View this post on the web at [link removed]

One of the problems with a highly polarized society is that it pushes people to adopt absolutist, black-and-white positions that contain kernels of truth but largely misrepresent reality. And when people in power commit these fallacies of reason, their faulty logic can have major real-world consequences. This is precisely what we’re seeing now with President Trump’s onslaught against DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion).
Not only has his administration caused chaos and mass confusion by withholding federal funds [ [link removed] ] from scientific agencies like the National Institutes of Health until it can ensure federal staff are adhering to new anti-DEI policies, but the U.S. Department of Education is now threatening to withhold funding to states [ [link removed]*Discourse/Strambler-DEI/politico.com/news/2025/02/15/doge-education-department-dei-cuts-019574 ] if they too do not follow Trump’s plan for eradicating DEI from all schools. And it’s not just science and education that concern him. Somehow, Trump was sure, prior to any investigation, that DEI was the cause of two aircraft colliding [ [link removed] ] a few weeks ago.
Apparently, DEI is an omnipresent boogeyman responsible for all of society’s ills, and the Trump administration is intent on slaying it even if it means censoring science [ [link removed] ], defying judicial rulings [ [link removed] ] and potentially throwing our country into a constitutional crisis [ [link removed] ].
The irony of this strategy is that it’s aimed at the far left and its perceived inclination to dismantle anything declared to be infected by systemic racism. Yet the administration’s response is to dismantle anything showing any inkling of DEI and “wokeness.” Further, its objections to DEI are not just to perceived racial preferences and quotas, but to anything that smells of the ideology, including the use of words [ [link removed] ] like “women” and “socioeconomic,” which might trigger a review of federally funded research. There’s no clear definition of what DEI is, nor how new policies intended to kill it will be enforced. But the administration is certain that whatever it is, it’s all bad. There is hardly a better example of dichotomous thinking than the assault on DEI.
The Left’s Version
The left is also guilty of absolutist thinking on this topic. In fact, there’s good reason [ [link removed] ] to believe that a substantial reason Trump is in power now is because of the left’s overreach on cultural issues that flow from such thinking. By now, it should be obvious that many progressive DEI efforts went too far. There are just too many examples of alarming DEI practices to deny it—training that oversold implicit bias, overemphasized the dangers of microaggressions, treated individuals like group representatives, expected individuals to make amends for the crimes of others who look like them, demeaned white people, and condescendingly treated Black people like fragile creatures who can only succeed when white people like us. I’ve attended a few DEI trainings and have witnessed all these things firsthand.
Of course, not all DEI efforts are like this, and admitting that aspects of the ideology went too far is not dismissing the well-intentioned impulse behind DEI or its merits. In some settings like universities, trainings often make up just a small part of DEI leaders’ responsibilities. DEI offices are also commonly responsible for building community, coordinating cultural events, providing professional and social support for students, and supporting the recruitment and retention of diverse faculty, staff and students. Some of this adds real value to institutions and organizations and should not be summarily dismissed.
Even some of the training can be beneficial. For example, I attended an excellent training by Tania Israel [ [link removed] ], an associate dean of DEI at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who works to foster conversation across ideological divides, where tensions are often high. What’s productive about these kinds of approaches is their focus on how to find common ground between individuals with divergent viewpoints. They encourage engagement, mutual respect and building tolerance for considering ideas one views as offensive.
The point is that DEI is not one thing and is not easily defined. Some things about it have been ineffective, while others have been productive. And while some of the unproductive DEI practices, such as land acknowledgments and declarations of privilege, are largely performative, at least they’re not actively harmful.
Any serious critique or defense of DEI needs to focus on specific practices. But the discourse around DEI is now just the opposite: The right pushes absolutist narratives about the malicious nature of DEI, while the left says it’s all sunshine and rainbows.
Definitions and Half-Truths
Some DEI defenders argue that DEI is simply a set of values in harmony with American values, and it should therefore be embraced by all Americans. This was House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ approach [ [link removed] ] when he linked diversity to the U.S. motto, E Pluribus Unum (“out of many, one”), equity to the 14th Amendment provision of equal protection under the law, and inclusion to the words of “liberty and justice for all” from the Pledge of Allegiance. Similarly, in an Instagram post [ [link removed] ], former Georgia House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams claimed that DEI has been around since our country’s founding and is integral to the American way of life.
While these claims may be true, they are the weakest DEI defenses because they are totally disconnected from the concerns that critics have raised about it. No rational people disagree with the concept of fairness; they disagree with certain interpretations of the concept and the actions that flow from them.
Others say DEI is about creating environments that are safe and welcoming to all: affirming, respectful and open-minded. This was Costco’s interpretation of DEI in its board’s defense [ [link removed] ] of its DEI practices; the retail chain asserted that it was “an enterprise rooted in respect and inclusion.” Prior to Trump’s reelection, this was also what Shaun Harper, a University of Southern California professor of education and DEI advocate, argued in a debate [ [link removed] ] with Greg Lukianoff, director of the free speech advocacy group FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression).
