Category: DEI Thoughts

• Nuanced View of DEI

   Few concepts have experienced such a dramatic shift in public discourse over just a few years as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). During the summer when controversial killings of several Black Americans sparked national outrage, we witnessed DEI rise in popularity to the point of becoming almost faddish. Companies made promises to support minority-owned businesses and communities of color. Organizations hired DEI experts and developed comprehensive plans. Business, community, and political leaders issued a series of symbolic statements.

  At the time, I knew there would be backlash. I told my wife one evening that those opposed to this type of racial reckoning would soon develop attacks against the movement. Sadly, I was correct. The opportunity for opponents came through convenient interpretations of Critical Race Theory (CRT). Soon, people began appealing to more conservative circles by arguing that people—particularly White people—should not have to feel like racists or oppressors. They cited instances (though I’m not sure they’re true) of White five-year-olds being told they were oppressors. This proved to be a compelling argument, for after all, who would want their children to feel bad about themselves?

  Before long, CRT and DEI became conflated, and anything even remotely related to race faced criticism. Additional stories emerged that further angered conservatives. One example was a university requiring candidates to provide diversity statements when applying for jobs. These actions led to legislation aimed at eliminating DEI and CRT in schools and government institutions. Politicians, seeing an opportunity to raise their conservative credentials, began outdoing each other with further restrictions on anything related to diversity, equity, race, or even culture.

  Now, it almost feels as if we’re living in a post-DEI society. What’s striking is that this transformation happened over just a five-year period.

  For me personally, this is disappointing. I am a DEI hire. Over twenty years ago, I was hired as part of a program designed to diversify the faculty at an institution. When the college opened, the student body was primarily White. However, as with many urban areas, the population shifted over time. The institution became a majority-minority campus, but the faculty—many of whom had been there since the institution opened thirty years earlier—remained over 90% White and mostly male. Therefore, the institution developed a program that would allow faculty, that may not have the required (but arbitrary) minimum years of experience, on a temporary basis and be mentored. After a couple of years, these individuals could then compete for full-time positions.

  When I was hired, I didn’t realize I was part of what essentially was a DEI program (though it was not called that at the time). Initially, I had mixed feelings once I learned. However, now that I’ve had a fulfilling career, I’m glad I was given that opportunity. I believe I’ve been able to make a significant difference in the lives of many students, employees, and communities over the course of my career. In addition, much of my work has focused on closing achievement gaps that exist within many communities of color.

  I mention my background to provide a foundation for my nuanced view of DEI. I believe there is great value in purposeful DEI. However, I’ll be the first to admit that even as a DEI advocate, there were some practices that made me uncomfortable.

  I see DEI as a tool to uplift communities and expand educational and career opportunities. I do not see it as a zero-sum game—meaning that the only way people of color can succeed is for non-minorities to suffer. I believe that DEI training has value when presented as a way to increase awareness and understanding, as opposed to forcing guilt on people. I also believe that DEI helps people across the spectrum: those with disabilities, women, people of color, and others who may be underrepresented in certain professional and social circles, at least partly due to historical discriminatory practices.

  Personally, I approach DEI from a place of acceptance—not advocacy. This is not a criticism, for I understand that the recent popularity of DEI rose from tragedies (George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery) that should never have happened. However, I separate advocacy from workplace practices relating to diversifying employees or developing equity practices for students. I’m interested in efforts that improve the communities I serve. I have no interest, especially in a workplace setting, in making any person feel guilt or shame because of their race or ethnicity. I personally do not believe that is what DEI is about.

  With that noted, I do not believe that trainings and practices that led to shame or guilt were the majority. However, I do believe they became campaign fodder for anti-DEI advocates.

  For most of my career, I’ve worked at institutions located in neighborhoods of color. The student bodies have been as high as 90% Black, Brown, or Asian. Therefore, any DEI practices I’ve implemented have been for the sole purpose of uplifting these communities. From my viewpoint, these practices were necessary for the success of my students.

  Therefore, my hiring and subsequent career has led me to a very nuanced view of DEI.

  In terms of Diversity, I’m not interested in policing hires to achieve an official or unofficial quota. I’ve been at institutions that required these practices, and honestly, the forced nature of these type of initiatives were often unproductive and unsuccessful. What I do believe in is casting a wide net when recruiting to ensure a diverse pool and examining the “required” qualifications to see if they are truly necessary for the position. In addition, I believe in the importance of organizational fit. While I believe there are minimum qualifications that should be met, I also believe that fit is very important. Therefore, just because a person on paper seems to be the most credentialed doesn’t mean they are the best fit for the students or communities being served. This is not to say that only people of color can teach or work with students of color. However, I do believe in asking questions that look at the heart of employees and that attempt to identify their commitment to uplifting local communities.

  In terms of Equity, I believe that we should, to the degree possible, support students in whatever ways needed to help them succeed. This may mean a food pantry for those who are hungry, childcare assistance for student parents, accommodations for students with disabilities, or mental health support for veterans struggling to reacclimate after returning from service. Equity is not something limited to any group—but rather an organizational mindset that shows we have a responsibility to adapt to the needs of our students instead of having a one-size-fits-all approach that leaves far too many students behind.

  In terms of Inclusion, I believe that everyone deserves to bring their backgrounds and all that they are into the learning environment. I recall how much I appreciated one of my professors, when I was in college, taking the time to use examples from shows I grew up watching. I felt seen. I felt that I could contribute to the overall discussion. I believe that is something every student should feel.

