Diversity, equity, and inclusion

Diversity training, a common tool used in DEI efforts, has repeatedly come under criticism as being ineffective or even counterproductive.[32][22][33][34] The Economist has stated that "the consensus now emerging among academics is that many anti-discrimination policies have no effect. What is worse, they often backfire".[22] A regular claim is that these efforts mainly work to protect against litigation.[22][35] It has also been criticized that there has been limited progress in achieving racial diversity in corporate leadership, particularly for Black professionals, due to a lack of diverse Chief Diversity Officers and a broad DEI focus that overlooks specific issues Black professionals face.[36] A 2007 study of 829 companies over 31 years showed "no positive effects in the average workplace" from diversity training, while the effect was negative where it was mandatory.[35] According to Harvard University professor in sociology and diversity researcher Frank Dobbin, "[o]n average, the typical all-hands-on-deck, 'everybody has to have diversity training' – that typical format in big companies doesn't have any positive effects on any historically underrepresented groups like black men or women, Hispanic men or women, Asian-American men or women or white women."[33]

The use of mandatory "diversity statements" within academia, wherein an applicant or faculty member outlines their "past contributions" and plans "for advancing diversity, equity and inclusion" if hired, has become controversial and sparked criticism.[37] The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has called such practices an attack on academic freedom, stating that "[v]ague or ideologically motivated DEI statement policies can too easily function as litmus tests for adherence to prevailing ideological views on DEI" and "penalize faculty for holding dissenting opinions on matters of public concern".[38] According to a 2022 survey conducted by the American Association of University Professors, one in five American colleges and universities include DEI criteria in tenure standards, including 45.6 percent of institutions with more than 5000 students.[39] Some universities have begun to weigh diversity statements heavily in hiring processes; for example, University of California, Berkeley eliminated three-quarters of applicants for five faculty positions in the life sciences exclusively on the basis of their diversity statements, in the hiring cycle of 2018–2019.[40]

The Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA) has called for the end of required diversity statements, stating it "encourages cynicism and dishonesty" and erases "the distinction between academic expertise and ideological conformity".[41] Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who resigned from the SPSP in protest against mandatory diversity statements, has stated that "most academic work has nothing to do with diversity, so these mandatory statements force many academics to betray their quasi-fiduciary duty to the truth by spinning, twisting, or otherwise inventing some tenuous connection to diversity".[42] Other criticisms include that it "devalues merit", is connected to affirmative action, that it violates the First Amendment, or function as loyalty oaths.[37][43][44]

A 1500-person survey conducted by FIRE reported that the issue is highly polarizing for faculty members, with half saying their view more closely aligns with the description of diversity statements as "a justifiable requirement for a job at a university", while the other half saw it as "an ideological litmus test that violates academic freedom".[45]

Several U.S. states have implemented legislation to ban mandatory diversity statements.[45]

According to DEI frameworks, "equity is different than equality in that equality implies treating everyone as if their experiences are exactly the same."[46][47] A common identification, especially among critics, is of equality as meaning "equality of opportunities" and equity as "equality of outcome".[48][49] Some have criticized this focus on equity rather than equality, arguing that the former runs contrary to a focus on merit or non-discrimination. Political scientist Charles Lipson has called "equity" a "mandate to discriminate", threatening the principle of "equality under the law",[50] while Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, a frequent critic of DEI, has called equity "the most egregious, self-righteous, historically-ignorant and dangerous" of the three titular notions of DEI.[51] The debate has also branched into the realm of politics. Commenting on Governor of Texas Greg Abbott calling DEI initiatives "illegal", a spokesperson for his office stated "[t]he issue is not diversity — the issue is that equity is not equality. Here in Texas, we give people a chance to advance based on talent and merit".[14]

In recent years, high-profile incidents of campus conflict have sparked debate about the effect of DEI on the campus environment, academic freedom and free speech.[52][53][54]

The 2021 cancelling of an MIT guest lecture by astrophysicist Dorian Abbot after he criticized DEI programs led to media attention and controversy.[55][56][57] As a result, MIT empaneled a committee to investigate the state of academic freedom at the university.[57]

The 2023 disruption of a talk by Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kyle Duncan at Stanford Law School sparked criticism and discussion in the media, with many focusing on the role of Associate DEI Dean Tirien Steinbach, who joined protesters in denouncing Duncan's presence on campus.[58][59][60] In the wake of the incident, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal opined that DEI offices have "become weapons to intimidate and limit speech".[61] Steinbach replied with "Diversity and Free Speech Can Coexist at Stanford", published in the Journal the following week.[62][63] Dean of Stanford Law School, Jenny S. Martínez, also published a ten-page document addressing the situation and clarifying Stanford's position on free speech. In it, Martinez stated that the university's commitment to DEI "can and should be implemented in ways that are consistent with its commitment to academic freedom and free speech" and that she believed that "the commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion actually means that we must protect free expression of all views."[64] She added that the commitment would not take the form of "having the school administration announce institutional positions on a wide range of current social and political issues, make frequent institutional statements about current news events, or exclude or condemn speakers who hold views on social and political issues with whom some or even many in our community disagree", criticizing this definition of an "inclusive environment" by stating it "can lead to creating and enforcing an institutional orthodoxy."[64]