Harper argued that the loss of DEI would mean the loss of environments where students feel safe and welcome to learn. While this argument is stronger than the values-based one because it identifies specific actions, it suffers from the same problem of ignoring the concerns around how concepts like safety and belonging play out in practice.
These partial-truth framings add just as much fuel to the culture-war fire as zealous anti-woke narratives. The problem with absolutist framings is that neither side allows room for reasonable disagreement. Opponents of DEI claim that they’re against political indoctrination and for equal treatment of individuals; to believe otherwise really would call into question a person’s morals. On the other side, opposing any of the DEI defenders’ platitudes—American values, safe environments and fair access to settings—would truly make you a self-interested opportunist. Basically, disagreement with either of these half-truths makes one a terrible person bereft of moral values—which means each side, convinced of its own righteousness, is unwilling to entertain any criticism from the other.
Surgery, Not Demolition
Defending DEI with flowery platitudes is a highly ineffective strategy because people can easily see them for the partial truths they are. There is a reason why only half of workers [ [link removed] ] thought DEI was a good thing when polled last November, and 61% of Americans [ [link removed] ] believed Trump’s focus on DEI was the “right amount” or “not enough” when polled just a couple of weeks ago. But this tactic of embellishment is by no means unique to DEI defenders. It is a common rhetorical technique, especially among politicians, of shifting attention away from the flaws in a specific policy and toward its virtuous intent. However, if DEI, or some version of it, is to survive, defenders will need to get real about where it’s gone off track and be more open to reform. This means dissecting DEI and separating what is worthy of defending from what should be opposed.
Author and cultural writer Helen Pluckrose [ [link removed] ] provides a helpful way of thinking through this process. In “The Counterweight Handbook [ [link removed] ]” she offers a framework for evaluating social justice practices through a traffic light metaphor. Green signals practices with few concerns, yellow indicates potential issues and red flags are clear signs of illiberalism. Green might include general support for social justice organizations. Yellow covers actions such as mandating DEI training or encouraging pronoun use in email signatures. And red includes more serious concerns, such as requiring specific social justice beliefs as a condition of employment, membership or enrollment.
Any advocacy of DEI strategies also needs to deal with the inconvenient truths from research, as studies on DEI’s effectiveness have shown discouraging results. The most recent study [ [link removed] ] found that the philosophical foundations common to many DEI training approaches are counterproductive. The researchers used materials common to DEI training, such as “anti-racist” texts by Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi, and presented them to a randomly selected group of individuals. A second group received neutral material.
Both groups responded to questions and scenarios tapping intergroup hostility and authoritarianism. The study found that those in the “DEI group” saw more bias in scenarios when there was no bias and were more willing to punish people for imagined biased treatment. While this study was not peer-reviewed, the peer-reviewed studies mostly paint a similar picture of minimal or harmful effects [ [link removed] ].
One approach that psychological science has consistently shown to lessen prejudice, however, is the contact theory [ [link removed] ]. Simply put, this theory involves getting people from different backgrounds to work together under conditions where everyone is of equal status and has common goals. A good step in that direction would be helping people develop the necessary skills to start engaging people with diverse viewpoints. In the education field, The Mill Institute [ [link removed] ] offers great programming and resources [ [link removed]*Discourse/Strambler-DEI/mill-institute.org ] to this effect, as does the Heterodox Academy [ [link removed] ]. This approach is not only good for students, but good for promoting civil disagreement and tamping down culture wars.
And why not also target the big problems that thwart opportunity—such as insufficient early education—and consider what Harvard economist Roland Fryer has proposed [ [link removed] ] for “elite” universities? If Harvard and Yale are serious about creating opportunity and a diverse student body, they could prove it by committing to building a network of 100 high-quality schools in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods and prove to the world how doable increasing opportunity is. Fryer estimates that this could be accomplished with about 2% of the Ivy League’s endowment. What an impactful DEI strategy that would be.
Reform and Principles
Despite many declarations of DEI being dead, its scramble for survival is just beginning. Some DEI supporters will comply with whatever is demanded of them. Some will simply rebrand [ [link removed] ] what they’re doing and make a few tweaks here and there to avoid being shut down. And others will change nothing and fight tooth and nail to resist in whatever ways they can.
None of these are great approaches because none of them take the necessary step of seriously addressing what it is about the ineffective aspects of DEI that have alienated so much of the country. To get at that issue, the answer can’t be, “We just never got far enough down the DEI road,” or “We just need to do a better job of educating the public about the awesome work we do.” It needs to be an honest reckoning coupled with a sincere commitment to reform. These efforts need to focus on generating genuine buy-in through sincere engagement with DEI skeptics, using processes that are persuasive rather than imposing and punitive. Otherwise, there is no future for DEI that is durable against changing political winds.
But in many ways, the fight over an amorphous entity like DEI is the wrong fight to have. The important thing is for us to ensure we don’t lose our principles, especially respect for and engagement with our fellow citizens with whom we disagree. That’s an impossible battle to win by continuing the cycle of revenge that is now growing from the anti-woke team I was never on but could relate to. And the left, whom I also relate to and who are now paying the price for wandering from liberal principles, are likely plotting their own revenge. But who will have the integrity to fight for principles regardless of who violates them? We’ll soon find out.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?