The Future of DEI
Why it failed and what to do instead
DEI
THE FUTURE OF DEI
Why it failed and what to do instead
George Yancey
In the foreseeable future, DEI initiatives will be on the decline. While I have criticized how DEI has been done, I find that unfortunate. How did DEI get into this position and what can be done instead? Let’s talk about that.
To see why DEI is in decline we need to go back to its high point of acceptance which occurred after the George Floyd protests. America was horrified at his murder and looking for answers. Antiracism appeared to provide some of those answers. From antiracism, there was a push to dismantle institutions that perpetuated racism. To do this whites had to be brought on board. Thus, DEI programs of diversity training were pushed and implemented throughout our society.
The problem is that there was no effort to regulate and determine whether the programs worked and if so, which ones did. With the newfound public support for these programs, those running them could do most of what they wanted.
This naturally led to excesses by people who did not know what they were doing. Some of the trainers used strategies intended to browbeat whites into accepting antiracist perspectives. Those examples were paraded as paradigms of “DEI.”
This also led to unbalanced strategies. I mean, when you talk about “ending whiteness,” how do you think most whites are going to accept it? When you tell people they are “engaging in white supremacy,” or are “complicit in white supremacy,” then do you think you will be able to convince them of anything?
The poor use of this opportunity to craft a DEI that could bring people together often separated them even more. This is not just my opinion. Research shows that browbeating increases prejudice.
On top of generating a backlash, research also indicates that racial remedies centered around redistribution of resources from white people to black people will engender resistance to those remedies.
Furthermore, a meta-analysis has shown that we are not getting meaningful prejudice reduction from diversity programs. Those of us in this area of study know this dirty little secret.
So, DEI has tended to use techniques that generally do not reduce prejudice and that tend to create a backlash against it. Gee, what could go wrong? Throw in some really bad programs some people have experienced, and the rollback we are seeing is not surprising.
Those who are frustrated with Trump and companies cutting back on DEI can complain about it all they want. But if we do not find a better way to do DEI then what do they expect? The days of doing whatever crap you want because whites feel guilty are over.
The sad part is that despite the conservative backlash we do need programs that help produce racial understanding and move us away from racial conflict and alienation. If DEI programs did that then we would not be seeing such a clammer to get rid of them.
I think such programs are possible. If racial activists championed such programs they could get a second hearing from the powers that be and from the American people. But if they stick with antiracism as currently configured they are unlikely to get that second hearing.
What I have advocated is the promotion of collaborative conversation. I define this as goal-oriented conversation in which participants work together to build on each other’s ideas. It builds community instead of polarization.
While I do not have direct empirical research on the efficacy of collaborative conversations (and indeed I am looking for more resources to do that work myself), there is evidence that bringing people into the conversation rather than dictating to them what to do is a better approach than most that are currently out there. The best evidence is the work which shows that rather than forcing people into diversity programs, we need to invite them to work with us if we want to accomplish things such as increasing diversity in manager jobs.
This is the direction we need to go if we want to save DEI or at least have something that can meet the goals that we are putatively seeking from DEI. It will require a paradigm shift away from some of the racial justice frameworks. But it will build in their place a framework of racial cooperation which can ironically better meet some of the goals in that racial justice framework. I have written about this if you want to learn more.
In the meantime if you know someone who is discouraged about the fall of DEI, then please share this with them. Maybe they can catch a vision for a new direction and better way to battle racial alienation. I hope that can encourage them.
Dr. George A. Yancey is a Professor of Sociology at Baylor University. He has published books and research articles on the topics of institutional racial diversity, racial identity, academic bias, progressive Christianity, and anti-Christian hostility. His books include Compromising Scholarship, What Motivates Cultural Progressives (with David A. Williams), There Is No God (with David A. Williams), So Many Christians, So Few Lions (with David A. Williams), Transcending Racial Barriers: Toward a Mutual Obligations Approach (with Michael O. Emerson), and Beyond Racial Gridlock: Embracing Mutual Responsibility. His previous article in the Journal of Free Black Thought was “What Is Antiracism and What Is the Problem with It?” He maintains a personal website and a Twitter account.
Is it merely my "white privilege," growing up poor and landing in the lower middle class, or my age (early 70s) that makes me think MLK had the right idea and treating people as individuals, not any type of group, is the way to go? If we stop allowing politicians and the media to divide us, I don't think anything is needed other than our individual abilities.
In my 56 years, I'm not sure what these programs do any more. From Affirmative Action to Multiculturalism to Diversity to DEI. It just feels like a new term is created every 10-15 years and there is always some hidden hustle that goes with it.
Im still clinging to what MLK wanted for African Americans: Access and Opportunity.