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The order, which terminated all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion-related activities across federal departments and rescinded existing affirmative action guidelines, sent shockwaves through government institutions and contractors alike.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

White Books and Curriculum Damage Black Children

The rise of book bans and erasure of Black history from classrooms emotionally and systematically harms Black children. It's critical that we urge educators to represent Black experiences and stories in class.

Getty Images, Klaus Vedfelt

White Books and Curriculum Damage Black Children

When my son, Jonathan, was born, one of the first children’s books I bought was "So Much" by Trish Cooke. I was captivated by its joyful depiction of a Black family loving their baby boy. I read it to him often, wanting him to know that he was deeply loved, seen, and valued. In an era when politicians are banning books, sanitizing curricula, and policing the teaching of Black history, the idea of affirming Black children’s identities is miscast as divisive and wrong. Forty-two states have proposed or passed legislation restricting how race and history can be taught, including Black history. PEN America reported that nearly 16,000 books (many featuring Black stories) were banned from schools within the last three years across 43 states. These prohibitive policies and bans are presented as protecting the ‘feelings’ of White children, while at the same time ignoring and invalidating the feelings of Black children who live daily with the pain of erasure, distortion, and disregard in schools.

When I hear and see the ongoing devaluation of Black children in schools and public life, I, and other Black parents, recognize this pain firsthand. For instance, recently, my teenage granddaughter, Jaliyah, texted me, asking to visit the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, D.C., because she had heard that the President planned to close it. For what felt like the millionth time, my heart broke with the understanding that too many people fail to rally on behalf of Black children. Jaliyah’s question revealed what so many Black children intuitively understand—that their histories, their feelings, and their futures are often treated as expendable.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pluralism or DEI - or Both - or None?

equity, inclusion, diversity

AI generated

Pluralism or DEI - or Both - or None?

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.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people in business attire walking into an office.

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.

Getty Images, Marco VDM

How Do We Become the Gatekeepers?

“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.

Keep ReadingShow less
So DEI doesn’t work. OK, what would be better?

Conceptual image of multiple human face shapes in a variety of colors illustrating different races

Getty Images

So DEI doesn’t work. OK, what would be better?

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.

Keep ReadingShow less