D, E and I — three letters that together have increasingly become a flashpoint for grievances, fears, animosities and anger in the United States. They stand for diversity, equity and inclusion. A broad range of institutions from the U.S. military to universities to nonprofit environmental and community development groups have used DEI as a guide to support work that treats all people fairly and compassionately. But now in the wake of authoritarian orders from President Donald Trump, orders that many legal scholars view as unconstitutional and illegal, efforts on behalf of DEI are being undermined.
Opinion
A similar Trump Republican sensibility has found its way into Wyoming politics as we see in the Legislature’s demand that the University of Wyoming abolish its DEI programming. Even more worrisome was a recently proposed bill to make it illegal for Wyoming’s state investments to be placed under the auspices of any financial fund that uses DEI parameters in its investment strategy.
When I learned about the executive order meant to end DEI practices in the military and remove “woke” service members — perhaps in favor of sleeping ones — I was reminded of my inexhaustible capacity to be surprised. In response to the order, the Air Force removed from its website and training programs information on the Tuskegee Airmen — Black World War II pilots and support staff who served bravely and heroically on behalf of the idea of American democracy. As quickly as the removal occurred it was rescinded, so I guess the story of those Tuskegee airmen is not one related to DEI.
The Tuskegee removal and return set me to thinking about our history and it occurred to me — I’d never thought this before — that DEI might be one of the most useful short definitions we could devise to describe our country’s social trajectory — Diversity, Equity, Inclusion.
When British American colonists reached the end of their rope and decided they would rebel against British colonial rule, they set about speaking and writing on behalf of their cause. The founding fathers sought to create a society free from the constraints of entrenched power and the privileges of nobility. While we are wise to reflect on the limitations of the architects of American democracy, I have come to believe that they were at least to some degree sincere in their desire to create a society with freedom and justice for all. Of course, there was a war within these architects of freedom — many were slaveholders and most held that the right to vote should be limited to only part of the population. Women, for example, were to be excluded. But there was an aspiration to transcend their own limits that we see in the Declaration of Independence, in the Federalist papers and in our Constitution.
Here’s the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This text protects our right to practice any religion or no religion at all. It protects our right to speak on public issues without fear of reprisal. It protects our right to think independently. This is a call for diversity.
The rebellious colonists found themselves unable to be treated any longer as second-class subjects of the British Empire. Notwithstanding their inability to seek fair treatment for all, in seeing themselves treated unfairly, the glimmer of awareness on behalf of every person was appearing. This was, however limited, a call for equity.
In the poem printed at the base of the Statue of Liberty, the United States is called the Mother of Exiles who “from her beacon-hand glows world-wide welcome.” This is a call for inclusion.
While the United States has been and remains an aspirational experiment in nation making, the aspiration is a worthy one — to offer a home to all in a land that embraces diversity, to abolish inherited rights and privileges on behalf of opportunity for all in a land that embraces equity, and to extend to all respect and fellow-feeling in a land that embraces inclusion.
DEI — diversity, equity, inclusion — it’s one of the defining features of the America that I love.
Some comments seem to imply that diversity, equity, and inclusion mean have “less qualified people” (for want of another term) perform a job or lead an orchestra (or whatever). All it means is be open to all. Best example I remember was in the late 1960s or early 1970s, a man named Elmer B. Staats became comptroller general of the U.S. (head of the GAO). It was an almost totally white and male organization — as many were at the time, but especially in finance. He asked recruiters to look for Black recruits. After all, Washington, DC was (and is) a majority Black city. They returned defeated. There just weren’t any Black accounting graduates. Mr. Staats (who personally relayed the story to me) said he looked at the white men and said, “I didn’t realize Howard University didn’t have an accounting program.” Silence greeted him. The recruiters were not trying to thwart the boss’s request. They had not gone to one of the preeminent historically Black colleges/universities simply because they never had. You have to see people to include them. DEI means being willing to look.
Interesting comments. DEI is one of those good intentions that absolutely fail. No person regardless of race, creed, gender, or religion should be discriminated against. However no person should be hired or picked for a position simply because they meet some certain demographic. Hiring should be based on merit, not because of race, creed, gender, or religion. I believe Budweiser found that out.
In the summer of 2022 I attended the local community rodeo parade. There were lots of floats, one of them being from the local chapter of the Republican Party. There were lots of signs on it from people running for political office. A couple of things I noticed was the absence of a sign for Liz Cheney, she had already been excommunicated from the Party for standing up for her oath to the Constitution, even though this was ahead of the Statewide primary election – no sign on the Republican float. The one sign that caught my attention was one that said, “The Party of the Constitution.” I couldn’t help but laugh and snort about that one. I believe that above all other things the Constitution demands equality for all citizens. I remember the Civil Rights movement, the feminist movement and all the race riots we had in the ’60s. Correct me if I’m wrong but the whole DEI movement was in answer to that turbulent time, an effort to live up to the demands of equality in our Constitution. Now we are in a period where people are unwilling to give folks a leg up because of that orange bigot thing in the White House. We are going backwards folks. Why not change the State Motto while they are at it?
