.
A professor assisting students.
After the first class of the semester, a student waited patiently as I answered questions. When he finally stepped forward, he introduced himself, shook my hand, and shared that his high school teacher had advised him to do so. He was the first in his family to attend college, and his family had traveled across the state from their rural town to drop him off. My class was his first college class, and I was his first college professor. His sincerity moved me—I felt the weight of the moment and the privilege of being part of his journey.
A university education is more than lectures and exams; it’s a gateway to opportunity, transformation, and belonging. Diversity in the classroom isn’t just important—it’s essential. As a faculty member who studies leadership in post-secondary education, I see both the challenges and opportunities within higher education. The lack of diversity at top institutions impacts not just who enters our classrooms, but how students experience their education. Representation matters, and universities must reflect the diverse realities of the students they serve.
For centuries, great universities have been bastions of knowledge, passing on a rich heritage to the next generation of scholars and leaders. For me, teaching at the university feels like an immense responsibility. Entering that classroom isn’t just about transmitting knowledge; it is about honoring a legacy passed down by my mentors and predecessors, while also shaping the future through my students, although in some small way. The impact of what occurs at the university extends far into society and democracy.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
When I meet my students in the university classroom, they are at a pivotal moment in their development, embarking on their journey toward becoming impactful leaders in society. I recognize that, after their campus experience, opportunities to engage deeply with diverse perspectives on critical issues become more limited. The classroom is essential for fostering these connections and cultivating an appreciation for our shared humanity despite our differences. It is here that relationships can flourish and a sense of community can be built. Our role extends beyond delivering content; we are also dedicated to developing vital skills such as civility and diplomacy, which are increasingly important in today’s world.
My main goal in the classroom is to ensure that students grasp the subject matter thoroughly, laying a strong foundation for their future endeavors. While I strive to present course content in engaging ways, the richness of classroom discourse often suffers without diversity. A diverse classroom fosters a dynamic exchange of experiences and perspectives, enhancing both the intellectual and social atmosphere. This diversity promotes critical thinking and helps students connect with individuals from various backgrounds, ultimately enriching their communities and future professional environments.
My students enter a wide range of fields, from medicine and law to corporate settings and beyond. In our increasingly diverse global landscape, exposure to diversity is crucial for their future success. Failing to provide this exposure robs both students and faculty of valuable learning experiences. Embracing diversity enriches class discussions by introducing students to a broad spectrum of perspectives and life experiences beyond their own.
Our commitment to plurality is best realized by creating inclusive spaces in higher education that welcome everyone. Imagine ensuring access to high-quality educational opportunities for all students, regardless of their background or circumstances. In an environment where individuals are treated equitably and can fully engage in rigorous scholarly learning and discourse, excellence naturally thrives. If we accept that talent is equally distributed throughout society, then it follows that educational opportunities should be equally accessible to all.
Providing access and opportunity to high-quality education for every student is an important societal goal. Elite institutions of higher learning play a pivotal role and bear the responsibility of shaping future leaders. True fulfillment of both the students’ aspirations and our democratic principles is achieved when access to college classrooms is made inclusive for all.
Dr. Anthony Hernandez is a member of the Teaching Faculty in the Educational Policy Studies Department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, won a research award from the National Academy of Education/Spencer Foundation for his study of leadership in higher education. He has received four teaching awards from UW-Madison.
Last spring and summer,The Fulcrum published a 30-part series onProject 2025. Now that Donald Trump’s second term has commenced, The Fulcrum has started Part 2 of the series.
No one should be surprised by Donald Trump's attempt to dismantle Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, given his many promises during his campaign for President to do just that.
During his presidential campaign, he made several statements about DEI, including referring to DEI as a "hoax" and claiming it was detrimental to the United States. In one of his speeches, he stated, "We have ended the tyranny of so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion policies all across the entire federal government and, indeed, the private sector and our military," emphasizing his point that if elected, his administration would dismantle DEI programs.
