Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Dismantling DEI Reinforces America's Original Sin

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The order, which terminated all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion-related activities across federal departments and rescinded existing affirmative action guidelines, sent shockwaves through government institutions and contractors alike.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

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