In April 2023, a group of 29 scientists, including Nobel laureates Dan Shechtman and Arieh Warshel, published a paper which outlined what the authors see as a "clash in science between classical liberal values" and a "new postmodern worldview", which, they argue, is "enforced by 'Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion' (DEI) officers and bureaucracies" and "threatens the entire scientific enterprise."[65] Two of the authors, Anna Krylov and Jerry Coyne, subsequently argued in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that their emphasis on merit – "once anodyne and unobjectionable [...] now contentious and outré, even in the hard sciences" – led to its refusal by major journals and subsequent publication in the Journal of Controversial Ideas.[66]

The 2023 suicide of former Toronto principal Richard Bilkszto led to a new wave of controversy surrounding DEI in the workplace and its impact on freedom of expression.[67][68] Bilkszto had earlier filed a lawsuit against the Toronto District School Board in the wake of a 2021 incident at a DEI training seminar; Bilkszto was later diagnosed with "anxiety secondary to a workplace event", and claimed the session and its aftermath had destroyed his reputation. Bilkszto's lawyer has publicly linked this incident and its aftermath with his death.[67][68] In the wake of Bilkszto's death, Ontario minister of education, Stephen Lecce, stated he had asked for a review and "options to reform professional training and strengthen accountability on school boards so this never happens again", calling Bilkszto's allegations before his death "serious and disturbing".[67] Bilkszto's death generated international attention and renewed debate on DEI and freedom of speech.[69][70] According to The Globe and Mail, the incident has also been "seized on by a number of prominent right-wing commentators looking to roll-back [DEI] initiatives."[68] The anti-racism trainer involved in the incident has stated they welcome the review by Lecce, and stated that the incident has been "weaponized to discredit and suppress the work of people committed [to DEI]".[67][68]

Author Christine Michel Carter coined the term "dog-whistle diversity" for TIME in 2017.[71] Influenced by the phrase dog whistle politics, dog whistle diversity is defined as the hiring of groups who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination by organizations for the social aspect of environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG). To investors and stakeholders, hiring these groups sends a coded message that the organization is more open to a diverse workforce, but to the groups hired it suggests the organization lacks effective diversity management or inclusion.[71]

Sometimes DEI initiatives focus primarily on aspects of race, gender, and ethnicity, inadvertently sidelining disabled people. Writing for The Conversation in 2017, college professor Stephen Friedman said that "organizations who are serious about DEI must adopt the frame of producing shared value where business and social goods exist side-by-side".[72]

According to a Time article in 2023, "people with disabilities are being neglected".[73]

This view has been echoed by a number of DEI leaders and activists. Sara Hart Weir, the former president and CEO of the National Down Syndrome Society, and co-founder of the Commission for Disability Employment, argues that when deliberating on the vision of DEI success in the United States, policymakers and employers need to take proactive measures to engaging with people with disabilities who they historically ignored.[74] Corinne Gray has argured that "if you embrace diversity, but ignore disability, you're doing it wrong."[75]

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.[76]

Actor Richard Dreyfuss stated the Academy Award's diversity and inclusion standards "make me vomit", arguing that art should not be morally legislated.[77] 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".[78] Film critic Armond White attacked the new standards as "progressive fascism", comparing them to the Hays Code.[79]

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.[80]

In the 2020s, DEI came into the spotlight in American politics, with several prominent Republicans positioning themselves as critics, including Governor Ron DeSantis,[81] Governor Greg Abbott,[14] and presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy.[82]

Several U.S. states are considering or have passed legislation targeting DEI in public institutions. In March 2023, Texas's House of Representatives passed a bill with a rider banning the use of state funds for DEI programs in universities and colleges.[83] In May 2023, Texas passed legislation banning offices and programs promoting DEI at publicly funded colleges and universities.[84][85] In Iowa, a bill to ban spending on DEI in public universities was also advanced in March 2023.[86]

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.[87] On 14 July 2023, the House of Representatives voted to ban all DEI offices and initiatives within the Pentagon and military along partisan lines, with four Republican members also opposing.[88][89]

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 conservative activists and politicians; with notable examples being Disney, Target and Anheuser-Bush.[90][91] Commentator Jonathan Turley of The Hill described such boycotts as possessing "some success".[92]

Some of these companies' responses to the controversies have, in turn, sparked criticism from progressives of "walking back" or failing DEI commitments.[93][94]