DEI: Up Down. Yet Resilient?

DEI is under stress from within and without. President Trump issued on January 20, 2025, an executive order terminating “all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI in the Federal Government.” DEI’s roots are found in President Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 executive order 11246, which required federal contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race.” Affirmative action was the predecessor of today’s DEI. It prohibited discrimination in employment by federal contractors. Affirmative action evolved. 

By the early 1980s it was used in U.S. universities and public agencies to recruit members of under-represented communities based on personal characteristics. Affirmative Action was accused of creating reverse discrimination by giving preferential treatment to some based on personal characteristics and bypassing better qualified individuals. Affirmative Action was terminated in 1996 in California by referendum, mandating that “the State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”

Race-conscious admission programs at colleges and universities across the country were ended in 2023 by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions vs Harvard College and the University of North Carolina. The Court’s majority opined that “The Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause and involve racial stereotyping.” 

DEI consolidated in the 1990s as the assault on affirmative action mounted. It was first named diversity, which refers to the variety of personal experiences, values, and worldviews that arise from differences of culture and circumstance. Organizations created diversity initiatives and tailored them to their specific needs. Businesses justified these initiatives to remain competitive by attempting to imitate the diversity of society within their workforce. 

Diversity morphed into DEI in the first two decades of the 21st century, and peaked during the Biden administration. Equity means providing equal opportunities to all members of a community. Inclusion refers to allowing all members of a community to participate and express their ideas. Universities implemented DEI as a means to lessen ethical and social injustices. The University of California, for instance, has an academic workforce whose percentage of Hispanic/Latino(a) members is 8.5, while this group makes up 40% of California’s population. The university’s academic workforce does not mirror the State’s population, and this inequity is not unique
to California. 

The reason for this mismatch in ethnic representation is the difference in the quality of education available to various sectors of the population. Well-intentioned as DEI might be, there is a high threshold of acceptability that must be met in its application to gain public support. Someone benefiting from DEI programs must have had distinct life experiences and engage in outstanding activities that are relevant to the functions to be performed, and enhance the work environment, to avoid creating political resistance on the grounds that it is discriminatory. 

Political opposition to DEI rose as vast resources were invested in it. Companies spend on average eight billion dollars annually on DEI. A study revealed that the U.S. Department of Education spent over one billion dollars on DEI programs from 2021 through 2024. A report disclosed that in the same period the federal government spent 1.12 trillion dollars on DEI-related initiatives across 24 federal agencies and 460 programs. 

What lies ahead for DEI? DEI’s scope will be narrower given the political resistance to preferences and discrimination based on personal characteristics. It might survive in the private sector if it is judged to be a worthy business expense. States will probably fund it with non-federal dollars, although there will be notable differences in support from state to state. Future administrations might restore federal DEI funding. Most likely it will be smaller than in the past. DEI has a beneficial role to play, but the threshold of acceptability that must be surpassed in its
application is high.