Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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The order, which terminated all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion-related activities across federal departments and rescinded existing affirmative action guidelines, sent shockwaves through government institutions and contractors alike.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

Charlie Kirk’s White Christian Nationalism Tent Wasn’t Big Enough for Gays
people holding flags during daytime
Photo by Yana y on Unsplash

Charlie Kirk’s White Christian Nationalism Tent Wasn’t Big Enough for Gays

When Charlie Kirk was tragically shot and killed on September 10th in Utah it sent shock waves through the country and raised a number of profound questions about his legacy and the views he spread through his Turning Point U.S.A. organization. Many went to the internet to find his quotes to perhaps hold a mirror up to his brand of white nationalism.

One quote should send chills down your spine. On a June 11th, 2024, episode of The Charlie Kirk Show, Kirk makes references to “stoning” and “putting gays to death” as the perfect law in response to Youtuber, Ms. Rachel who used the bible to suggest Pride month and support for it was an example of loving thy neighbor. While Kirk did not explicitly state or advocate the stoning of gays, his tongue and cheek usage of the passage described by some as a “joke” demonstrates a much longer history of gay hate in the United States and how the bible has been used to support anti-gay legislation.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Ivory Tower is a Persisting Legacy of White Supremacy

Conservative attacks on higher education and DEI reveal a deeper fear of diversity—and the racial roots of America’s “ivory tower.”

Getty Images, izusek

The Ivory Tower is a Persisting Legacy of White Supremacy

The Trump administration and conservative politicians have launched a broad-reaching and effective campaign against higher education and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts in particular. These attacks, often amplified by neo-conservative influencers, are not simply critiques of policy or spending. At their core, they reflect anxiety over the growing presence and visibility of marginalized students and scholars within institutions that were not historically designed for them.

The phrase ivory tower has become shorthand for everything critics dislike about higher education. It evokes images of professors lost in abstract theorizing, and administrators detached from real-world problems. But there is a deeper meaning, one rooted in the racial history of academia. Whether consciously or not, the term reinforces the idea that universities are–and should remain–spaces that uphold whiteness.

Keep ReadingShow less
A patient in the hospital holding hands with another person.

A 2024 study showed that the life expectancy gap between white and Black Americans had doubled to 20.4 years by 2021, partially explained by COVID-19 deaths.

Getty Images, FatCamera

Support Healing Now: Resources for Communities of Color Needed

Raised on Chicago’s South Side, I’ve learned that survival is spiritual. My Creole and Trinidadian ancestors labored under systems that were never designed for their flourishing.

Today, as a healer and organizer, I see those same systems manifested in closed schools, subpar health clinics, vacant buildings, and a widening wealth gap. This is a truth in many cities around the country.

Keep ReadingShow less
A child's hand holding an adult's hand.

"Names have meanings and shape our destinies. Research shows that they open doors and get your resume to the right eyes and you to the corner office—or not," writes Professor F. Tazeena Husain.

Getty Images, LaylaBird

What’s In A Name? The Weight of The World

When our son, Naser, was six years old, he wanted to be called Kevin, a perfectly reasonable Midwestern name. This seems to be a rite of passage with children, to name and rename themselves.

But our son was not to know the agonies we went through to name him, honoring our respective South Asian and South American cultures and balancing the phonetics of multiple languages, and why Kevin was not on our short-list.

Keep ReadingShow less