The ongoing onslaught against DEI programming is proof that fear is a stronger political weapon today than hope. We are seeing a wave of liberal and left-leaning social influencers express fears and lies around DEI. I watched a video recently where a liberal influencer released a nearly ten-minute video on why they support DEI but why they disagree with it in practice. The influencer’s main arguments followed this logic:

1. ‘Affirmative action is great but it is too late of an intervention. Affirmative action interventions’ – i.e., “training” – must be afforded to ‘poor, inner city children in kindergarten and early education, because the existing model enforces affirmative action support in college and employment.’
2. ‘DEI affinity groups disadvantage white people, Asian Americans, and makes white staff uncomfortable.’ E.g., ‘dialog about Karens is harmful to white female employees.’
3. ‘DEI affinity groups do not do anything besides complain. They do not work to address the structural issues for which they claim to care about.’
4. ‘We want the workplace to be apolitical and neutral. DEI is politicized and creates tension.
5. ‘DEI threatens veterans’ in the workforce.’
6. ‘DEI makes workplaces uncomfortable for Republicans and other conservative-aligned employees.’

These ideas about DEI have entered the mainstream after years of conservative attacks on DEI, affirmative action, and racial justice. The points the influencer raised echo those in Project 2025, the far right conservative blueprint for the United States, an initiative that has received condemnation on the left and part of the right. During the 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump said that he was unfamiliar with Project 2025 and the individuals behind it – less than one year later, he named one of the principal architects behind it to lead his Office of Management and Budget, and has openly acknowledged the individual’s links to the ordeal.

Let’s look at those points line-by-line.

1. ‘Affirmative action is good but it is too late of an intervention. Affirmative action interventions – i.e., “training” – must be afforded to poor, inner city children in kindergarten and early education, because the existing models enforces affirmative action support in college and employment.’

The Kennedy administration in 1961 laid out some of the foundation for affirmative action. According to Kennedy’s Executive Order 10925, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was founded, whose job was to identity “affirmative steps … to realize more fully the national policy of nondiscrimination within the executive branch of the Government.” Johnson’s Executive Order 11246 expands on Kennedy’s EO: “[The Government or the Contractor] will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship.”

There is something so inherently wrong with the argument that ‘affirmative action should be taught to poor, inner city kindergarteners’. First, it places the onus on children – particularly, Black and brown children – to be what, exactly? More resilient to racism and discrimination? To be kinder to prejudice and discriminatory individuals they will encounter throughout their lifespan? Placing the onus on these children to be ‘more resilient’ or more like the dominant people in power is in stark contrast to the purpose of affirmative action. This implies, for example, that young Black children must be reformed before acceptance into a white-dominant America where their participation is conditional.

What about the racist adults these children will encounter in adulthood? In this scenario, it wholly ignores white parties’ role in eradicating racism and prejudice. It reinforces the idea that speaking out against discrimination is more problematic than the discriminatory behavior itself.

Instead of advancing society, it promotes the idea that the onus is not to be actively anti-racist, but produces a culture of active-conditionality and asserts power and structural dominance of one group of Americans over another. The United States did not lead the Civil Rights Movement to produce a culture whereby civil rights were conditional upon one’s acceptance of subservience and silence.

Condemnation of diversity, equality/equity, and inclusion often fail to appreciate what it actually does, however, it does make clear that opponents to it usually harbor uncomfortable and clearly biased views with respect to racial discrimination.

For instance, when a political leader communicates that they ‘abhor DEI because it is racist,’ they are telling on themselves. They are suggesting that the life pre-inclusion – i.e., segregation and Jim Crow – were okay. The formerly privileged notice equity challenges only because they have lost their privilege.

I find that sound practice when engaging in conversations around DEI, it is helpful when the opposing party is asked to explain what they think ‘DEI’ is. Often, its opponents believe that it addresses only racial inequality; they fail to appreciate the totality of its effects. It is also helpful to hear someone say that they oppose diversity, equality, and inclusion versus an acronym in which most people don’t even understand its meaning.

It is also helpful to ask individuals what DEI practices they disagree with – for example, DEI includes:

(a) extending job recruitment outreach beyond traditional circles;

(b) championing interview processes that are accessible to disabled people, working parents, youth/elderly, and the poor;

(c) collecting data around applicants and potential candidates to ensure that processes are fair, wage offers are equitable, and that hiring managers understand how to communicate more effectively with people who may live outside of their culture;

(d) visually and hearing impaired employees have the support that they need to be able to fully participate;

(e) employees with emotional or mental disabilities or neurodivergent have the support that they need to participate fully;

(f) working parents have the support that they need;

(g) women and queer people are protected from societal discrimination and actively included, undoing years of abuse and discrimination;

(h) traditionally underrepresented ethnic minorities and those who have faced systematic prejudice are proactively engaged and supported via programs from recruitment, through ongoing support such as mentorship and training;

(i) extends protections for parents and carers in the workplace;

(j) that commercial buildings have accessible entries and exits;

(k) affinity groups and bodies representative marginalized communities have means of developing community, building support, and representing their concerns to leaders.

