To hear some MAGA folks talk about DEI sounds a lot like the scene in the first John Wick movie when Viggo explains to his son why they liken the unstoppable assassin to the mythical creature Baba Yaga.
You can’t escape Baba Yaga, much like the narrative that many people in this country can’t escape the nightmarish woke mob hell-bent on censoring people out of a job, banning patriotism, and vilifying white people. Thus, MAGA culture warriors have pledged to the Project 2025 crusade and stand ready to fight against “DEI hires” like Kamala Harris and rid schools of DEI’s toxic effects.
Maybe you think I’m laying it on thick for effect. If you believe that, you’re not paying attention to Donald Trump, his top lieutenants, his surrogates in Congress, or the much-discussed Heritage Foundation—also known as the authors of Trump’s agenda for a second term even though he pretends otherwise.
The loudest detractors of DEI initiatives blame them for everything from indoctrinating youth to hate white people to underperforming and uninspiring new editions of Star Wars. To them, DEI isn’t an imperfect tool that needs constant evaluation and adjustment to achieve a worthwhile goal; it’s a nefarious plot to change the nation's fabric and ostracize everyone who disagrees with its purpose.
In schools, DEI is often synonymous with Critical Race Theory (CRT) among the opposition for both, and “Critical Race Theory” is a giant umbrella that covers all efforts to implement culturally relevant curriculum.
In some ways, DEI defies a simple definition. It’s a constantly evolving way of thinking and operating an organization, school, or company with the nebulous goal of addressing inequities against historically marginalized groups that may be found within an organization, including schools.
That said, most DEI professionals and Liberals will say it's generally about breaking barriers so all people have the opportunity to thrive in schools and the workplace. Fundamentally, it’s about acknowledging that identity has been used for many generations in this country to divide people into a caste system of haves and have-nots.
To correct this injustice, we need to practice equity, which means some people need a leg up instead of being told to grab their bootstraps and pull. And yes, that means identity in all its forms has often been used to determine if we’re improving access to opportunities, much like it’s been used in the past to decide who should be kept out.
The Right flips the script. DEI efforts are pushing the country apart, reducing everyone to their “identity” and consequently illegally favoring some groups over others. Merit has been pushed aside in favor of meeting diversity quotas, students are indoctrinated to reject patriotism, and no one is allowed to make a mistake about a pronoun without being ostracized.
They also argue that diversity and inclusion are reduced because draconian DEI professionals police anyone who disagrees. In effect, DEI chains the freedom it aims to share with everyone.
It's no wonder we have such trouble communicating across the political divide.
It's impossible to reach a consensus when political leaders' extreme differences in opinion have made DEI issues into all-or-nothing cultural battles.
It’s crucial to remember this when talking with someone who comes at DEI from a very different perspective than your own. Understand that they may have formed opinions about DEI work that have been warped by far Left or far Right rhetoric when the reality is that most of us can get on the same page about diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Two PEW Research Center surveys four years apart (2019 and 2023) provide helpful data to illustrate how many people have contradictory opinions about DEI. Most people surveyed in both years thought it’s good for the country and individual organizations, schools, and companies to be ethnically and culturally diverse. However, most people don’t want companies and organizations to consider someone’s race or ethnicity when hiring. People want a merit-based hiring system that produces a diverse environment.
That’s a great idea in theory. However, it ignores the deep systemic issues within our schools that historically segregated our workforce (including among educators) by ethnicity or economic background and continue to have this effect.
So, it makes sense that Black responders in both surveys were more likely than anyone else to believe that their company or organization is not doing enough to advance DEI, either at the front end with hiring or its day-to-day culture.
While there are significant differences of opinion in both surveys along political and ideological lines, the data shows general agreement that diversity, equity, and inclusion are worthy goals. We just can’t agree on how to achieve them.
Genuine confusion and skepticism about the efficacy of DEI programs are understandable, considering that little data exists about the effectiveness of those programs for schools, government employees, companies, and other organizations.
In a new study published in Translational Behavioral Medicine, Boston University researchers found that few workplace DEI initiatives have been tracked or monitored with peer-reviewed studies. This data accumulated from research on DEI and a review of anti-racism training between 2000 and 2022 should be a call for improving our approaches to DEI, not banning it.
Monica Wang, a study co-author and BU School of Public Health associate professor of community health sciences proposed a course of action that, frankly, feels intuitively obvious for many of us who have experienced lackluster attempts to apply DEI training:
“... invest in rigorous evaluation, so that we can learn from what we have done in the past and don’t keep investing in one-time online trainings that might sound nice in theory, or might change knowledge or attitudes in the short term, but over time, don’t change much. It’s a disservice to invest in these kinds of trainings, but then not to have more sustainable or longitudinal impact. And that’s the goal of most organizations—they want to create a more inclusive workplace environment.”
Wang’s observation that organizations want to create a more inclusive environment aligns with the PEW Research Center data.
Most people acknowledge that having diverse life perspectives in the room is good, and their presence makes the group more successful.
Unsurprisingly, the best place to establish successful diversity, equity, and inclusion practices is in schools that excel in providing culturally responsive classrooms. Such schools help students reach their potential and subsequently apply for jobs with confidence that they’re on equal footing with applicants from historically more advantaged backgrounds.
There are ways to improve inclusive hiring practices in school districts that achieve DEI’s core goals and maintain a feeling that merit matters when hiring teachers. This effort is imperative because there’s mounting evidence that diversity in the teaching profession lifts all educators and students to greater heights.
Researchers from American University, Johns Hopkins, and Harvard presented their findings a year ago that having a Black same-year colleague “improves academic performance and decreases suspension rates among white teachers’ Black students.” The effect is most substantial with early career teachers.
Greater representation among educators boosts academic outcomes, fosters innovation, and strengthens students’ confidence. Teachers and students benefit from culturally relevant education because they feel empowered by their learning experience and not judged or minimalized.
Progressive education reformers aren’t ignoring that DEI efforts are flawed. However, we already know what classrooms and boardrooms look like without conscious efforts to elevate all voices and life perspectives.
It will be the same whitewashed effect that dominated American culture for most of this country’s existence.