Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Dismantling DEI Reinforces America's Original Sin

Opinion

"Diversity," "Equity" and "Inclusion" on wood blocks

"Diversity," "Equity" and "Inclusion" on wood blocks

Nora Carol Photography/Getty Images

When President Trump signed Executive Order 14151, titled "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing," on January 20, 2025, he didn't just eliminate diversity initiatives from federal agencies—he set in motion a sweeping transformation of the federal workforce.

The order, which terminated all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion-related activities across federal departments and rescinded existing affirmative action guidelines, sent shockwaves through government institutions and contractors alike. Universities began scrubbing their websites and canceling diversity events, while federal agencies scrambled to dismantle programs built over decades. The order's immediate impact was so concerning that by February 21, 2025, a federal judge issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, temporarily halting its implementation. But beyond the immediate practical implications, the executive order did something far more insidious: it codified a dangerous myth that America has somehow transcended its need to actively pursue equality.


The speed with which corporate America fell in line tells its own story. Major companies, including Walmart, Lowe's, and Meta, have announced rollbacks of their diversity commitments, while others have quietly removed representation goals and inclusive language from their websites. This retreat isn't happening in a vacuum—it's occurring when research demonstrates the tangible benefits of diverse workplaces.

Arguments against DEI programs are fundamentally grounded in the idea that in a meritocratic society, the most qualified person ought to surely get the job, irrespective of various social constructions. Such seductive logic ignores how "merit" is shaped by centuries of systemic advantages and disadvantages. Far too often, we foolishly pretend that everyone starts from the same starting line, thus perpetuating inequality under the guise of objectivity. Consider the implications of our nation’s retreat from equity initiatives. Studies have shown that DEI programs improve organizational performance and innovation when properly implemented. By dismantling these programs, we're not just affecting individual opportunities but compromising our national potential.

Trump's administrative actions represent a gross misapprehension of the social contract. The contract, enshrined in our founding documents but perpetually unfulfilled, promises equal opportunity, not just in theory but in practice. DEI initiatives aren't about giving anyone an unfair advantage—they're about acknowledging and addressing the unfair advantages that have shaped American society since its inception.

Mounting political and legal attacks have turned DEI from a corporate rallying cry to a politically toxic acronym, ushering the erasure of progress made. This backsliding isn't just about politics, it is an embodiment of politics.

Critics of DEI often point to individual success stories as proof that the system works fine as is. But these exceptions prove the rule—they stand out precisely because they're exceptional. Moreover, they usually stand out because they are acceptable or appreciable in some way. A meritocratic society wouldn't produce such stark disparities in outcomes across racial, gender, ethnocultural, and socioeconomic lines. The dismantling of DEI programs undermines the very foundation of a democratic society. When we abandon the active pursuit of equity, we tacitly accept that some Americans will face artificial barriers to success, simply because of who they are. This isn't just morally wrong; it's economically self-defeating.

Ironically, authentic meritocracy requires precisely what the anti-DEI movement opposes. A requisite of meritocracy is an active intervention to level playing fields tilted by centuries of discrimination. Abolishing DEI interventions does not result in some natural state of fairness. On the contrary, we’re reinforcing existing power structures under a disingenuous assumption of neutrality.

Like many, I am left to question, what kind of society are we choosing to be? One that acknowledges its imperfections and actively works to address them? Or one that pretends centuries of systemic inequity can be overcome simply by declaring that merit is all that matters?

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.


Read More

How Fairness, Stability and Freedom Can Help Us Build Demand for Transformative, Structural Change

Claiming Contested Values

FrameWorks Institute

How Fairness, Stability and Freedom Can Help Us Build Demand for Transformative, Structural Change

Claiming Contested Values: How Fairness, Stability and Freedom Can Help Us Build Demand for Transformative, Structural Change, produced by the FrameWorks Institute, explores how widely shared yet politically contested values can be used to strengthen public support for systemic reform. Values are central to how advocates communicate the importance of their work, and they can motivate collective action toward big, structural changes. This has become especially urgent in a climate where executive orders are targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, and some nonprofits are being labeled as threats based on their stated missions. Many civil society organizations are now grappling with how to communicate their values effectively and safely.

The report focuses on Fairness, Stability, and Freedom because they resonate across the U.S. public and are used by communicators across the political spectrum. Unlike values more closely associated with one ideological camp — such as Tradition on the right or Solidarity on the left — these three values are broadly recognizable but highly contested. Each contains multiple variants, and their impact depends on how clearly advocates define them and how they are paired with specific issues.

Keep ReadingShow less
Barbershops Are Helping Black Boys See Themselves as Readers

One of the barbershops participating in the Barbershop Books program.

Photo courtesy of Alvin Irby

Barbershops Are Helping Black Boys See Themselves as Readers

Barbershop Books, an organization whose award‑winning literacy programs celebrate, amplify, and affirm the interests of Black boys while inspiring kids to read for fun, has spent more than a decade transforming everyday community spaces into joyful reading hubs. That mission was on full display this Martin Luther King Jr. Day, when the organization partnered with a neighborhood barbershop in the Bronx—Flava In Ya Hair—to offer free haircuts and free children’s books to local families.

As families examined stacks of Dog Man, Fly Guy, Captain Underpants, and Diary of a Wimpy Kid, barbershop owner Patrick shared that growing up, reading was associated with negative school experiences and used as a punishment at home. “Go in your room and read!” he said.

Keep ReadingShow less
We Can’t Let Hegseth Win His War on Women

We Can’t Let Hegseth Win His War on Women

When Hegseth ordered all top brass to assemble in Quantico in September, he declared women could either meet male standards for combat roles or get cut. Strong message, except the military was already doing that, so Hegseth was either oblivious or ignoring decades of history. Confusion aside, it reaffirmed a goal Hegseth has made clear since his Fox News days, when he said, “I'm straight up saying we should not have women in combat roles.” Now, as of January 6th, the Pentagon is planning a six-month review of women in ground combat jobs. It may come as no surprise, but this thinly veiled anti-woman agenda has no tactical security advantage.

When integrating women into combat roles was brought to Congress in 1993, a summary of findings submitted that, “although logical, such a policy would [erode] the civilizing notion that men should protect . . . women.” Archaic notions of the patriarchy almost outweighed logic; instead, luckily, as combat roles have become available to them, more and more women are now serving, increasing military readiness. As it turns out, women are highly effective in combat. Khris Fuhr, a West Point graduate who worked on gender integration at Army Forces Command, calls this new review "a solution for a problem that doesn't exist." She says an Army study between 2018 to 2023 showed women didn’t just perform well in ground combat units but sometimes scored even better than their male counterparts.

Keep ReadingShow less
Women holding signs to defend diversity at Havard

Harvard students joined in a rally protesting the Supreme Courts ruling against affirmative action in 2023.

Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

Diversity Has Become a Dirty Word. It Doesn’t Have to Be.

I have an identical twin sister. Although our faces can unlock each other’s iPhones, even the two of us are not exactly the same. If identical twins can differ, wouldn’t most people be different too? Why is diversity considered a bad word?

Like me, my twin sister is in computing, yet we are unique in many ways. She works in industry, while I am in academia. She’s allergic to guinea pigs, while I had pet guinea pigs (yep, that’s how she found out). Even our voices aren’t the same. As a kid, I was definitely the chattier one, while she loved taking walks together in silence (which, of course, drove me crazy).

Keep ReadingShow less