Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson, Jr., VP of Partnerships and Programming with the Bridge Alliance, is respected for his leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues.
Johnson shares his thoughts and reflections on Indigenous Peoples' Day.
equity, inclusion, diversity
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.
Another problem with DEI is that it maintains, if not amplifies, a sense of victimization and anger toward the broader society. It supported a us-versus-them perspective. There was no effort in DEI to bring minority and majority groups together to help change the current dynamic. The assumption was that if you were going to protect your rights, you had to fight for them. And so it unintentionally further polarized an already polarized society.
Because of these problems, some in academia and state government have adopted the concept of pluralism to replace DEI. The concept of pluralism, broadly stated, is that everyone is recognized as part of the whole, that all voices are allowed to speak and be heard, and that opposing groups learn to talk to each other with respect and, hopefully, find a way to bridge historical animosities.
This is a good thing; polarization is very harmful for all concerned. But from what I’ve read, it appears that the baby has been thrown out with the proverbial bathwater.
Discriminated-against groups still need their own space, their own support group, because the rest of society is so lacking in understanding of their history and nature. And of the discrimination that they have not only suffered from historically, but are still suffering from today, despite all the laws that have been passed, and the impact of that discrimination.
If the dominant culture truly comes to accept pluralism—with all minority groups respected—then there might be less need for such identity groups. However, I think there would still be a legitimate need. I have never understood, for example, why the gay ghetto, which was such a wonderful, nourishing experience, was felt by gays to no longer be necessary once society became more accepting of gays. We have truly lost something that was not necessary.
We may be accepted, but we have a rich culture, and it can only thrive when we’re living together. And regardless of how much accepted, we will never feel the belonging bond we felt living in the gay ghetto. The same is true for other groups. Society is a large, cold, amorphous body; everyone benefits from belonging to a group where they feel they truly belong. That does not have to lead to conflict with the larger society if one is treated with respect and truly accepted for who they are.
Further, it should not be seen as destructive of or inconsistent with pluralism for groups to speak out against current discrimination, racism, or misogyny in our country. Pluralism requires respect for everyone by everyone. It’s the equivalent of the classic lawyer’s statement that “Reasonable men may differ.” It’s about coexisting with civility regardless of differences.
If that is not the current status—and that is certainly not the status now with racism, discrimination, and misogyny being widespread—then not only should it be ok to call out such violations of the spirit of pluralism, but this must be done. Otherwise, pluralism will be a delusion.
In the 90s, multiculturalism was given a bad name, just as DEI has now, and for much the same reason—for emphasizing our differences, rather than our commonality.
What America needs at this point in time is a combination of pluralism and DEI; it's not one or the other, as I've stated. Through this combination, we will both emphasize our commonality—the fact that we are all Americans and human beings—and support the vitality and equality of the subcultures within our midst, fostering a sense of respect, home, and belonging.
But we cannot have a reasoned discussion of this matter—or better put, not implement it—because Trump and his MAGA allies are not only against DEI efforts, but they don't support pluralism. Trump provides ample evidence of his lack of respect for women. Still, perhaps the most unvarnished example of the growth on the far-right of nativism and an anti-everything other than the white male perspective is the rise of podcaster Nick Fuentes, who has said that "women should shut the f* up," that Blacks "need to be in prison for the most part," and "white men should run everything."
There can be no effective DEI or pluralism while Trump and MAGA-adherents hold the reins of power in our government and have the support of almost half the population.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
equity, inclusion, diversity
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.
Another problem with DEI is that it maintains, if not amplifies, a sense of victimization and anger toward the broader society. It supported a us-versus-them perspective. There was no effort in DEI to bring minority and majority groups together to help change the current dynamic. The assumption was that if you were going to protect your rights, you had to fight for them. And so it unintentionally further polarized an already polarized society.
Because of these problems, some in academia and state government have adopted the concept of pluralism to replace DEI. The concept of pluralism, broadly stated, is that everyone is recognized as part of the whole, that all voices are allowed to speak and be heard, and that opposing groups learn to talk to each other with respect and, hopefully, find a way to bridge historical animosities.
This is a good thing; polarization is very harmful for all concerned. But from what I’ve read, it appears that the baby has been thrown out with the proverbial bathwater.
Discriminated-against groups still need their own space, their own support group, because the rest of society is so lacking in understanding of their history and nature. And of the discrimination that they have not only suffered from historically, but are still suffering from today, despite all the laws that have been passed, and the impact of that discrimination.
If the dominant culture truly comes to accept pluralism—with all minority groups respected—then there might be less need for such identity groups. However, I think there would still be a legitimate need. I have never understood, for example, why the gay ghetto, which was such a wonderful, nourishing experience, was felt by gays to no longer be necessary once society became more accepting of gays. We have truly lost something that was not necessary.