Thank you for this. Some of these comments dismay me. So, you want a white guy who got his appointment on his sex and color. His good looks perhaps. You don’t want an intelligent woman of different ethnicity who was fortunate enough to be seen, acknowledged and helped. Our diversity is one of our richest traits. I’m an old, straight white woman, and I do love our rich diversity. Get a life.
Beautiful piece. It’s so refreshing to read short, positive articles. Thank you!
I guess it’s okay to see the same things and come to different conclusions. However, from the comments I read in response to this fantastic op-ed it sure seems like those who disagree with the author like to fear the other. And if they aren’t exactly afraid of historically oppressed groups, they seem to overestimate the equal application of the American Dream for these groups.
DEI sounds great, but if I develop a serious disease, I want to be able to visit the doctor I think is best to deal with it….not the next guy on the list whose turn it is to be selected. The same applies to carpenters, farmers, ranchers, every producer of anything we use.
“carpenters, farmers, ranchers, every producer of anything we use.”
What are you even talking about?
Thanks, David. The arguments for fairness must be made (sadly over and over) only because bigotry, prejudice, and ignorance are the divisive and useful foundations of this nation; never mind the sometimes noble, but smirking, expressions to the contrary.
Disagree. The foundation of this nation is opportunity and advancement due to merit and competency. Example, many Asian immigrants and immigrants from India absolutely thrive in our land of opportunity – all we need to do is give them the opportunity. Many of our immigrants from Europe in the 1700s were expelled from Ireland, Scotland and Germany – tenant farmers who were kicked off the land by wealthy landlords who preferred sheep. They were in desperate situations but found opportunity here especially since they could homestead and become landowners themselves – it was hell for them but they persevered and slowly over several generations improved their lot in life. The history of the United States is based on opportunity. DEI radically departs from our successful business model which has resulted in the greatest country to ever inhabit the earth. We must return to a merit based system as soon as possible. If there’s discrimination in the United States its found in our colleges where you must be a liberal democrat in order to be hired – sorry, no conservatives need apply. This open discrimination against conservatives needs to be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court where the court will affirm discrimination. Its called merit and opportunity.
So you say merit and competency should be the only factors involved in hiring someone. Except if you’re a white christian conservative?
That’s laughable.
DEI = Division, Exclusion, Intolerance. DEI must DIE.
Thank you, David, and thanks WyoFile for publishing this oped. David, you put into words something that has been nagging at my mind but I had not formulated. I hope this piece gets a wider circulation. Thanks again.
Stephen
I disagree. DEI ( Didnt Earn It) has promoted unqualified non merit over qualified and experienced merit based hiring and employment.
I spent 4 years being passed over in employment due to DEI and its non merit based psychopathy. People with orange hair that never spent a day doing what Ive done for a living throughout my life caused alot of problems for the employers that shut me out during that dark age.
People against DEI are so misinformed and the reason we need it. DEI aimed to stop unfair treatment and the initial focus on race and gender which hiring in America was based on for a couple hundred years. It doesn’t give anyone an advantage, it promotes leveling the playing field for everyone. If you’ve been passed over for hiring are you sure you aren’t biased about those hired instead of you? Attitude as well as qualifications often go into hiring decisions. I actually had someone say that my daughter (an computer engineer) was only in that profession because she was forced to because of DEI (not because she liked it and was really good at it) and she was taking the place of a “man” who “really” wanted to be there. This is why we need DEI!
After the stinging upset election of Donald trump, Liberals/Democrats/Progressives still cling to the DEI millstone around their parties collective neck.
DEI = Collectivist insanity
Or we realize that DEI is needed when we have many men say “I’d never vote for a woman for president not matter what party they are from” (let alone a woman of color). Racism and sexism is alive and well in this country and we know that other races and women being seen as “equals” to white men is very scary and threatening to many of them.
I don’t know how your statement of conclusion that “DEI is a foundation of the country…” follows from the first Amendment which you correctly quote.
In fact, I would argue the opposite from the same amendment .
Your concluding point is at best unrelated and worst a complete non sequitur
Well said!
Well said. DEI had its roots in the documented practice of hiring white men over better qualified demographics. We know this. There is a stream of political thought that seeks to invert this and claim the opposite is happening. It is a simple thought experiment to look at the halls of power and wealth and see if any demographic is overrepresented. If so, there are two possibilities. First, that demographic is inherently superior, the second possibility is that the system is warped to favor them. It appears a large swath of the country has rejected the latter.