The Troubling Decline of DEI: A Step Backward for America

[Social Media]

 

In the years following the George Floyd protests, the United States appeared ready to confront its deep-seated issues of discrimination and inequality. Yet, the recent rollback of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in corporate America and educational institutions signals a troubling retreat from those commitments. While DEI programs have faced criticism for their shortcomings, their rapid dismantling suggests a country regressing rather than progressing.

 

Major companies like Facebook, McDonald’s, and Walmart have recently announced reductions or complete discontinuations of their DEI efforts. These initiatives, ranging from specific hiring targets for women and people of color to broader goals of fostering inclusive workplaces, are now being scaled back. This shift reflects a disturbing trend: corporations are signaling less concern about creating environments that support women, LGBTQ+ individuals, people of color, and those with disabilities.

 

The retrenchment isn't limited to the corporate world. Educational institutions are also rolling back diversity measures. Some colleges have halted efforts to increase enrollment of Native, Black, and Latino students or cut scholarships designated for minority groups. Others have shuttered campus centers that offered support and resources for Black, LGBTQ+, and female students, among others.

 

The legal climate has undoubtedly played a role in this shift. The 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling restricting affirmative action in college admissions has emboldened conservative legal groups to challenge corporate DEI programs, arguing that they resemble the policies struck down by the court. In response, many companies are preemptively abandoning these initiatives, fearing legal repercussions.

 

However, the decline of DEI is not solely a legal issue. The social and political environment in the U.S. has shifted significantly. For some corporations, the expansion of DEI programs may have been more about aligning with the prevailing societal mood than a genuine commitment to combating racism and sexism. As the fervor surrounding the George Floyd protests subsides, so too does the urgency of these initiatives.

 

The rise of anti-DEI sentiment is rooted in two flawed premises. The first, often espoused by conservatives, is the belief that acknowledging gender, race, and other identities is inherently divisive. This argument suggests that ignoring identity would lead to fewer tensions, an approach that overlooks the systemic issues these initiatives aim to address.

 

The second premise comes from a segment of liberals and Democrats who, while supportive of certain diversity measures like campus centers for Black students, resist initiatives that seem to challenge the concept of meritocracy. This group sometimes aligns with conservatives in opposing the consideration of race or gender in admissions and hiring, fearing it undermines a merit-based system.

 

Both premises weaken the case for necessary and overdue societal changes. Ignoring identity does not erase the inequalities tied to it, and clinging to a flawed notion of meritocracy often perpetuates existing disparities.

 

The decline of DEI initiatives is more than just a policy change; it is a reflection of a shifting national consciousness, one that risks undoing progress made in recent years. As memories of George Floyd's killing and the subsequent protests fade, there is a danger that the hard-fought gains in diversity and inclusion will be lost, leaving the U.S. further entrenched in its historical patterns of inequality.

 

Based on a report by WP 2024-01-18

 

 

[JingerBen]

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Yagoda]

No more celebration of the mentally ill, no more racism, no more mandatory hate sessions and America hating., what a perfect inauguration day.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

The decline of DEI initiatives is more than just a policy change; it is a reflection of a shifting national consciousness, one that risks undoing progress made in recent years. As memories of George Floyd's killing and the subsequent protests fade, there is a danger that the hard-fought gains in diversity and inclusion will be lost, leaving the U.S. further entrenched in its historical patterns of inequality.

Can't force change through the law, when it's obviously BS. Employing people based on race or gender was never going to work if the people employed were not able to do the job.

 

In NZ there was a female captain when her navy ship foundered after running aground. I never heard of a NZ navy ship with a male captain running aground in my entire life.

Was it bad luck or incompetence? I know what I think, but I suspect the inquiry will have a different outcome from what I want. The fix is in, and it's not going to be good for anyone.

 

In the US, happily the biggest attempt at DEI in history was foiled as the potential POTUS was shown up to be a babbling incompetent, though it's scary that she still got as many votes as she did.

[Smokey and the Bandit]

DEI, or affirmative action is racist by definition and should be banned! Good to see it departing!

[asdf1234]

In whose opinion is it “a step backwards”? 

[Smokey and the Bandit]

1 hour ago, asdf1234 said:

In whose opinion is it “a step backwards”? 

Maybe dementia Joe?????🤣

[kimothai]

1 hour ago, asdf1234 said:

In whose opinion is it “a step backwards”? 

It appears to be written by someone with a liberal point of view.  I believe DEI basically punished the many to appease the few.  