Many of Trump's DEI campaign pledges were seemingly from Project 2025’s policy blueprint created by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in the United States designed to reshape the federal government by consolidating executive power and implementing right-wing policies. Yet despite the striking similarities between Project 2025 and Trump's promises, Trump disavowed any connection to Project 2025 during the campaign, stating, "I have nothing to do with Project 2025. I haven’t read it. I don’t want to read it purposely. I’m not going to read it". In July of 2024, he went even further, referring to the project's authors as part of the far-right and distancing himself from them.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Project 2025 initiatives significantly propose the elimination of DEI programs within federal agencies, including offices, staff positions, and training programs dedicated to promoting diversity and inclusion. Project 2025 went beyond just suggesting changes in policy but advocated removing terms like "diversity," "equity," and "inclusion" from federal rules, regulations, contracts, and grants and encouraged the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute DEI practices in private entities, framing them as discriminatory.
And now that Trump is in office, despite the denials of “having nothing to do with Project 2025,” his actions speak louder than his words. On his first day in office, Trump signed several executive orders targeting DEI initiatives. Trump's executive order directed federal agencies to terminate all DEI-related mandates, policies, and programs, including those in federal contracting and spending. Additionally. The order requires agencies to close DEI offices and positions and to amend rules and regulations to align with a "colorblind and merit-based" approach.
To the surprise of no one, these actions have sparked significant debate, with supporters arguing they promote fairness and critics claiming they undermine efforts to address systemic inequalities.
It is time for our nation to get beyond the political sound bites and political slogans and consider the ethical questions related to the moral issues embedded in the words Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Most Americans support the principles of DEI, like fairness and creating opportunities for all, regardless of background, even if they don’t necessarily agree with some of the formalized programs of DEI. For example, some people oppose DEI initiatives because they feel these programs are too prescriptive or prioritize quotas over merit.
It’s time to get away from stigmatizing DEI as a policy but rather a belief that diversity enriches communities and organizations and promotes understanding and collaboration among people from different walks of life.
Don’t we all want a society where everyone feels valued and empowered?
The court of public opinion takes time– it is a gradual process, unlike the courts, where judges or juries make decisions within a specific timeframe. There are already many challenges to Trump's DEI executive orders. A federal judge has issued a nationwide injunction temporarily blocking the enforcement of key provisions in President Trump's executive orders targeting DEI programs. This includes halting the termination of "equity-related" grants or contracts and requiring federal contractors to certify they don't operate DEI programs deemed "illegal." The case is currently under appeal, so the final outcome is still pending
The temporary court order expires on February 21st, but based on Judge Adam Abelson of the US District Court for the District of Maryland's statement that the courts must fully consider the “balance of harms” and the “public interest,” it seems highly likely that the Richmond, Va.-based US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, will rule similarly.
Last month, Abelson found that several provisions in the orders violated constitutional due process protections because they were too vague or ran afoul of First Amendment free speech rights. He focused specifically on mandates for agencies to terminate “equity-related” grants or contracts, for contractors or grantees to certify they aren’t “promoting DEI," and for the attorney general to “encourage” the private sector to end DEI programs under threat of enforcement.
Regardless of the outcome, there is no doubt that Project 2025 has influenced the Trump administration since several components of Project 2025, which are related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), have been implemented. Some include:
As Americans consider the complex questions related to DEI, it is worth reflecting on what DEI really means. In a recent column in the Fulcrum, F. Willis Johnson offered this that we all should reflect on:
The path forward lies in grounding DEI advocacy in data, facts, and demonstrated outcomes while remaining open to acknowledging its points of uplift and areas needing improvement. Rather than engaging in polemics, effective DEI work must counter misconceptions with evidence, appeal to shared values of fairness and respect, and maintain the courage to acknowledge when specific practices need adjustment. This approach recognizes deliberate building toward a representative, diverse, and inclusive nation requires more than ideological certainty — it demands practical wisdom, empirical evidence, and the ability to engage constructively with diverse perspectives while maintaining fidelity to core principles of equity and justice.
It is time for our nation to acknowledge that many people, backgrounds, cultures, and ideas must coexist and form a cohesive whole. It is time for Americans to realize that it is our civic responsibility as citizens and citizen leaders to rise above infighting and demagoguery. It is time for us to live into the great seal of our nation, E pluribus unum, “out of many, one,” a powerful symbol symbolizing unity in diversity, acknowledging that the "one" in the phrase represents the collective nation, while the "many" represents the individual states or the diverse populace.
Let us live into this ideal of forging strength through togetherness and harmony.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Two people reaching out for another.