We may be accepted, but we have a rich culture, and it can only thrive when we’re living together. And regardless of how much accepted, we will never feel the belonging bond we felt living in the gay ghetto. The same is true for other groups. Society is a large, cold, amorphous body; everyone benefits from belonging to a group where they feel they truly belong. That does not have to lead to conflict with the larger society if one is treated with respect and truly accepted for who they are.
Further, it should not be seen as destructive of or inconsistent with pluralism for groups to speak out against current discrimination, racism, or misogyny in our country. Pluralism requires respect for everyone by everyone. It’s the equivalent of the classic lawyer’s statement that “Reasonable men may differ.” It’s about coexisting with civility regardless of differences.
If that is not the current status—and that is certainly not the status now with racism, discrimination, and misogyny being widespread—then not only should it be ok to call out such violations of the spirit of pluralism, but this must be done. Otherwise, pluralism will be a delusion.
In the 90s, multiculturalism was given a bad name, just as DEI has now, and for much the same reason—for emphasizing our differences, rather than our commonality.
What America needs at this point in time is a combination of pluralism and DEI; it's not one or the other, as I've stated. Through this combination, we will both emphasize our commonality—the fact that we are all Americans and human beings—and support the vitality and equality of the subcultures within our midst, fostering a sense of respect, home, and belonging.
But we cannot have a reasoned discussion of this matter—or better put, not implement it—because Trump and his MAGA allies are not only against DEI efforts, but they don't support pluralism. Trump provides ample evidence of his lack of respect for women. Still, perhaps the most unvarnished example of the growth on the far-right of nativism and an anti-everything other than the white male perspective is the rise of podcaster Nick Fuentes, who has said that "women should shut the f* up," that Blacks "need to be in prison for the most part," and "white men should run everything."
There can be no effective DEI or pluralism while Trump and MAGA-adherents hold the reins of power in our government and have the support of almost half the population.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
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.
“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.
“Come on in!” I said—excited to have a chat with him.
We engaged in small talk before he said, “I am worried for your career. Would you consider taking classes to correct your accent?”
The air left my body; I was stunned. Where was that coming from?! And why now, when I was thriving professionally? And why me and not my husband, a man also with an accent being considered for a senior role?
After that day, I found it difficult to speak with Paul or anyone. I became painfully aware of my voice. I did not hear my accent, but after Paul’s question, I began to doubt that I could speak English at all. I would say something and immediately wonder—did it come out ok? Was that expression on my interlocutor’s face an indication they did not understand me? I would stutter or find myself unable to recall words I knew well. I felt uncomfortable and alone in a world that just hours ago had been my (professional and personal) home.
As I processed this experience, I was lost in all these feelings. Paul is a good man, and he was my rock. He is and was a thoughtful, kind, and supportive person. In retrospect, I think he meant well. Yet, his impact stays with me until this day.
I also wondered if Paul’s advice was born of his discomfort. Was his solution to the “problem of my accent” intended to solve a problem of his? Could he have considered listening to more non-native speakers to attune his hearing to a more diverse set of accents or asking for clarification when I spoke? If so, perhaps Paul might have been able to see a person who departed her native country at the age of 26 to face uncertainty about her future. He might hear in my accent the cost of learning multiple languages and cultural systems. I felt that Paul’s proposed solution was aimed at fixing something he perceived as “broken” within me by asking me to fit into “professional standards” of the (academic) world.
That experience forced me to confront an uncomfortable truth: I’ve been Paul too.
I remembered Julie (not her real name). A brilliant graduate student who gave an outstanding seminar. As I listened with eagerness and interest, I found myself distracted by what she was wearing and the tone of her voice, which I felt sounded flirtatious. I worried that the men in the audience would only see an attractive woman and miss a scientist with significant intellect and scientific contributions. After the seminar, I offered her feedback. I covered the scientific part first. Then, a little warily, I expressed my concerns about her attire and tone of voice. I don’t remember how Julie reacted, except that we talked for a while about my feedback.
A few weeks later, I was sitting with colleagues, and I described what had happened with Julie. A male colleague said that he had heard that Julie had not taken my feedback well. I was surprised. I thought I was shedding light on the sexist structure of our profession! My male colleague couldn’t possibly understand the double standard we women have to deal with! But was I preparing her for the world, or was I projecting my own fears? I became the gatekeeper of what is “professional standard."
This is how gatekeeping works and is enforced.
We live and work within a prejudicial system that expresses itself within academia and each of us through countless examples, such as the ones described above. Academic standards for professionalism are rooted in so many forms of oppression that strip every inch of self-expression. Accents, clothes, hair, our arguments, and pitches of our voices, the list is endless. While many of us spend large parts of our lives cultivating our individuality, those same characteristics are weaponized against us.
