Every week at NASA/JSC we receive Email broadcast messages regarding JSC’s “Unity and Inclusion” efforts. Today’s blast includes a link to an article fretting over the decline and possible demise of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts across the country.
How DEI Can Survive This Era of Backlash
Professionals and leaders who care about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in organizations are facing a critical question: Is DEI dead in the U.S.?
It’s true that the current attacks on DEI appear to go beyond the program cuts of a decade ago, which were largely driven by economic factors.
Today, restrictive legislation is leading to entire DEI departments being decimated. And the voracity of the media claiming that DEI is under siege and that woke capitalism leads to economic decline has created a climate where indeed it feels unsafe to be an outspoken advocate of DEI. But there’s another perspective to consider: that DEI is instead experiencing a period of what social movement scholars call “closed doors,” where the obvious route for change is no longer easily accessible.
Note the language – “decimated”, “attacks”, “restrictive legislation”, etc. DEI is on a battle footing. But why should DEI be viable in the first place? How does it deserve a place in American Society? How dare I even ask those questions?
I believe the current dismantling of DEI initiatives is the inevitable result of force-feeding equity, specifically, in the DEI agenda. I can think of no one in my current or previous professional positions who argued against the ideals of Diversity and Inclusion in the workforce. But those are characteristics of a workplace that hires the best people it can for the positions it has, in accordance with the talents, education, and skills of the employees, without regard for their immutable traits (sex, race, etc.). Hire the best people, and the organic result is diversity in the immutables. Equity, on the other hand, is a desired outcome thrust upon the workplace, sans any promise of actually improving the workplace, its culture, or the productivity or profitability of the organization.
Equity appears to be the driving force behind all DEI programs I have read about; I’d go so far as to say that DEI programs exist only as a means to force captive audiences of people to achieve the “equitable” redistribution of resources, status, and wealth, all in alignment with socialist, neo-Marxist, theory and ideals.
“Force” is a word I’ve chosen intentionally in these descriptions. The Biden administration has boldly bragged about forcing this change on the country. On his first day in office, President Biden signed the “Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government”.
That EO asserts:
“…an analysis shows that closing racial gaps in wages, housing credit, lending opportunities, and access to higher education would amount to an additional $5 trillion in gross domestic product in the American economy over the next 5 years.”
Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government | The White House.
Based on what analysis, exactly? It does not say. But we are 3+ years into this administration, and there has been no evidence or communication from the White House demonstrating how this EO has added any value to the country – fiscally, culturally, or in the interest of justice. Shouldn’t we now be ~$3 trillion into this? If we were, you’d hear about it every day from the Press Secretary’s podium. No, this was one of dozens of misguided and even harmful EO’s that the President bragged about signing on Day 1.
How does our President define “equity”? The EO states:
Sec. 2. Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) The term “equity” means the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.
So it’s about fair treatment. Great! What does that mean? Why doesn’t the statement simply end after the word “individuals”? Why the enumeration of a partial list of constituencies, to the exclusion of others? You have to read the rest of the EO for that, and boy, it is a convoluted mess. Turns out equity’s goal by Biden’s definition absolutely does NOT seek to treat all individuals fairly, justly, or impartially. In fact, this EO is a blueprint for inequity, inequality, racism, and sexism, driven by government intervention. Read it. Really.
DEI is dying, and that’s a good thing. As embraced by Biden, equity is inevitably bad for the country.
Equity is a top-down government-driven political economic ideal by which citizens are “made” equal in terms of social and cultural status, and financial capital, all under centralized control of the federal government. It is by definition racist, sexist, and anti-competitive. More succinctly, it is the blatant expansion of socialist ideals that have failed over and over again throughout the history of western civilization.
We find under the covers that “Diversity” and “Inclusion” are actually irrelevant to the socialist ideal; everything that drives this world view centers on equity, a faux-utopian hope that inevitably ignores diversity in an effort to cede to the government control all aspects of American life via politically-engineered outcomes.
DEI in its current formulation, then should die in corporate America, and in our collective corporate life. The false hope of equity needs to be utterly removed, and replaced with the American ideal of equal opportunity, allowing for all to achieve success and advancement in a society that eschews baseless discrimination, celebrates accomplishment and achievement, and recognizes that for our country to thrive, we must acknowledge and leave room for successes and failures.
