Diversity, equity, and inclusion
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are organizational frameworks which seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination on the basis of identity or disability.[1] These three notions (diversity, equity, and inclusion) together represent "three closely linked values" which organizations seek to institutionalize through DEI frameworks.[2] Some experts say diversity and inclusion should be decoupled in some cases.[3] Some frameworks, primarily in Britain, substitute the notion of "equity" with equality: equality, diversity, inclusion (EDI).[4][5][6] Other variations include diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging (DEIB),[7][8][9] justice, equity, diversity and inclusion (JEDI or EDIJ),[10][11] or diversity, equity, inclusion and access (IDEA, DEIA or DEAI).[12][13][14]
"DEI" redirects here. For other uses, see DEI (disambiguation).
Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce, such as in identity and identity politics. It includes gender, culture, ethnicity, religion, disability, class, age or opinion.[2][15] Equity refers to concepts of fairness and justice, such as fair compensation and substantive equality.[15] More specifically, equity usually also includes a focus on societal disparities and allocating resources and "decision making authority to groups that have historically been disadvantaged",[16] and taking "into consideration a person's unique circumstances, adjusting treatment accordingly so that the end result is equal."[2] Finally, inclusion refers to creating an organizational culture that creates an experience where "all employees feel their voices will be heard",[2] and a sense of belonging and integration.[15][17]
DEI is most often used to describe certain "training" efforts, such as diversity training. Though DEI is best known as a form of corporate training, it also finds implementation within many types of organizations, such as within academia, schools, and hospitals.[18][19]
In recent years, DEI efforts and policies have generated criticism, some directed at the specific effectiveness of its tools, such as diversity training, its effect on free speech and academic freedom, as well as more broadly attracting criticism on political or philosophical grounds.
History[edit]
DEI policy emerged from Affirmative Action in the United States.[20] The legal term "affirmative action" was first used in "Executive Order No. 10925",[21] signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961, which included a provision that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated [fairly] during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".[22] It was used to promote actions that achieve non-discrimination. In September 1965, President Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to "hire without regard to race, religion and national origin" and "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin."[23] The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Neither executive order nor The Civil Rights Act authorized group preferences. The Senate floor manager of the bill, Senator Hubert Humphrey, declared that the bill “would prohibit preferential treatment for any particular group” adding “I will eat my hat if this leads to racial quotas.”
[24] However affirmative action in practice would eventually become synonymous with preferences, goals and quotas as upheld or struck down by Supreme Court decisions even though no law had been passed explicitly permitting discrimination in favor of disadvantaged groups. Some state laws explicitly banned racial preferences, and in response some laws have failed attempting to explicitly legalize race preferences.
Affirmative action is intended to alleviate under-representation and to promote the opportunities of defined minority groups within a society to give them equal access to that of the majority population.[25] The philosophical basis of the policy has various rationales, including but not limited to compensation for past discrimination, correction of current discrimination, and the diversification of society.[26] It is often implemented in governmental and educational settings to ensure that designated groups within a society can participate in all promotional, educational, and training opportunities.[27]
The stated justification for affirmative action by its proponents is to help compensate for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling class of a culture,[28] and to address existing discrimination.[29] More recently concepts have moved beyond discrimination to include diversity, equity and inclusion as motives for preferring historically underrepresented groups.