As I reflect on my own characteristics and behaviors, I recognize that I have adopted many different ways to cope, deal, prevent, and defend. I often wonder if my fast talking and constant smiling are part of a version of myself that evolved from a belief that I would be given little space or time to make my points, and that it was my role to make others comfortable with my friendly facial expressions. Smiling is good. Making people feel comfortable is good. But are these just tools for survival in a world primed to bend and dismiss me?
I realize now that the cost of “survival” and adapting is too high. We lose extraordinary scientists who are tired of shrinking themselves to fit. We lose their ideas, their creativity, their insights. We lose them because we fail to see how the system works through us. We ought to name these status quos and challenge them as they silence the voices of scientists, make them question their contributions and credibility, and deter women at all stages of their careers because of the friction they experience daily.
When I think back on Paul’s comment, I realize how easily I became him with Julie. Both moments came from caring and both upheld the very standards of oppression. I now know it when I see it—I see my reaction that stings. Then, I pause, I can now name it, I watch it, and I smile internally. I smile not to soothe it but to acknowledge the bias still living in me. Because that is how change begins. Each of us has the power and the obligation to notice when discomfort drives our judgement, when our “help” is really about control, and when our advice asks others to disappear. If we want an equitable academic world, we must start by listening to the dissonance within ourselves.
So I ask you: when have you been the gatekeeper?
Dr. Valentina Greco is a Carolyn Walch Slayman Professor of Genetics at Yale University, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a fellow with The OpEd Project. Opinions are her own and do not reflect those of her employers.
Conceptual image of multiple human face shapes in a variety of colors illustrating different races
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.
The idea that we had a merit-based system before DEI is a fantasy. A true meritocracy is devoid of racism, sexism, and agism. It doesn’t exclude based on ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, sexual identity, or other biases. In a true meritocracy, no one would have an advantage simply because of the socioeconomic station into which they were born.
Yet we do not all start on a level playing field. Consider the systemic and structural racial and ethnic discrimination built into our system. Consider low funding levels for non-white schools. Consider repeated instances of environmental racism and poor access to healthcare for minorities, which result in high rates of both acute and chronic illnesses, increased school absences for children, and greater morbidity and mortality rates in adults.
According to a 2024 White House report, Racial Discrimination in Contemporary America, racial discrimination accounts for the loss of trillions of dollars in the U.S. When kids go to poorly funded schools, they can’t access the stepping stones to success, such as basic healthcare, college training programs, afterschool activities, and standardized test training.
Then there’s persistent sex discrimination. A recent study found that in all but one age group, men continue to earn 15% more than women. The gap has continued even as more educated and experienced women enter the workforce and attain the managerial and higher-paying jobs that had been reserved for men. Women also report being treated differently by employers, and sexual harassment remains an issue for more women than men, both in public spaces and within the workplace. The MeToo Report found 26% of all respondents experienced sexual harassment or assault between 2018-2024, with women more than twice as likely to experience this than men (32% vs.15%).
Critics of DEI programs have offered nothing to replace DEI other than a return to norms that perpetuate their false meritocracy, like legacy preferences in university admissions. The Institute of Higher Education reported that 42% of private four-year colleges considered legacy in their admission process in 2022. Unsurprisingly, it also found that the more racially diverse universities are the ones that do not consider legacy. Although these impacts on racial diversity might be small, they are meaningful and clearly unmeritocratic.
Nepotism has a similar antimeritocracy effect in our other institutions. Indeed, nepotism was so alive and well in 2020 in the Army that they wrote a policy to stop it.
DEI programs were introduced to counter biases such as legacy and nepotism. The goal was to level the playing field, expand access to opportunity for a broader range of students, and identify and develop the most talented individuals.
Our society improves when we include more voices and talents in our institutions. A study published by the Boston University School of Public Health found that when DEI programs are successful, they reduce racist and sexist attitudes, reduce ageism, and improve organizational culture, as well as conflict resolution and job satisfaction. This study also concluded that successful DEI programs are those implemented at the institutional rather than individual level and include longitudinal training.
We should not now run from DEI programs and look to the past for false meritocracies. Rather, we need to learn what works and what does not work when it comes to identifying, nurturing, and promoting talent.
Studies show that DEI opponents object to perceived threats to the status quo. To forestall these objections, new programs aimed at leveling the playing field could emphasize that the workplace will continue to uphold its values and that everyone—including the majority—will remain treated fairly.
Rather than truly attempt to problem-solve, diminish discrimination, and allow institutions to draw on the broadest pool of talent available, today’s DEI opponents have only resurrected the discriminatory policies of the past. We all must have the courage to imagine what a truly inclusive and fair society could look like.
Nina Stachenfeld is a Senior Research Scientist at Yale University School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences. Dr. Stachenfeld is also a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project in partnership with Yale University