Yes, we must support our fellow citizens’ efforts to not merely exist, but also to advance, in accordance with their capabilities and willingness to expend the commensurate effort — at all levels of socio-economic strata. We already have ample safety nets for those who truly cannot fend for themselves.
We do not need the solution in search of a problem that is the essence of modern equity movements. The only problem equity solves is giving more power to the federal government, and that’s a “solution” that is in no American’s rational self-interest.
DEI: Equity is the Sequela of Socialism
Every week at NASA/JSC we receive Email broadcast messages regarding JSC’s “Unity and Inclusion” efforts. Today’s blast includes a link to an article fretting over the decline and possible demise of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts across the country.
Note the language – “decimated”, “attacks”, “restrictive legislation”, etc. DEI is on a battle footing. But why should DEI be viable in the first place? How does it deserve a place in American Society? How dare I even ask those questions?
I believe the current dismantling of DEI initiatives is the inevitable result of force-feeding equity, specifically, in the DEI agenda. I can think of no one in my current or previous professional positions who argued against the ideals of Diversity and Inclusion in the workforce. But those are characteristics of a workplace that hires the best people it can for the positions it has, in accordance with the talents, education, and skills of the employees, without regard for their immutable traits (sex, race, etc.). Hire the best people, and the organic result is diversity in the immutables. Equity, on the other hand, is a desired outcome thrust upon the workplace, sans any promise of actually improving the workplace, its culture, or the productivity or profitability of the organization.
Equity appears to be the driving force behind all DEI programs I have read about; I’d go so far as to say that DEI programs exist only as a means to force captive audiences of people to achieve the “equitable” redistribution of resources, status, and wealth, all in alignment with socialist, neo-Marxist, theory and ideals.
“Force” is a word I’ve chosen intentionally in these descriptions. The Biden administration has boldly bragged about forcing this change on the country. On his first day in office, President Biden signed the “Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government”.
That EO asserts:
Based on what analysis, exactly? It does not say. But we are 3+ years into this administration, and there has been no evidence or communication from the White House demonstrating how this EO has added any value to the country – fiscally, culturally, or in the interest of justice. Shouldn’t we now be ~$3 trillion into this? If we were, you’d hear about it every day from the Press Secretary’s podium. No, this was one of dozens of misguided and even harmful EO’s that the President bragged about signing on Day 1.
How does our President define “equity”? The EO states:
So it’s about fair treatment. Great! What does that mean? Why doesn’t the statement simply end after the word “individuals”? Why the enumeration of a partial list of constituencies, to the exclusion of others? You have to read the rest of the EO for that, and boy, it is a convoluted mess. Turns out equity’s goal by Biden’s definition absolutely does NOT seek to treat all individuals fairly, justly, or impartially. In fact, this EO is a blueprint for inequity, inequality, racism, and sexism, driven by government intervention. Read it. Really.
DEI is dying, and that’s a good thing. As embraced by Biden, equity is inevitably bad for the country.
Equity is a top-down government-driven political economic ideal by which citizens are “made” equal in terms of social and cultural status, and financial capital, all under centralized control of the federal government. It is by definition racist, sexist, and anti-competitive. More succinctly, it is the blatant expansion of socialist ideals that have failed over and over again throughout the history of western civilization.
We find under the covers that “Diversity” and “Inclusion” are actually irrelevant to the socialist ideal; everything that drives this world view centers on equity, a faux-utopian hope that inevitably ignores diversity in an effort to cede to the government control all aspects of American life via politically-engineered outcomes.
DEI in its current formulation, then should die in corporate America, and in our collective corporate life. The false hope of equity needs to be utterly removed, and replaced with the American ideal of equal opportunity, allowing for all to achieve success and advancement in a society that eschews baseless discrimination, celebrates accomplishment and achievement, and recognizes that for our country to thrive, we must acknowledge and leave room for successes and failures.
Yes, we must support our fellow citizens’ efforts to not merely exist, but also to advance, in accordance with their capabilities and willingness to expend the commensurate effort — at all levels of socio-economic strata. We already have ample safety nets for those who truly cannot fend for themselves.
We do not need the solution in search of a problem that is the essence of modern equity movements. The only problem equity solves is giving more power to the federal government, and that’s a “solution” that is in no American’s rational self-interest.