Critique: Harvard's Reversal on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Measures Reveals a Larger Issue
In the realm of political discourse, conservative activists are aggressively eliminating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, catapulting them into the midst of America's ongoing cultural battles. As an example, House Republicans dismantled their chamber's Office of Diversity and Inclusion as part of a federal spending bill, and Republican legislators have proposed approximately 50 bills in 20 state legislatures aiming to restrict DEI initiatives or demand their public disclosure, according to an Associated Press analysis.
On the corporate side, high-ranking executives are reassessing the effectiveness of DEI initiatives. A survey of more than 300 C-suite executives across the US revealed that 59% of respondents acknowledged an escalating backlash against DEI programs or initiatives since the Supreme Court's decision abolishing affirmative action practices in June 2023. Recently, the largest division of Harvard University, a standard-setter for higher education, abolished diversity statements from its hiring prerequisites. These statements, which asked job applicants to profess their dedication to a diverse and inclusive campus environment, were ultimately criticized for being formulaic and an infringement on intellectual freedom.
It's understandable to be skeptical about the criticism and scrutiny of DEI programs from both conservative quarters and corporate America. But beneath the ideological disputes, the genuine outcomes of DEI programs have left much to be desired.
DEI programming traces its roots to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited racial, religious, and gender discrimination in the workplace. By 2003, DEI programming had blossomed into an $8 billion market of trainers, compliance officers, consultants, and executives, who convincingly argued for evaluating organizations and individuals' biases — not just in hiring, promotion, and human capital development, but also in marketing and corporate strategies. Since 2020, numerous organizations have empowered their DEI programs to address perceived racial and gender equity shortcomings.
However, today, individuals belonging to non-White communities (approximately 40% of the US population) continue to occupy disproportionately few positions of power and leadership in American businesses. Extensive research across several decades illuminates further room for improvement in DEI efforts.
A 2016 study from the Harvard Business Review discovered that, among all US companies with 100 or more employees between 1985 and 2014, the proportion of Black men in management increased from just 3.0% to 3.3%. Despite advancements made by White women in the 1980s and 1990s, their numbers have remained stagnant. Many large companies have also witnessed no improvement in the proportion of White women, Black men, or Latinos in management roles even after five years of compulsory manager training, as per the 2016 study.
Another study found that those attending optional DEI training sessions tend to be individuals who are already proficient in the skills developed; less competent individuals in intergroup relations were unaware of their low competence levels and, therefore, unmotivated to participate. DEI training sessions could inadvertently ignite biases among attendees because discussing stereotypes might make people more prone to applying them.
In a 2019 meta-analysis of 30 scientific studies, researchers concluded that training programs are "ineffective"; they can't currently be described as evidence-based. A newer analysis admitted that "little is known about what strategies yield successful results."
This appalling record is indefensible, and it's not helped by the fact that, as time has elapsed since the Civil Rights era, DEI's purpose has itself become enigmatic. Lately, some Americans — not just White conservatives, but liberals — have started viewing DEI programming with contempt because they feel it's condescending, accusatory, or damaging to free speech. Worse, individuals positioned to champion DEI initiatives sense that America's meritocracy is dwindling.
The right-wing movement capitalizing on this disgruntlement appears to lack a foundation in research; instead, it is part of a broader ideological reaction against the immigration and civil rights reforms that defined America. The DEI critique from the right is simply an extension of Republicans' use of divisive social issues to try and divide voters in their favor, such as same-sex marriage in 2004, mosque construction in 2010, and undocumented immigration for the better part of this century. Since former President Donald Trump's foray into politics, Republicans have also targeted critical race theory and transgender rights.
This treatment from the right offers a false dichotomy for those who believe in the enduring purpose of DEI programming: either offer unconditional support because the initiatives are under attack, or ally with those who want to erase institutional acknowledgments of sexism and racism.
However, as the recent debate over affirmative action demonstrates, Americans are defying this binary. They broadly value diversity and equal opportunity but mainly oppose systems that promote people based on their identity.
By focusing so exclusively on ensuring that the workforce reflects the nation's demographics, DEI programs have set themselves up for lofty expectations that don't resonate with the complex realities of various workplaces.
While many Americans hail from non-White backgrounds and approximately 47% of the workforce is female, those numbers are lower among older people. Racial and gender distributions also vary by region. And industries remain stubbornly segmented across demographic subgroups, such as 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.
Advocates of DEI initiatives should take into account today's demographic and social realities and reimagine their work in four crucial ways.
- DEI experts need to reconsider their emphasis on demographic quotas. Such a focus on achieving specific racial and gender ratios could potentially lead to future discrimination lawsuits, and these quotas might not align with the current demographic fluctuations. A one-dimensional emphasis on race-based numbers overlooks the broad potential of DEI – when executed effectively – to foster workplaces that cater inclusively to individuals of varying physical abilities, sexual orientations, and religious backgrounds.
- Businesses are encouraged to broaden the scope of candidates from historically underrepresented groups within their respective industries. This can be achieved through sponsoring educational grants, internships, and loan forgiveness hiring programs, thereby enriching the talent pool.
- Leaders in both the public and private sectors should establish mentorship programs, fair job assignments, project management, and work-life adaptation schemes. These efforts should aim to boost the representation and promotion of non-Caucasian and female employees, who are more susceptible to encountering social issues and domestic responsibilities. These initiatives should be universal and flexible, acknowledging groups that are prone to face discrimination or disadvantages. For instance, recent office return mandates have affected women and ethnic minorities unequally heavily.
Join our Newsletter
- Subscribe to our CNN Opinion newsletter
- Connect with us on Twitter and Facebook
Lastly, training methods require an overhaul. Not only are they ineffectual in many cases, but recent findings suggest that messages discouraging bias spark resistance among White males who perceive themselves unfairly accused of discrimination or worry that their career progression is threatened by an emphasis on fairness. Instead of singling out specific racial or ethnic groups for protection, training materials should generate empathy and tolerance, using narratives of hardship or ambition that resonate with most individuals regardless of their identities.
Exciting advancements lie ahead. However, the potential decline of DEI programs in the coming years wouldn't only be due to political forces if they remain stagnant. It would be because their staunch advocates have fewer reasons to uphold them.
Read also:
Given the current criticism and reassessment of DEI initiatives, it's important to consider different perspectives on these issues. Some individuals question the effectiveness of traditional DEI training methods, suggesting that they may inadvertently ignite biases among attendees.
Moreover, the focus on achieving specific racial and gender ratios through quotas could potentially lead to future discrimination lawsuits and overlooks the broader potential of DEI to foster inclusive workplaces for individuals of various backgrounds.
