A Total War on DEI

What began as a Republican Party-led backlash to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives that ramped up after the brutal police murder of George Floyd, has now morphed into a total assault against all institutions that have embraced DEI measures.

Those targeted sectors include government, business, and academia.

Led by the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, and supported by appointed heads of federal agencies, the federal government is using its power of the purse to deny federal funds to any institution that promotes equity and diversity measures.

Declaring DEI measures “illegal” and violating “civil rights”, the Trump administration is determined in its efforts to eradicate DEI initiatives and call for them to be replaced by what the administration calls “merit” based operations. Republican politicians have floated the word “meritocracy” to describe hiring and school admittance based on merit with no consideration whatsoever regarding race, gender, or disability.

The federal-led assaults on DEI have seen institutions—law firms, giant tech companies, and schools capitulate in large numbers, leaving many equity workers jobless and denying millions of the more vulnerable employees and students without a supportive haven as DEI offices have closed across the nation.

The all-out war on DEI escalated on Day One of the second Trump administration and has been unrelenting ever since.

Within hours after being sworn into office for the second time this past January Mr. Trump signed an executive order entitled “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing”. In authoritative and questionable language, the executive order excoriated DEI initiatives as “illegal”, “immoral”, and “discriminatory”.  Read the executive order text.

A week later, just nine days into his second term, Mr. Trump astounded much of the nation by blaming DEI initiatives for the crash that sent an army helicopter and an American Airlines regional plane into the Potomac River killing 67 people.

He cited an unnamed article that said that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) “is actively recruiting workers who suffer severe intellectual disabilities, psychiatric problems, and other mental and physical conditions under a diversity and inclusion initiative spelled out on the agency’s website.”

His comments were met with derision by Democratic lawmakers, while Republican lawmakers were either supportive of the president or quiet on the matter.

In an address to Congress this past March Mr. Trump again assailed and denigrated DEI initiatives. “We have ended the tyranny,” he said, “of so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion policies across the federal government, and indeed the private sector and our military….and our country will be woke no longer.”

With billions of federal dollars at stake, the capitulation to these White House anti-DEI edicts by companies and universities has been enormous and concerning.

Though it has not been unanimous.

Harvard University recently held the line against what it sees as unprecedented government interference in academic freedom by the Trump administration’s threat of withholding $9 billion of federal grant funding unless the school adheres to a number of demands.

One of those demands reads “Reporting students to the federal government who are ‘hostile’ to American values.” Others included ending DEI programs and installing “viewpoint-diverse” faculty members. Some, in the guise of civil rights, address what the administration sees as a rise in antisemitism attributed to the campus protests of 2024 against the war in Gaza.

Critics of the administration see its antisemitism claims as a reason to gut what the White House sees as liberal biases and equity measures. Harvard president Alan Garber sees an authoritarian power grab. He recognized the efforts to combat antisemitism, but said the majority of the White House demands “represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard.”

“No government-regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.” – Alan Garber, Harvard president

The Trump administration has since frozen billions in funds to Harvard, America’s prestigious and oldest university.

(On April 19, the Trump administration claimed a “mistake” was made in regard to the letter sent to Harvard. The administration has not made the same claim regarding letters sent to Columbia and other universities that capitulated to its demands.)

Others are also pushing back.

On February 20, a group of 39 law professors from across the country sent a signed memo addressed to Colleagues, University Offices of General Counsel, and University Leaders, outlining and stating the legality of DEI measures and how they abide by and support federal civil rights statutes. Read the memo.

DEI measures have historically had strong support in the country before the backlash trumpeted by many of today’s Republican politicians.

“The data is there. When you have a diverse team in any organization, they will constantly outperform homogeneous teams, over and over again.” – Elmer Dixon, a Diversity consultant and recent RARE Open Discussions guest

Massachusetts’s governor Maura Healey shares that opinion.

“Talk to any CEO of a major Fortune 500 company. They’ll tell you that their bottom line, dollar wise, does better when there’s more diversity in the room.”

Many observers see flaws with the issue of “meritocracy” promoted by DEI critics in the White House.

Serena Mayori of Washington DC-based The Hill wrote: “It can be difficult to take seriously these attacks by an administration that appoints staggering unqualified individuals to high posts, allows unvetted billionaires and teenagers access to sensitive government databases, and retaliates against public servants who hold wrongdoers accountable.”

Despite charges of special treatment, preferences, and so-called wokeness attributed to DEI measures, advocates of the measures claim they advance equal opportunity for all Americans, thus enlarging the talent pool.

Aside from people of color and members of the LQBTQ+ community, that pool includes military veterans (often Purple Heart vets with disabilities), poor, rural Americans, and religious minorities.

DEI initiatives have improved our universities, our businesses, and our military by removing barriers and expanding opportunities.

As Elmer Dixon pointed out, the results are there.

And if merit is the question, DEI is all about merit.