In the famous Bakke decision of 1978, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, diversity now became a factor in constitutional law. The Supreme Court ruled quotas were illegal but it was allowable to consider race as a plus factor when trying to foster "diversity" in their classes.[30] [31]
Diversity themes gained momentum in the mid-1980s. At a time when President Ronald Reagan threatened to dismantle equality and affirmative action laws in the 1980s, equality and affirmative action professionals employed by US firms along with equality consultants, engaged in establishing the argument that a diverse workforce should be seen as a competitive advantage rather than just as a legal constraint. Basically, their message was, do not promote diversity because it is a legal mandate, but because it is good for business . From then on, researchers started to test a number of hypotheses on the business benefits of diversity and of diversity management, known as the business case of diversity.[32]
In 2003 corporations spent $8 billion annually on diversity. After the election of Donald Trump in 2016 and the ascent of the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements, Time magazine stated in 2019 that the DEI industry had "exploded" in size.[33] Within academia, a 2019 survey found that spending on DEI efforts had increased 27 percent over the five preceding academic years.[34]
One 2020 estimate placed the size of the global diversity and inclusion market at $7.5 billion, of which $3.4 billion was in the United States, projecting it to reach $17.2 billion by 2027.[35]
In 2021, New York magazine stated "the business became astronomically larger than ever" after the murder of George Floyd in May 2020.[36] The Economist has also stated that surveys of international companies indicate that the number of people hired for jobs with "diversity" or "inclusion" in the title more than quadrupled since 2010.[37]
As of 2024, affirmative action rhetoric has been increasingly replaced by emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion, while nine states explicitly ban its use in the employment process.[38][39] The Supreme Court in 2023 explicitly rejected affirmative action regarding race in college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. The Court held that affirmative action programs "lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today".[40][41][42]
Political and public reaction[edit]
Higher education[edit]
Since 2023, Republican-dominated state legislatures are considering bills that are against DEI efforts, primarily at state colleges and universities. The downgrading is taking place amid heavy legal pressures. Supreme Court in June 2023 upended established equal protection law with its decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. This ruling, effectively eliminated the use of affirmative action in college admissions but did not directly affect employers. Nevertheless, since then conservative activists have organized in the states to dismantle race-conscious policies in various aspects of the economy. The Chronicle of Higher Education in February 2024 is tracking 73 bills introduced in state legislatures in 2023-2024. Of these 8 have become law, 25 failed to pass, and the rest are pending. Two bills became law in Florida and Texas; and one each in North Carolina, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah. Florida now prohibits public colleges from requiring “political loyalty tests” as a condition of employment, admission, or promotion. The other Florida law prohibits public colleges from spending state or federal funds on DEI unless required by federal law. One Texas law prohibits DEI practices or programs, including training, that are not in compliance with the state Constitution regarding equality. The other law bans DEI offices and staff, as well as mandatory diversity training. It also bans identity-based diversity statements that give preference regarding race or sex.[128]
Entertainment and media[edit]
Within the film industry, several prominent actors and directors have criticized recently implemented diversity standards, such as at the Academy Awards. Beginning in 2024, to be eligible for a best-picture nomination at the Academy Awards, a film must meet two of four diversity standards in order to qualify.[129]
Actor Richard Dreyfuss stated the Academy Award's diversity and inclusion standards "make me vomit", arguing that art should not be morally legislated.[130] Several major film directors, who are voting members of the Academy Awards, anonymously expressed their opposition to the new diversity standards to The New York Post, with one describing them as "contrived".[131] Film critic Armond White attacked the new standards as "progressive fascism", comparing them to the Hays Code.[132]
Conservative media sources, such as National Review, have also been frequent critics of DEI, with contributor George Leff arguing it is authoritarian and anti-meritocratic.[133]
Politics[edit]
In the 2020s, DEI came into the spotlight in American politics, especially in state legislatures in Texas and other Republican-controlled states.[134] Several states are considering or have passed legislation targeting DEI in public institutions. In March 2023, the Texas House of Representatives passed a bill with a rider banning the use of state funds for DEI programs in universities and colleges.[135] In May 2023, Texas passed legislation banning offices and programs promoting DEI at publicly funded colleges and universities.[136][137] In Iowa, a bill to ban spending on DEI in public universities was also advanced in March 2023.[138]
Several prominent Republicans positioned themselves as critics, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis,[139] Texas Governor Greg Abbott,[15] and 2024 presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy.[140] In January 2024 the Florida Board of Education banned federal or state money being used toward DEI programs in universities.[141]
Another significant point of political controversy has been the implementation of DEI frameworks in the military, with Republican politicians frequently criticizing the efforts as "divisive" and as harming military efficiency and recruiting, while Democrats have defended it as beneficial and strengthening.[142] In July 2023, the House of Representatives voted to ban all DEI offices and initiatives within the Pentagon and military along partisan lines, with all Democrats and four Republican members also opposing. The Senate, under Democratic control, has not acted.[143][144]
Public boycotts[edit]
Political opposition to corporate DEI efforts in the United States, particularly marketing criticized as "woke", have led to calls for boycotts of certain companies by activists and politicians; with notable examples being Disney, Target, Anheuser-Busch,[145] and Chick-fil-A.[146][147] Commentator Jonathan Turley of The Hill described such boycotts as possessing "some success".[148]
Some of these companies' responses to the controversies have, in turn, sparked criticism from progressives of "walking back" or failing DEI commitments.[149][150]