• ‘DEI affinity groups disadvantage white people, Asian Americans, and makes white staff uncomfortable. E.g., dialog about ‘Karens’ is harmful to white female employees.’

DEI and affirmative action were not designed to be comfortable nor easy; they were designed to confront anti-Black racism, prejudice against differently-abled people and prejudice against marginalized people in the United States. First and foremost: DEI acknowledges that social justice is achievable and it champions the work of difficult conversations, flipping the script, humility, vulnerability, and openness in order to foster sympathy and empathy – and, a basic sense of human understanding.

There is now pushback to the use of phrases such as “Karen” – some people call it offensive. It is worth acknowledging that there is a long history in the United States of white women using their racial identity and privilege to unjustly harm Black women, men, and children. Before Karen, there was BBQ Becky; prior to Becky, there was Miss Ann, notably from the 1800s.

• ‘DEI affinity groups do not do anything besides complain. They do not work to address the structural issues for which they claim to care about.’

This framing is problematic. Affinity groups usually are not exclusive; they invite seek to create safe spaces for people who were traditionally underrepresented and whose lived experiences may differ from the majority to build community and develop tailored support for one-another. This community helps individuals feel that they are not alone; they allow groups to develop formal or informal mentorship schemes; and they allow them to grieve and be grieved together.

Racial minorities, women, and queer people understand what it feels to face gaslighting and oppression in the corporate space – that sense of ‘did I misinterpret that or was that behavior targeted towards me?’ Or the old, ‘should I report that to HR or will I lose my job?’

• ‘We want the workplace to be apolitical and neutral. DEI is politicized and creates tension.’

The workplace has never been apolitical; nor has it ever been neutral. Individuals who broach this should be asked to point to a point in history when the workplace was neutral. It has never been. Historically, ethnic minorities were actively excluded, women were excluded or relegated to gendered roles, disabled individuals were not hired, and individuals from working class communities were excluded from white collar and corporate job opportunities. That history of exclusion reveals a pattern: the workplace and the processes for the workplace were never neutral. Diversity, equity, and inclusion pledge no left nor right commitments; instead, it works to center humanity and dialogue through training, reformation of practices, and ongoing community-building initiatives to make the workplace more accessible and inclusive.

• ‘DEI threatens veterans’ in the workforce.’

Preferential hiring programs for veterans are examples of DEI and affirmative action. Preferential hiring for a marginalized class – in this case, veterans – is affirmative action, as it acknowledges that additional criteria beyond strict merit considerations may be considered, such as one’s military service. There is a history of discrimination of veterans in hiring practices in both government and industry, so this act of consideration on veteran’s status works as a strong reparative tool.

During the recruitment phase, employers may extend to veterans additional support to help them communicate their transversal skills – for instance, many veterans may not know how to convert their combat, tactical or strategic and interpersonal skills from their service in the armed forces into civilian roles. If an applicant is successful, employers may benefit by providing them with flexible hours – especially for those reservists, extended leave to support their family, and extend consideration for paid leave to accommodate medical leave.

• ‘DEI makes workplaces uncomfortable for Republicans and other conservative-aligned employees.’

Individuals who hold these views are telling on themselves. Anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-misogyny, anti-bigotry, anti-discrimination – neither of these views are party-political. The late General Colin Powell, a dedicated Republican – a man who served as a national security adviser to Republican President Ronald Reagan, who served as secretary of state to Republican President George W. Bush, and a longtime rumored candidate for the Republican presidential nomination from the 1990s through 2000s – was vocal about his support for racial equality and affirmative action. Powell helped oversee greater representation of ethnic minorities and women to the military and across Foggy Bottom. Individuals should be weary of casting anti-discrimination with a political party brush. After having survived the Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the Civil Rights Movement, and the calls for social justice and racial justice amid the rise in discrimination during first Trump administration, we can decisively argue that anti-racism and a pledge for racial equity has been stitched into the country’s fabric. Globally, the concept of race equality is accepted as morally and socially good – it is rooted in science, faith, and morale.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion are here to stay. These economically, socially, and morally positive endeavors seek to bring peace, justice, security, and prosperity to all – we owe it to one-another to be truthful and honest in our conversations about its impact on society. The fight for equity is not a popular political trend, nor is it new; it is a continuation of the unfinished work of civil rights, labor rights, gender equity, and disability rights. Its critics often mistake discomfort for harm, when in truth, discomfort is where we grow.

The question is not whether DEI belongs in our schools, workplaces, or institutions, but whether we have the courage to live up to those values that we claim to hold: fairness, decency, and  shared humanity. The measure of a fair and just society is not how comfortable the powerful remain, but how safe and seen the vulnerable and marginalized people in our society become.

The work of DEI is, at its core, the work of democracy. And, like democracy, it requires care, honesty, and courage to keep trying and persist in doing the good work that makes all of us stronger Americans.