Women's History Month finds us at a critical crossroads. Nearly three-quarters of the world's population faces increasing backlash against women's rights, while technological disruption and economic uncertainty threaten to deepen existing inequalities. Yet, within this challenging landscape lies an opportunity to radically reimagine our approach to gender equality through a womanist theological lens.
Womanist, a methodological approach centering on the experiences and perspectives of Black women, offers profound insights for diverse girls and women everywhere. It teaches us that liberation cannot be compartmentalized—the struggle for gender equality must be understood within the broader matrix of racial justice, economic empowerment, and spiritual transformation.
Womanist perspective, according to theologian Emilie Townes, is best described as "radical subjectivity," which is the courage to name one's reality and claim one's voice. In our current context, this means acknowledging that traditional avenues for women's advancement remain narrow, particularly for women of color and those at society's margins. The World Bank's projection that closing gender gaps in employment and entrepreneurship could increase global GDP by 20% tells only part of the story. The fuller truth lies in understanding how systems of oppression intersect and reinforce each other.
A womanist hermeneutic demands we look beyond surface-level solutions. While corporate diversity initiatives and political representation matter, progress requires addressing the more profound spiritual and cultural foundations perpetuating inequality. Womanist theology locates themes of God's liberation, justice, and freedom in biblical narratives but crucially roots from the liberation in the self-empowerment of marginalized communities. Unfortunately, our world devalues women's worth, particularly women of color, and claiming one's divine dignity becomes an act of resistance. This isn't mere self-help rhetoric. Instead, it's about recognizing that personal transformation and structural change are intimately connected.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Also, matriarchal activism emphasizes "traditional communalism," understanding that liberation is inherently a collective responsibility and benefit. Global challenges, ranging from democratic decay to economic instability, necessitate building robust solidarity networks.
Moreover, Theologian and Professor Delores Williams calls for "critical engagement" of religious traditions and contemporary institutions—which means questioning theological interpretations that are used to justify women's subordination while also challenging secular systems that perpetuate inequality under the guise of progress.
While artificial intelligence and automation risk exacerbating gender disparities, they also offer tools for amplifying marginalized voices and creating new pathways for economic empowerment. The key lies in ensuring these technologies are developed and deployed with an explicit commitment to equity and justice. Similarly, current political and economic upheavals call for a womanist response that goes beyond conventional policy solutions. When women participate in existing systems, they often find narrow avenues for advancement. Womanism encourages imagining new political and economic organization forms that center the experiences of those most impacted by multiple forms of oppression.
For example, Joy Reid consistently reminds us that women of color, in particular, have long been at the forefront of transformative social change, often serving as exemplars in each space they occupy, despite facing intersecting barriers. This reality calls us to recognize that accelerating progress toward gender equality requires not just removing obstacles but actively centering the leadership and wisdom of those who have been historically marginalized. From my peripheral perspective, the womanist vision for gender equality demands movement beyond incremental changes to pursue transformative justice. Thus, we must address visible manifestations of inequality and the deeper spiritual and cultural narratives that sustain them. It means recognizing that gender equality is inseparable from racial, economic, and environmental justice.
Woman-centered advocacy operates with "strategic hope." Strategic hope is neither naive optimism nor passive waiting but rather an active commitment to creating the world we envision. While current statistics suggest we are still 134 years away from global gender parity, a womanist perspective champions that transformation happens unexpectedly and through unforeseen agents.
May this Women's History Month accelerate progress toward greater equity through significant policy reformation, strategic solutions, and a fundamental reimagining of what liberation means and what it achieves. Womanist tradition teaches us that transformation is a promise—not despite our current challenges but through our collective response.
Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, and scholar-practitioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.
An abstract illustration of people of different genders, nationalities, and races.
Merit must be the driving force in business leadership in this country today—in hiring, retention, promotion, and assignment of duties. In order for the American economy and culture to be successful, rewards must be on the basis of merit.
The presumption that diversity, equity, and inclusion are at odds with merit is not only incorrect, it is revolting. Any bifurcation of the U.S. workforce into “DEI-hires” and “merit-hires” is divisive and must be challenged, especially when the DEI label is used to refer to anyone except white men. Merit is distributed across all groups and not the purview of any one group.
The irony is that the theory of meritocracy has been a struggle Americans have faced in government, across economic sectors and throughout society for more than 100 years. The Pendleton Act of 1883 pronounced an end to the familiar practice of awarding federal jobs “on the basis of political affiliation or personal relationships.”
