This is the best essay I have read on DEI for a very long time. It is a “must read” essay for anyone who truly wants to understand the toxic manner in which DEI is generally discussed:
“I’m For DEI!!” 🌈🦄
“I’m Against DEI!!” ☠️⚰️
Those absolutist positions are toxic and they ignore good faith and reasonable criticisms of both “sides” of the DEI debate.
One criticism: The essay implicitly focuses on the “D” and, especially, the “I” of DEI and does not adequately address the “E” of DEI. To me, the E is the most fundamentally contentious issue. In any discussion about E, the term “equity” must be explicitly defined (is it “Equal Opportunity” or is it “Equal Results” or is it something else?). How E is defined will then determine the scope for an honest discussion about equity.
Thanks, Loren. You're right that I didn't give as much attention to equity and that this is a very important construct to clearly define and get right in practice. I spoke to this point a bit in my second post (https://asispub.substack.com/p/equity-efforts-need-more-social-science). There is often discussion around whether the focus should be on opportunity or outcome. The only one that makes any sense to me is the former, and I love Helen's examples below.
The E is indeed tricky and has to be faced head on because it is, at root, about treating people unequally in order for them to, in principle, have the same opportunities. So, giving some people an advantage that others don’t have. There are some examples of this that few people would object to and this is in the area of disability so when helping people write DEI statements, I get them to address it in that area. Who, for example, would disagree that, while workers are generally required to use the stairs, wheelchair users get a key to the elevator? Or that tables in a classroom are moved into a circle around a deaf person so she can lipread? Other reasonable accommodations for disability also exist and for people with religious or philosophical needs, but the emphasis, especially with the latter is on reasonable.
From there, ethical approaches get trickier but some of the companies I have helped with policies have included things like offering work experience specifically to kids from deprived areas. A tech company had an initiative to provide laptops and a six week after school club in a deprived area to introduce kids to coding. The deprived area was majority black but the initiative was based on supporting low income families so it did not exclude any white kids or tick race-based quota boxes which make them look good but which often benefit black privately educated kids who were likely to do well anyway and not achieve any upward mobility for kids who needed a boost with it. Some employers will fund language classes for those who have English as a second language or literacy classes for entry level employees who’d had a poor education. This kind of approach to the E - providing advantages to some subset of people to enable them to have the same opportunities as others - does not fall into the trap of assuming that a certain identity demographic is disadvantaged due to systemic prejudice and trying to even up outcomes. Instead, it identifies a material disadvantage and offers ways to close the gap to people of all demographics. Even if, in practice, those people are more likely to be of racial minority, this is not the criteria but reflecting a material reality that an outsized number of people from poor communities or who do not have good written English are not white. Taking this evidence-based approach to fill a material gap does not make political assumptions or cause resentment or tensions between groups or cause any member of a majority group to feel discriminated against or any member of a minority group to be suspected of being a “diversity hire.” I have found that employers who are critical of DEI initiatives based on assumptions about systemic oppression find this approach to be an ethical alternative and that it does not cause resentment among employees because they can see that a material need is being supplied and approve of this.
Great examples, Helen. Reducing objections to some people being treated unequally so that others can have equal opportunities is one of the main reasons I'm in favor of basing equity decisions on socioeconomic disadvantage rather than race. Far more people can get on board with this idea. In theory, it should also satisfy those whose interest is to base equity on race because you end up primarily benefiting Blacks and Latinos anyway, and you get more people supporting the policy, making it more sustainable. I wish more activists could see it that way.
Precisely. Not only is socioeconomic disadvantage the rightful concern of the left, it also addresses the impact of past racial policies that have caused members of certain demographics to be relegated to an underclass in the first place, and does so in ethical ways that don’t antagonise people. A large part of the problem with what I call Critical Social Justice activism is related to its postmodern roots which focus solely on social constructs and neglect the psychology of human nature. Making policies based on identity groups sets off some of our worst tribal and territorial impulses while addressing a material lack calls to our best traits of fairness and empathy. This is the principle which explains why social media posts about coffee shops that have attempted to redress imbalances by having a race based pricing scale have made majority groups feel antagonised and minority groups feel insulted while posts that show a notice that says “If you can’t afford a hot drink, just tell us and we’ll provide one. No questions asked” is received by most people with warmth and support, even when the majority of homeless people who take advantage of the offer are from a minority racial demographic. We need to work with people’s sense of fairness and common humanity, not against it.
Finding myself so grumpy about DEI does not help. Reading this centres me. However, I don’t know where you are in the world? What’s missing for me is acknowledgment of how this US centric movement / view of the world? Gets pushed with no reflection on our culture here in UK and Europe. It’s a crucial part of the culture wars for me.
