You can’t turn on the news lately without someone saying DEI. Unfortunately, it is often used without context or even completely out of context. This leaves both those who have had a lot of training and experience in the field as well as those who haven’t had any scratching their heads in confusion. Let’s unpack the intent and origins of DEI.

DEI stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion.

➡️Diversity- the presence of differences in the human condition. (Such as age, sex, race, gender, national origin, ability, religion, national origin, citizenship, socioeconomic condition, housing status, language, political perspective, etc)

➡️Equity- the fair and just allocation of resource access and opportunities in a way that everyone has what they need to thrive in the environment, to contribute fully, and to be represented/have a voice.

➡️Inclusion- the practice of insuring that the full range of human diversity has equitable access and involvement in the community. This includes welcoming, supporting, respecting, and valuing diverse individuals for their unique contributions while ensuring none are excluded. It demands that everyone is treated with dignity and strives to create a culture of belonging for all.

To unpack further, let’s go back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, specifically Title VII. This provision of law established the equal employment opportunity provision (EEO). The EEO states that everyone should have legal right to succeed and should not have to face discrimination at work. The federal government has since written a number of regulatory directives that businesses must follow to ensure that discrimination is minimized. For example, certain businesses and government agencies must file annualized reports to confirm characteristics of their workforce such as gender, race, etc. The EEO is the bedrock of all efforts to end workplace discrimination.

Affirmative action policies were first mentioned by John F. Kennedy, but were started by executive order under Lyndon Johnson in 1965. Affirmative action programs were specifically designed to correct deep seated past and present discrimination by giving preferential treatment to underrepresented groups using quotas and other legal methods. Affirmative action programs gave preferences to certain applicants over others. Affirmative action benefitted women and racial minorities among others by providing preference in college admission, hiring practices, and contracting. This remedial action was usually mandated by government policy and considered necessary to break the cycle of organized discrimination. It identified those not treated fairly based on their “protected class” as identified in law (such as age, race, sex, disability, religion, etc.) Affirmative action sought to level the playing field by removing systemic barriers that single individuals could not change by establishing quotas and using legal means including prosecution, fines, and penalties. (Affirmative action in college admissions was ended federally based on a Supreme Court ruling in 2023.)

But affirmative action is not synonymous with DEI. DEI efforts are much broader. It goes beyond a legalistic approach and seeks to create an inclusive environment of understanding and empathy. It is a long term commitment to communities by engaging all people. It is a voluntary effort by groups and businesses to understand and value the communities they serve and to create holistic change to benefit the entire community.

DEI first seeks to create awareness through dialogue and training where individuals encounter diverse perspectives. This exchange is to develop cultural competencies, to decrease unconscious bias, and recognize diverse perspectives as strengths of the community. The culture of belonging, empathy, and inclusion can strengthen partnership and deepen community cohesion. DEI is not about division. At its core, the goal is to foster environments where everyone is valued, has a voice, and has access to the resources they need to thrive.

So why then, do critics of DEI claim it fosters division rather than cohesion. Why do they say it stokes racial resentment? Why are naysayers publishing headlines that say DEI prioritizes physical characteristics over merit?

Much misunderstanding comes from awareness. According to Harvard University 1/3 of companies have engaged in training because they had to (a result of legal action due to a discrimination finding or lawsuit). Others have not participated in effective training but had read or heard about training out of context and jumped to their own conclusions. Others may have participated in ineffective or misguided DEI initiatives. Or perhaps they were forced to attend unwittingly.

Ensuring diversity, equity, and inclusion is hard work. Hearing the point of view of others is sometimes hard. Confronting your own bias is harder. Changing your practice from self-interest to one that benefits the greater good of the community may involve some sacrifice and temporary discomfort. But communities who can decide that all people matter, move into tactical DEI in which they move beyond compliance and use the processes to meet important shared goals. They realize that the work must be done by all in order to benefit all of us. (Perhaps the three musketeers were on to something). DEI is not a zero sum game. Ensuring the dignity, worth, productivity, and of all people does not diminish individuals. Integrated DEI is therefore a culture of inclusion not exclusion.

So the idea of banning DEI is puzzling. Using a broad term in specific directives creates lack of clarity. Are we actually banning affirmative action? That would require the dismantling of government regulation. Are we rescinding the civil rights act of 1964? That would require Congressional or Supreme Court action. Are we refusing to acknowledge differences in the human condition? Are we to deny that people may need different things in order to successful within the work environment and no longer providing accommodation? Do we refuse to ensure that everyone is treated with dignity and has a voice? Can the barriers removed through affirmative action be replaced? Is it no longer okay to talk about race or gender? Who benefits from such restrictions? All of these issues surface with a simplistic reference to the breadth of DEI.

For those that are in favor of removing government red tape, a conversation about how to guard against discrimination in the workplace without excessive reporting requirements and government oversight might be a conversation worth having. Layers of bureaucracy may no longer be necessary in some circumstances. Changing times may require new regulations. Compliance can sometimes feel overwhelming when too many directives are intersecting in ways that are difficult to manage. Removing quotas if parity has been achieved and maintained may be reasonable.

However prohibiting organizations from fully including all people or from discussing diverse perspectives is discriminatory. Suggesting that removing barriers to ensure that everyone has access to education and fair hiring practice is somehow anti- merit is illogical. A merit based system means that everyone has access to rise based on their ability. Therefore ensuring that people who have ability don’t face artificial barriers is imperative.

As an act of citizenship, understand the foundational role the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had in advancing the rights of women and black Americans in this country. Understand the important and sometimes controversial role that affirmative action plans had in breaking down entrenched barriers to advancement. Consider whether a reduction in government oversight of discrimination in employment, government, and education is ever warranted and under what conditions. And embrace the ideals of belonging, voice, and contribution for all Americans. We are stronger together and our diversity is our strength. One nation under God, indivisible…with liberty and justice for all.