It was revamped and upheld by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
In his first term as president, Donald Trump introduced Schedule F to restore executive power for appointments, which was undone by President Joe Biden in an attempt to reinstate hiring fairness. Mr. Trump recently signed an executive order to reinstate Schedule F and re-establish executive power in hiring. This is indicative of the ongoing tug-of-war over the scope and scale of the civil service.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The latest top-level Cabinet confirmations – though contested vigorously – and the unprecedented dismantling of DEI efforts in government agencies, companies, universities, and organizations, have rattled what the federal government established with The Merit System, which is upheld by the U.S. Merit Systems Management Board. The system aims to manage the federal workforce and eliminate the “spoils system” of hiring on the basis of political patronage and loyalty, not performance or results.
Hiring on the basis of merit in the government is now at risk.
According to the 2020 updated document, “The merit system principles (MSPs) are nine basic standards that govern the management of the executive branch workforce and serve as the foundation of the federal civil service.’’
The principles include recruitment, equity, and neutrality, with these specific actions to avoid: basing personnel decisions on factors other than merit," and assuring employees are “protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purpose.”
Recent moves show these are not only blatantly ignored by the executive branch today, but trampled. There is pushback, as, recently, the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld all DEI efforts in the state.
To level-set, merit is about results – such as measurable outcomes, acquired skills or education, job performance, competencies, certificates, credentials, problem-solving, innovation, collaboration, and more. Knowing a person’s race, ethnicity, or gender tells us nothing about their merit. Assumptions about a person’s merit that are based upon their race or gender are useless unless they are proven by examination of results.
Not just in government, but in the workplace, subjectivity needs to be removed and replaced with objective comparisons based on ethical and transparent modes of assessment that are tied to specific goals and accomplishments. Legacy, loyalty, alliance, and allegiance are not factors of merit.
The decision to hire, retain, and promote individuals should be based on objective criteria, not on potential, aspirations, likeability, or promises. These decisions are routinely taken by leaders and leading organizations. The best leaders know the power of objectivity in getting the best people from a robust talent pool, but this has not hindered the latest attempts by some major corporations and organizations to model federal compliance and adhere to anti-DEI initiatives with their own shutdowns of programs, resources, and efforts aimed at inclusion.
Pepsico is cutting back on DEI efforts, and Disney recently canceled its Reimagined Tomorrow program to give space to underrepresented voices in the same week that Goldman Sachs and Deloitte each catapulted their diversity programs. The roster of companies that earlier rejected DEI efforts include Meta, Amazon, Google, McDonald’s, and Walmart.
Deloitte has recently jumped onto the anti-DEI bandwagon; a confusing move as Deloitte is the author of the annual global Diversity initiatives report that unequivocally demonstrates the benefits and profitability of diversity initiatives.
“We will sunset our workforce and business aspirational diversity goals, our Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Transparency Report, and our DEI programming,” said Deloitte Chief People Officer Doug Beaudoin.
Costco, on the other hand, stands out as a giant operation that is openly rejecting the anti-DEI demands.
Recent research from The Conference Board shows momentum towards race and gender equity in corporate boardrooms has slowed. The number of women in boardrooms increased from 32% in 2023 to 34% in 2024, while the percentage of racially/ethnically diverse directors increased from 25% in 2023 to 26% in 2024. The rest are white and male.
Success is attributed to a leader’s ability to hire, train, retain, and promote those individuals who have merit and produce the results needed. It is not about aspiration or intention; it is about outcomes. Mandating business leaders to follow new rules that constrain them to eliminate valuable employees from the candidate pool will be disastrous, not just for that organization, but for the economy and for America in the short- and long term.
The notion that America is a place where only competent white men – to the exclusion of everyone else – can be in charge is reprehensible. The recent actions of the White House and C-suites to bar diverse candidates from competing for positions is not corrective, it is destructive. It is a conversation based on what leaders are against, not what they are for.
There is no need for anyone in America to hide from the metrics of merit. Merit itself is colorblind and genderblind—like justice.
Barron Witherspoon, Sr. is a TEDX speaker, author of The Black Exec and The Seven Myths, and Second Vice Chair on Tuskegee University’s Board of Trustees.