[newbee2022]

8 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

In the years following the George Floyd protests, the United States appeared ready to confront its deep-seated issues of discrimination and inequality. Yet, the recent rollback of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in corporate America and educational institutions signals a troubling retreat from those commitments. While DEI programs have faced criticism for their shortcomings, their rapid dismantling suggests a country regressing rather than progressing.

 

Major companies like Facebook, McDonald’s, and Walmart have recently announced reductions or complete discontinuations of their DEI efforts. These initiatives, ranging from specific hiring targets for women and people of color to broader goals of fostering inclusive workplaces, are now being scaled back. This shift reflects a disturbing trend: corporations are signaling less concern about creating environments that support women, LGBTQ+ individuals, people of color, and those with disabilities.

 

 

The retrenchment isn't limited to the corporate world. Educational institutions are also rolling back diversity measures. Some colleges have halted efforts to increase enrollment of Native, Black, and Latino students or cut scholarships designated for minority groups. Others have shuttered campus centers that offered support and resources for Black, LGBTQ+, and female students, among others.

 

The legal climate has undoubtedly played a role in this shift. The 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling restricting affirmative action in college admissions has emboldened conservative legal groups to challenge corporate DEI programs, arguing that they resemble the policies struck down by the court. In response, many companies are preemptively abandoning these initiatives, fearing legal repercussions.

 

However, the decline of DEI is not solely a legal issue. The social and political environment in the U.S. has shifted significantly. For some corporations, the expansion of DEI programs may have been more about aligning with the prevailing societal mood than a genuine commitment to combating racism and sexism. As the fervor surrounding the George Floyd protests subsides, so too does the urgency of these initiatives.

 

The rise of anti-DEI sentiment is rooted in two flawed premises. The first, often espoused by conservatives, is the belief that acknowledging gender, race, and other identities is inherently divisive. This argument suggests that ignoring identity would lead to fewer tensions, an approach that overlooks the systemic issues these initiatives aim to address.

 

The second premise comes from a segment of liberals and Democrats who, while supportive of certain diversity measures like campus centers for Black students, resist initiatives that seem to challenge the concept of meritocracy. This group sometimes aligns with conservatives in opposing the consideration of race or gender in admissions and hiring, fearing it undermines a merit-based system.

 

Both premises weaken the case for necessary and overdue societal changes. Ignoring identity does not erase the inequalities tied to it, and clinging to a flawed notion of meritocracy often perpetuates existing disparities.

 

The decline of DEI initiatives is more than just a policy change; it is a reflection of a shifting national consciousness, one that risks undoing progress made in recent years. As memories of George Floyd's killing and the subsequent protests fade, there is a danger that the hard-fought gains in diversity and inclusion will be lost, leaving the U.S. further entrenched in its historical patterns of inequality.

 

Based on a report by WP 2024-01-18

 

 

Seems to be mainstream now

[kimothai]

I'm not sure how long it took for DEI to be implemented into American culture but the rapid speed that companies and institutions are throwing DEI "under the bus" is stunning.  That tells me that nobody wanted it in the first place with the exception of the radical left.

[expat_4_life]

8 hours ago, Social Media said:

The decline of DEI initiatives is more than just a policy change; it is a reflection of a shifting national consciousness, one that risks undoing progress made in recent years.

 

There is a good reason why some people have indeed referred to DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives as "discrimination, exclusion, and intimidation."

We've had enough - they are already kicking and screaming, but the only path forward is through merit. 

[aussiebrian]

2 hours ago, asdf1234 said:

In whose opinion is it “a step backwards”? 

Lol, they were too embarrassed to put their name on the article..

I think most normal people will disagree to DEI.

[wwest5829]

I suppose I am condemned to having not only studied history but having lived through the times in the USA from the 1950s onward. I remember having studied the segregated US Amed Forces, how Black US Veterans, after fighting in WW I & II, returned to their country only to be denied equally in education, voting rights, property rights, legal rights, etc. Fighting to make the world safe for democracy resulted in a very different reality for US minorities. Today, I am estranged from a USA that is moving to roll back the advances we had made continuing to reach for American ideals. I understand and agree that there is justified frustration/anger within the working middle class (and that this is not limited to my own country). But, having studied history, I fear the move toward an authoritarian right as an answer. The USA was founded on liberal ideas and that is why some of us understand that we can never get closer to the ideals while traveling in the opposite direction. We have moved in this direction previously, I am just not at all certain that we will regain balance before suffering a terrible cost under those currently seeming to hold the potential of no accountability until we are forced to the wall.