Hi Shona. I'm in the US. Yes, I have heard from others about how US-based issues have taken root in the UK. I don't know enough about this to say how and why that is happening, but I agree that it is unwise. Context matters.
I get the impulse to try and salvage something beneficial From the maze like infrastructure that DEI has built year after year. I mean, surely there has to be something worth saving considering the 1000s of employees, billions of dollars, and innumerable trainings?
Well no. If an employee needs to be instructed not to insult coworkers or just generally abide by the golden rule then that employee has no place in the workplace.
And people switch jobs, they don’t need to and they don’t want to be constantly retrained.
I hate that you face that frustration. Ironically, it is an unfair result of DEI. However, isn’t the point of moving away from DEI to provide an opportunity to use discernment? Shouldn’t equality inspire more interaction and discussion with one another rather than assumptions? How embarrassing for someone if they rest in the assumption that you (or any other person) achieved your spot because of external characteristics alone? It’s irresponsible, lazy and abandons the responsibility we all have being apart of physical communities.
DEI or not- we must all discipline ourselves to spend time interacting with on another and engaging in discourse.
I don’t care for DEI on principle, but I still would never allow that to be the story I make up about someone. I enjoy asking the question, “What can I learn about him/her?”
Its clear DEI has done a lot of damage in our society. All it has done is increased a focus on the failed notion of multiculturalism and reduced the idea of nationhood and assimilation into its social norms. Trump is right to force a reset.
This is a great essay, but it is too late in my opinion. Until we see accountability for the purveyors of the toxic branch of DEI, I have no interest in being open to discourse. I tried that already and got shown the unwelcome may by the Kendi/DiAngelo crowd. So yes, let's have reasonable DEI after full accountability for past behaviors.
*I mistakenly deleted the post this was responding to. I contacted the author asking to repost. Leaving this here for now* Some good points here; many I agree with. What I disagree with is that there won’t be collateral damage from the way the administration is proceeding. It’s already happened and will continue as I argue in the beginning of the piece. I might have been with you had they been more surgical. Methods really matter.
This is the best essay I have read on DEI for a very long time. It is a “must read” essay for anyone who truly wants to understand the toxic manner in which DEI is generally discussed:
“I’m For DEI!!” 🌈🦄
“I’m Against DEI!!” ☠️⚰️
Those absolutist positions are toxic and they ignore good faith and reasonable criticisms of both “sides” of the DEI debate.
One criticism: The essay implicitly focuses on the “D” and, especially, the “I” of DEI and does not adequately address the “E” of DEI. To me, the E is the most fundamentally contentious issue. In any discussion about E, the term “equity” must be explicitly defined (is it “Equal Opportunity” or is it “Equal Results” or is it something else?). How E is defined will then determine the scope for an honest discussion about equity.
Thanks, Loren. You're right that I didn't give as much attention to equity and that this is a very important construct to clearly define and get right in practice. I spoke to this point a bit in my second post (https://asispub.substack.com/p/equity-efforts-need-more-social-science). There is often discussion around whether the focus should be on opportunity or outcome. The only one that makes any sense to me is the former, and I love Helen's examples below.
The E is indeed tricky and has to be faced head on because it is, at root, about treating people unequally in order for them to, in principle, have the same opportunities. So, giving some people an advantage that others don’t have. There are some examples of this that few people would object to and this is in the area of disability so when helping people write DEI statements, I get them to address it in that area. Who, for example, would disagree that, while workers are generally required to use the stairs, wheelchair users get a key to the elevator? Or that tables in a classroom are moved into a circle around a deaf person so she can lipread? Other reasonable accommodations for disability also exist and for people with religious or philosophical needs, but the emphasis, especially with the latter is on reasonable.
From there, ethical approaches get trickier but some of the companies I have helped with policies have included things like offering work experience specifically to kids from deprived areas. A tech company had an initiative to provide laptops and a six week after school club in a deprived area to introduce kids to coding. The deprived area was majority black but the initiative was based on supporting low income families so it did not exclude any white kids or tick race-based quota boxes which make them look good but which often benefit black privately educated kids who were likely to do well anyway and not achieve any upward mobility for kids who needed a boost with it. Some employers will fund language classes for those who have English as a second language or literacy classes for entry level employees who’d had a poor education. This kind of approach to the E - providing advantages to some subset of people to enable them to have the same opportunities as others - does not fall into the trap of assuming that a certain identity demographic is disadvantaged due to systemic prejudice and trying to even up outcomes. Instead, it identifies a material disadvantage and offers ways to close the gap to people of all demographics. Even if, in practice, those people are more likely to be of racial minority, this is not the criteria but reflecting a material reality that an outsized number of people from poor communities or who do not have good written English are not white. Taking this evidence-based approach to fill a material gap does not make political assumptions or cause resentment or tensions between groups or cause any member of a majority group to feel discriminated against or any member of a minority group to be suspected of being a “diversity hire.” I have found that employers who are critical of DEI initiatives based on assumptions about systemic oppression find this approach to be an ethical alternative and that it does not cause resentment among employees because they can see that a material need is being supplied and approve of this.
