When diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) work came into the national spotlight, it came in the wake of widely condemned, horrific tragedies: the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery. DEI efforts, which have existed for decades in higher education and the corporate sector, quickly became one of the ways we as a society sought to right the wrongs of racial injustice.
Just three years later, the term DEI was weaponized and portrayed as a villain in the current economic or social issue. This year alone it has been blamed for a bank collapse, a train derailment and, most recently, anti-Semitism on university campuses.
How we got here
In reality, anti-diversity activists have been working toward this moment for decades. Edward Blum, the activist who funds legal challenges to affirmative action, grants for black women entrepreneurs and scholarship programs for law firm associates, has pursued this mission for more than 30 years. (Blum refers to these cases as “anti-discrimination” efforts). A nonprofit founded by Stephen Miller, the author of Trump's Muslim ban and anti-diversity executive order, has filed at least a dozen complaints with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission targeting companies' DEI efforts , from hiring programs to selling merchandise that celebrates Pride. (They accuse the companies of “misleading customers and shareholders” with this policy).
In all of these cases, ideologues misrepresent the goals of diversity, equality and inclusion initiatives. Their strategy is working: criticism of DEI has become mainstream. Even people who probably support some of the most common and visible examples of these efforts (parental leave, fair pay, and hiring practices that promote objectivity and mitigate bias) are increasingly wondering whether the movement that produced these policies has gone astray.
What makes the anti-DEI narrative so compelling?
During the pandemic, many diversity and inclusion advocates have rightly pushed for change as national audiences have become increasingly captive. We didn’t always leave room for conversations, questions or nuances. Instead, in some cases, we have assumed the role of moral authority, positioning anyone who disagrees with our perspective, or perhaps simply does not understand it, as not just wrong, but bad. As a result, many people who previously perceived themselves as egalitarian, on the side of progress and diversity, became afraid of being judged.
I've worked with leaders who care about building fair, inclusive companies, but who were too nervous to ask questions like: “If we set diversity goals, does that mean we're discriminating against everyone else?”
Of course, there are extreme views and deliberate attempts to undermine DEI, but there are many more people interested in learning. Inclusion is a skill that can be built over time, but people need space and support to progress along the way. While DEI advocates should not downplay the harm that words and actions can cause, creating space for dialogue, leading with curiosity, and acknowledging that values-driven people can sometimes have differing opinions are important steps to appeal to a broader audience .
When DEI advocates do not make room for the good faith questions of people seeking understanding, we create an information vacuum that is currently being filled by more threatening and factually incorrect answers: leveling the playing field for one group means denying the opportunity to another (that is not the case), that any consideration of a person's background is inherently discriminatory (that is not the case), that DEI is about giving unfair advantages to marginalized groups rather than correcting real systemic inequalities ( it is not).
Still, I believe a large majority of people agree that diversity, equity, and inclusion are values worth pursuing, even if they are skeptical about the work done so far.
What do we do now?
First and foremost, we cannot allow “DEI” to be defined by malicious actors with sinister intentions, including the abolition of voting rights and other civil rights laws that have been central to our nation for decades.
Instead of fighting over an acronym, we should focus the conversation on the actual principles of diversity, equity and inclusion and engage people who believe in what these ideas represent. To this end, we need to proactively explain what diversity, equity and inclusion work is and, more importantly, what it is not. It is not about categorizing people as either “oppressors” or “oppressed” based on their identity. This is not about punishing people for who they are or supporting certain groups to the detriment of others. Rather, diversity is about tapping into a wide talent net to find a more representative group of qualified candidates or students. Justice is about designing systems and processes so that people from different backgrounds have a fair chance to do their best. Inclusion is about creating cultures where everyone can be their true self and thrive.
We need to be specific about the gaps that DEI work seeks to address, such as: Such as unequal access to opportunities, disparities in promotion rates that suggest some people have more opportunities to grow than others, and demoralizing experiences of bias and discrimination that make it impossible for someone to achieve their best. And as new generations enter the workforce or enter college, we can help them understand their role in overcoming these barriers and convey the benefits of working and learning in diverse communities.
Instead of drawing a clear line, pro-DEI vs. anti-DEI, with us or against us, we should look for shared values, think about how justice can benefit everyone, and engage in meaningful dialogue.
While it's not surprising that the DEI pendulum is swinging again after two years of intense focus (historically, progress has often been met with backlash from marginalized groups), it's up to each of us to decide how far it swings. The more we can unite behind shared beliefs, the better chance we have of resisting a coordinated campaign aimed at dividing our nation and undoing the civil rights gains we have made over the last two generations have.
Joelle Emerson is the founder and CEO of Paradigm.
More must-see commentary from Fortune:
- The economic pessimists' bet on a recession in 2023 has failed. Why will they double in 2024?
- COVID-19 vs. the flu: A “much more serious threat,” finds a new study on long-term risks
- Access to modern stoves could be crucial to Africa's economic development – and help reduce carbon dioxide emissions from planes and ships around the world
- The US-led digital trading world order is under attack – by the US
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com comments are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.