[WDSmart]

4 hours ago, JingerBen said:

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

No! No! No! Attitudes like that are precisely what DEI is trying to eliminate. People are not "bad rubbish" just because they are different from you. 

[jas007]

I would draw the line at hiring people do a job that they are incapable of performing, or who can only perform that job at a sub par level.  People's lives can sometimes hang in the balance.  Airline pilots, air traffic controllers, life guards, paramedics, doctors. The list goes on.  

 

Should the LA Lakers have to hire a midget or two, just to be "inclusive'?  Should Hooters have to hire morbidly obese women? 

[WDSmart]

13 minutes ago, jas007 said:

I would draw the line at hiring people do a job that they are incapable of performing, or who can only perform that job at a sub par level.  People's lives can sometimes hang in the balance.  Airline pilots, air traffic controllers, life guards, paramedics, doctors. The list goes on.  

 

Should the LA Lakers have to hire a midget or two, just to be "inclusive'?  Should Hooters have to hire morbidly obese women? 

DEI does not suggest crossing that line. Like Affirmative Action before it, DEI only recommends that an employer attempts to increase the diversity, equity, and inclusion of their workforce when hiring, but all those considered must be people who meet the minimum requirements. 

[jas007]

3 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

DEI does not suggest crossing that line. Like Affirmative Action before it, DEI only recommends that an employer attempts to increase the diversity, equity, and inclusion of their workforce when hiring, but all those considered must be people who meet the minimum requirements. 

In theory, perhaps.  In reality, hiring managers often bend the rules to meet DEI "goals."  

[biggles45]

So is it better to give the job to a DEI hire who just makes the Minimum benchmark, or to a non DEI hire who nears the Maximum. As a business man, I know which I would prefer. 

[James105]

7 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

DEI does not suggest crossing that line. Like Affirmative Action before it, DEI only recommends that an employer attempts to increase the diversity, equity, and inclusion of their workforce when hiring, but all those considered must be people who meet the minimum requirements. 

 

Except that's not how it works at all.   Here is the current racist advert for internships at MI5 in the UK that allows everyone to apply except white people.  

 

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/careers/opportunities/internships

 

 

[impulse]

8 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

DEI does not suggest crossing that line. Like Affirmative Action before it, DEI only recommends that an employer attempts to increase the diversity, equity, and inclusion of their workforce when hiring, but all those considered must be people who meet the minimum requirements. 

 

That may be how it was intended but just watching those 5'4" Secret Service ladies pretending to be human shields for a 6'4" Trump showed us all we needed to know. 

 

Had there been more than one shooter, someone else would be getting inaugurated later on in the week.

[WDSmart]

12 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

Except that's not how it works at all.   Here is the current racist advert for internships at MI5 in the UK that allows everyone to apply except white people.  

 

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/careers/opportunities/internships

 

 

I agree that the first two categories are racist and overly restrictive. This is not how DEI is supposed to be deployed in the USA.

[WDSmart]

15 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

That may be how it was intended but just watching those 5'4" Secret Service ladies pretending to be human shields for a 6'4" Trump showed us all we needed to know. 

 

Had there been more than one shooter, someone else would be getting inaugurated later on in the week.

Yes, but there are still a couple more days. One can only hope... (for taller Secret Service officers with more androgen ).

[KhunBENQ]

3 hours ago, aussiebrian said:

Lol, they were too embarrassed to put their name on the article..

I think most normal people will disagree to DEI.

"WP" Washington Post?

Opinion article with same picture by Perry Bacon jr.

(paywall)

[CygnusX1]

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

No! No! No! Attitudes like that are precisely what DEI is trying to eliminate. People are not "bad rubbish" just because they are different from you. 

It’s crystal clear to me that the ‘bad rubbish’ he’s referring to is racist and anti meritocracy DEI practices, NOT the particular people who might be advantaged by DEI. You’re entitled to disagree with his position, but not to grossly and deliberately misrepresent what he’s saying.

[WDSmart]

37 minutes ago, CygnusX1 said:

It’s crystal clear to me that the ‘bad rubbish’ he’s referring to is racist and anti meritocracy DEI practices, NOT the particular people who might be advantaged by DEI. You’re entitled to disagree with his position, but not to grossly and deliberately misrepresent what he’s saying.

It's crystal clear to me that by referring to DEI as "bad rubbish," the original poster was denigrating DEI's attempts to reduce the underlying racist, sexist, and other vestiges of prejudicial approaches to hiring. Anyone who does that, in my opinion, is displaying those same anti-social tendencies.