Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is pictured on December 12, 2023.
Editor’s Note:Justin Gest(@_Justin Gest) is aprofessor at George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government, where he directs thePublic Policy program. He is the author ofsix bookson the politics of immigration and demographic change, including his newest, “Majority Minority.”The views expressed in this commentary are his own.Read more opinion at CNN.
CNN —
When the 2020 murder ofGeorge Floydinspired a national reassessment of race relations, many companies responded by investing in theirdiversity, equity and inclusion(DEI) initiatives. Four years later, these initiativesare facing a two-front battle.
Justin Gest
On one front, Republican activists have begun eliminating DEI interventions, sweeping them into the vortex of America’s culture wars. In March,House Republicans dissolvedtheir chamber’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion as part of a government spending bill, andRepublican legislatorshave proposed about 50 other bills in 20 state legislatures that would restrict DEI initiatives or require their public disclosure, according to anAssociated Press analysis.
On the other front, corporate America isreexaminingthe efficacy of DEI initiatives. In a recentsurvey of more than 300 C-suite executivesacross the US, 59% of respondents agreed thatthebacklash against DEI programs or initiatives has increased since the Supreme Courtstruck down affirmative actionpracticesin June 2023.Earlier this month,the largest division of Harvard University — which often sets the standard for the higher education sector —eliminated diversity statementsfrom its hiring requirements.These statements asked job candidates to assert their commitment to a diverse and inclusive campus environmentbut were ultimatelycriticized for beingperfunctoryandan assault onintellectual freedom.
It is not unreasonable to be cynical aboutconservative and corporate scrutinyof DEIprograms.But behind the ideological contestation, the actual results of DEI programs have not been encouraging.
Today’s DEI programming emerged fromTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which barred racial, religious and genderdiscrimination at work. By 2003, DEI programminghad becomean$8 billion marketof trainers, compliance officers, consultants and executives who made a compelling business case for checking organizations and individuals’ biases —not simply in hiring, promotion and development of human capital, but in marketing and corporate strategies, too.Since 2020, many organizations have empowered their DEI programs to address perceived shortcomings related to racial and gender equity.
But today, non-White people— who comprise about40%of the US population— still occupydisproportionately fewpositions of power and leadership inAmerican businesses.And voluminous research over the decades about DEI efforts shows further room for improvement.
A 2016 study from the Harvard Business Review discovered that, among all US companies with 100 or more employees between 1985 and 2014, the percentage of Black men in management increased fromjust 3.0% to 3.3%. While White women saw more advancement from 1985 to 2000, their numbershaven’t moved since.Dozens of large companiesalsosawno improvementin the proportion of White women, Black menor Latinos in management roleseven after five years of required training for managers,according to the 2016 study.
Another study determined that those who attend optional DEI training sessions tend to be people who arealready more “competent”in the skills they develop;people with low competencein intergroup relations were unaware of their low competence levels and therefore unmotivated to participate. DEI training sessions may evenawaken biasesamong attendees because discussing stereotypes canunintentionallymake people more likely to apply them.
In a2019 meta-analysisof 30 scientific studies, researchers concluded that training programs are “ineffective; their use at present cannot be described as evidence-based.” Anewer analysis admitsthat “little is known about what strategies yield successful results.”
This record is indefensible, and it’s not helped by the fact that, astimehas passed sincethe Civil Rights era,DEI’s purposehasitselfgrownopaque.Lately,some Americans—not onlyWhite conservatives, but liberals—have cometo begrudge DEI programmingbecause they believeit’spatronizing, accusatory orthreatening to free speech.Worse,people positionedto champion DEI initiatives sense thatAmerica’s meritocracyis weakening.
By all appearances, theright-wing movement seizing upon this resentment is not grounded in research; instead,it is part of a broader ideological reaction to the immigration and civil rights reforms that built America.The DEI critique from the right is merely the continuation ofRepublicans’ use ofdivisive socialissues to try tosplit voters in their favor —such assame-sex marriagein 2004,mosque constructionin 2010andundocumented immigrationfor the better part of this century. Since former President Donald Trump’sforay into politics, Republicans haveadditionallytargetedcritical race theoryandtransgender rights.
Thistreatmentfrom the right sets up a false choice for those who believe in the enduring purpose of DEI programming: either offer unconditional support becausetheinitiatives areunder attack, orjoin withthose who want to erase institutional acknowledgments of sexism and racism.
But as the recentdebate over affirmative actionshows, Americans are defying this binary. They broadly value diversity andequal opportunitybutlargelyopposesystemsthat promote people based on their identity.
By focusing so singularly onhaving thelaborforce matchnational demographics, DEI programs are the victims ofsweepingexpectations they have setthat don’t mesh with the nuanced realities of different workplaces.
While many Americans are from non-White backgrounds and about47% of the workforceis female, thosenumbers are lower amongolderpeople.Racial and gender distributionsalsovary byregion.Andindustriesremain stubbornlysegmentedacrossdemographic subgroups, like Latinos in construction, African American men in transportation and utilities, Asian American men in professional and business services, and women in education and health services.
Supporters of DEI initiatives should account for today’s demographic and social realities, and reimagine their work in four crucial ways.
First, DEI professionals should reevaluate their devotion todiversity metrics. Meeting certain gender and racial distributions risksfuture Title VII claimsof discriminationandmay entailquotasthat are not aligned with demographic trends. A narrow focusonrace-basedmetrics also risks ignoring DEI’s immense capacity — when done right —to make workplaces inclusive for people of different physical abilities, sexual orientationsand religious backgrounds, too.
Second, businesses should invest in diversifying the pipeline of historically underrepresented candidates specific to their industries. By supporting targeted educational scholarships, internships and loan-forgiveness hiring programs, organizations can improve the poolof job candidates.
Third, public and private sector executives should design mentoring initiatives, job assignment procedures, project management and work-life adjustments to maximize the inclusion and promotion ofnon-Whiteandwomenemployees — who remain more likely to confront social challenges and domestic commitments. These initiatives should be universal in applicationbut designed to accommodategroups that are more likely to be exposed todiscrimination or related disadvantages. For example,corporate America’s recent back-to-office mandates have hit women and members of ethnic minoritiesdisproportionately hard.
And fourth, training programs should be overhauled. Beyond their evidence-backed inefficacy,new research showsthat anti-bias messaging tends to provoke resistance among White menwho feel unjustly accusedof discrimination or worry that their employers’ commitment to equity threatens their career progression. Rather than underscorewhichdemographic groupsaredeserving of protection, materials can be reoriented tocultivate empathyandpluralism— leveraging the ways most Americans can identify with stories of personal struggle or aspirationindependent of their identities.
More innovations await.Butwithoutanyinnovation,DEI programs’continueddecline in the next few yearswon’t only be because of Republicans’ political maneuvering. It will be because their principled backers have less reason to defend them.
