DEI at a crossroads: How backlash is reshaping equity and inclusion
Written by Hanna Naima McCloskey
Photo by Moe Magners under creative license
As Trump re-ascends to the White House on a wave of ‘anti-woke’ and ‘anti-DEI’ right wing ideology, it would be fair to say that the headwinds for any meaningful diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) work in the US are enormously strong.
The media continues to play a pivotal role in both generating, shaping, spreading and amplifying this ‘anti-woke’ discourse, consistently portraying DEI efforts as either “ridiculous”, “excessive” or “unjust” and “discriminatory”. The ‘anti-woke’ narrative invokes the concept of ‘reverse discrimination’ – asserting that policies aimed at promoting equity for marginalised groups (e.g; people of colour, women, trans people, Muslims) are in fact actually discriminatory towards groups who do not have these identities, and who are in fact at the top of certain socio-political hierarchies, such as white people, men and cisgender people.
This inversion of power dynamics and victimhood serves to delegitimise DEI efforts by reframing the pursuit of equity as itself an act of unfairness — and in doing, erases the very unfairness of the status quo that some folks benefit from, and that DEI (at its best) seeks to interrupt.
With the extreme right in ascendancy in the US and with great political momentum in a second term, it’s easy to understand why some companies committed to DEI rightly feel cautious about how to move forward.
While US executives and DEI leaders are understandably trepidatious about continuing their work — especially given the threat and risk of costly lawsuits by right wing activists — the limits of this moment are not insulated to America alone. The US’ position as a global superpower also means that the US context is exported around the world. McDonald’s recent decision to roll back their DEI initiatives off the back of the 2023 Supreme Court ruling on the use of race in college admissions is worldwide in scope, despite the fact that it is a specifically US ruling and legal context. Meta’s reversal of policies and guidelines to reduce and interrupt online violence towards those with protected characteristics is also a reflection of political changes in America having global consequences. This shouldn’t surprise us though — when we acknowledge examples such as the US anti-trans movement’s targeting of the UK’s NHS, for example.
Despite these deeply concerning contexts for all those preoccupied with building a more just world, much of the current discourse evaluating the DEI landscape relies on a simplified analysis, equating more DEI initiatives as inherently positive, and any reduction or cessation as inherently negative. But not all DEI work is made equal. What is often missing from these narratives is the question of effectiveness — were all the DEI programmes now being cut or scaled back, truly delivering meaningful change?
Have some initiatives under the DEI banner, due to flawed methodologies or approaches, contributed to polarisation (including between marginalised communities) instead of building solidarity? Has the proliferation of ‘DEI by events’ without substantive structural redesign of policies and processes been a cause for disillusionment among even those who were originally on side? Has corporate inconsistency in their enthusiasm for speaking up on global watershed social justice issues (as we see in the stark contrast in responses between the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and Israel’s latest war on Gaza from 2023) eroded belief in DEI as principled work? And does global companies’ use of the US as a blueprint for the rest of the world establish further disconnect between DEI as a tool to meet marginalised people’s context-specific needs?
We are at an important inflection point where those determined to create more fair and equitable workplaces must part ways with approaches that do not actually deliver materially beneficial outcomes for marginalised communities. This is not as a capitulation at all, but as a commitment to doing this work meaningfully and with rigour.
This means: a commitment to being transparent about the assumptions DEI teams make about why they pursue certain endeavours over others and their specific intentions with each. Connected to this, measurable frameworks to evaluate the effectiveness of these endeavours is paramount. Only then can practitioners determine whether time, resources and money are improving outcomes for marginalised colleagues and stakeholders. It is impossible to improve or pivot on a course of action unless the intended outcomes are known and assessed against. A sales strategy with no data on current revenue or goals for revenue growth would be challenging to enact, and DEI is no different.
Finally, practitioners can index for structural change, reframing their methods from an identity-led approach (i.e. women as the entry point) to an issue-led approach (i.e. the promotions process), as we detail in our white paper, DEI Disrupted – The Blueprint for DEI Worth Doing. The latter enables the possibility for solutions that benefit all marginalised folks (avoiding the oppression Olympics) and that can be communicated to everyone as pursuing fairness.
There is no doubt that this moment we find ourselves in is a devastating reality. And we must remain resolute and courageous in how we meet it. Too many lives are at stake not to sharpen our tools, re-engage our principles, and meet this reality head on.
Hanna Naima McCloskey is the founder and CEO of Fearless Futures.
READ MORE