Great examples, Helen. Reducing objections to some people being treated unequally so that others can have equal opportunities is one of the main reasons I'm in favor of basing equity decisions on socioeconomic disadvantage rather than race. Far more people can get on board with this idea. In theory, it should also satisfy those whose interest is to base equity on race because you end up primarily benefiting Blacks and Latinos anyway, and you get more people supporting the policy, making it more sustainable. I wish more activists could see it that way.
Precisely. Not only is socioeconomic disadvantage the rightful concern of the left, it also addresses the impact of past racial policies that have caused members of certain demographics to be relegated to an underclass in the first place, and does so in ethical ways that don’t antagonise people. A large part of the problem with what I call Critical Social Justice activism is related to its postmodern roots which focus solely on social constructs and neglect the psychology of human nature. Making policies based on identity groups sets off some of our worst tribal and territorial impulses while addressing a material lack calls to our best traits of fairness and empathy. This is the principle which explains why social media posts about coffee shops that have attempted to redress imbalances by having a race based pricing scale have made majority groups feel antagonised and minority groups feel insulted while posts that show a notice that says “If you can’t afford a hot drink, just tell us and we’ll provide one. No questions asked” is received by most people with warmth and support, even when the majority of homeless people who take advantage of the offer are from a minority racial demographic. We need to work with people’s sense of fairness and common humanity, not against it.
Finding myself so grumpy about DEI does not help. Reading this centres me. However, I don’t know where you are in the world? What’s missing for me is acknowledgment of how this US centric movement / view of the world? Gets pushed with no reflection on our culture here in UK and Europe. It’s a crucial part of the culture wars for me.
Hi Shona. I'm in the US. Yes, I have heard from others about how US-based issues have taken root in the UK. I don't know enough about this to say how and why that is happening, but I agree that it is unwise. Context matters.
“we just never tried DEI the right way” Really?
I get the impulse to try and salvage something beneficial From the maze like infrastructure that DEI has built year after year. I mean, surely there has to be something worth saving considering the 1000s of employees, billions of dollars, and innumerable trainings?
Well no. If an employee needs to be instructed not to insult coworkers or just generally abide by the golden rule then that employee has no place in the workplace.
And people switch jobs, they don’t need to and they don’t want to be constantly retrained.
And fostering, always fostering something.
Does anyone here care about the fact that we don’t want this because its very existence renders decades of hard work null and void?
It undermines us it doesn’t help us please just stop. Find another surrogate for whatever is trying to be worked out here. We do not want this.
Kenneth, I want to understand your concern. What is it you’re saying you don’t want and who is the “we” to whom you refer?
Me and many other African American professionals. DEI is now a slur that is used to question the validity of our accomplishments.
I hate that you face that frustration. Ironically, it is an unfair result of DEI. However, isn’t the point of moving away from DEI to provide an opportunity to use discernment? Shouldn’t equality inspire more interaction and discussion with one another rather than assumptions? How embarrassing for someone if they rest in the assumption that you (or any other person) achieved your spot because of external characteristics alone? It’s irresponsible, lazy and abandons the responsibility we all have being apart of physical communities.
DEI or not- we must all discipline ourselves to spend time interacting with on another and engaging in discourse.
I don’t care for DEI on principle, but I still would never allow that to be the story I make up about someone. I enjoy asking the question, “What can I learn about him/her?”
Its clear DEI has done a lot of damage in our society. All it has done is increased a focus on the failed notion of multiculturalism and reduced the idea of nationhood and assimilation into its social norms. Trump is right to force a reset.
This is a great essay, but it is too late in my opinion. Until we see accountability for the purveyors of the toxic branch of DEI, I have no interest in being open to discourse. I tried that already and got shown the unwelcome may by the Kendi/DiAngelo crowd. So yes, let's have reasonable DEI after full accountability for past behaviors.
*I mistakenly deleted the post this was responding to. I contacted the author asking to repost. Leaving this here for now* Some good points here; many I agree with. What I disagree with is that there won’t be collateral damage from the way the administration is proceeding. It’s already happened and will continue as I argue in the beginning of the piece. I might have been with you had they been more surgical. Methods really matter.