  With that stated, I recognize there are limits. Diversity should be about expanding opportunities, not making hardworking people feel they have no chance of being hired. Equity and Inclusion efforts are not limited to any specific race or identity groups.

  I believe DEI provides a societal benefit when implemented strategically. Purposeful DEI can uplift communities and expand career and educational opportunities. These actions can lead to prosperous economies, revitalized communities, and most importantly, thriving families.

  That is why I am opposed to the current anti-DEI movements. I’ll be the first to agree that some practices needed to be refined, but the goal of annihilating DEI seems, as I’ve stated before, intellectually lazy. A better approach would be to take the time to develop practices and policies that expand opportunities for all, but in a manner that does not limit them for others. In essence, practices that treat DEI as a win for society as opposed to a zero-sum game.

   

  December 31, 2025

  DEI

  ---

• Skepticism of the Anti-DEI and Anti-Woke Movements

  I recently read an article about a pastor in the Houston area planning to take his conservative values to “woke” regions by opening churches to spread the gospel. As a Christian, I have no issue with a pastor going to different areas to share God’s word—that’s part of the discipleship that goes back to Jesus’s days walking on earth. However, I’m bothered that instead of simply saying that, he used the term “woke” to announce his venture.

  For me, anti-wokeness is rooted in anti-blackness. The term “woke” originated in Black culture as a way of bringing awareness to racism and social injustice. It was made famous through our music and by our activists. Growing up, when someone told me to stay woke, they were signaling that certain actions and structures need to be viewed through a historical lens. By doing so, we can take steps to prevent racist history from repeating itself and work to undo structures that may have caused deficits in our communities.

  For example, I often think about the term “woke” when examining voter integrity and suppression efforts. While some legitimately want to ensure fair elections, it’s important to understand that historically, there were those with more nefarious reasons for voter restrictions. Poll taxes and literacy tests were designed to keep Black folks and others from voting. That history matters when we try to understand who current voter integrity efforts hurt the most.

  I also think about the term “woke” when I see nonprofits, private organizations, and community leaders develop programs to uplift communities that are disproportionately Black and Brown. In my professional life, I encounter these communities often. Looking at them now, one might think they’re failing and not worth additional resources. However, the “woke” part of me knows that historically, these were thriving communities that degraded over time due to neglect and government and corporate actions that disproportionately harmed these neighborhoods. This isn’t to say community members themselves bore no responsibility for the decline, but staying woke helps me recognize that external forces were so powerful that these communities couldn’t withstand any internal missteps or mistakes.

  Sadly, I fear the real goal of anti-DEI efforts is to end this type of awareness and the potential results that can come from it. I’m someone who tries to look at all sides of an issue—it’s just how my brain works. Therefore, I am sympathetic to anti-DEI arguments around the idea that good-hearted White people shouldn’t have to feel like racists, or that qualified, hard-working White people shouldn’t lose opportunities simply due to their skin color. While I recognize these issues are much more complicated, I also believe these feelings should not be discounted.

  However, the more I observe what is happening, the more I start to think that these aforementioned points are not the true reasoning behind anti-DEI movements. They’re the rationales spoken, but not the actual motivation. The rhetoric used to denigrate the concepts of diversity and equity now leaves me with little trust in any noble intentions.

  Ironically, I fear the true motivation behind anti-DEI efforts reveals exactly why DEI is necessary in the first place. For instance, there are numerous podcasts, social media posts, and televised statements by well-known political figures questioning the qualifications of people of color in successful positions. This begs the question: if these individuals think people of color are unqualified for certain professions, what would prevent them, or their supporters, from discriminating against minorities pursuing these specific careers?

  The anti-wokeness agenda, which seems designed to erase much of our cultural history and any practices that uplift communities of color, doesn’t appear to be about fairness. Instead, it seems focused on avoiding questions about actions that are essentially taking our society backwards.

  I just read that Black folks had reached a record low unemployment rate of 5.3% prior to this anti-DEI movement gaining momentum. Now, in the midst of it, the rate has climbed to 8.3%. One factor is that government jobs—which many Black people pursued due to discriminatory practices in the private sector—are now being dismantled. Sadly, there are many individuals in positions of power celebrating this job elimination.

  This purging of government employment, which disproportionately hurts people of color, is consistent with repeated actions throughout history that have pushed Black folks backwards just when they’re starting to advance. I could write an entire blog about actions ranging from law and policy changes to historical violence that devastated thriving communities of color.

  As I stated earlier, I tend to see issues from all sides. Therefore, I’m adult enough to admit that some DEI practices probably needed refinement, and that racism isn’t the sole cause of deficits within Black communities. However, this total annihilation of DEI and the way “woke” has been turned into a taboo term suggests that we, as a society, are either too intellectually lazy to develop real, precise solutions—or the true goal is something far more abhorrent.

  That’s why this pastor’s reference to “woke” regions is so bothersome. While he may be concerned with issues beyond race, no one can deny that “woke” originated in Black culture. Therefore, it is difficult not to take anti-woke sentiment as a form of anti-blackness.

  A pastor who uses this terminology will not draw me to Christ. Instead, I’ll keep my family and anyone I love away out of an abundance of caution. After all, the way “woke” is being weaponized now makes me question whether I could express any part of our culture—from music to art—or whether there would ever be room for people who look like me in executive leadership positions. It makes me wonder if I’m a welcomed part of the body of Christ, or the target he’s trying to combat by taking on “woke” regions.

  Part of me hopes I’m wrong—that people opposing wokeness or DEI truly believe, in their hearts, that everyone has equal opportunities, that discrimination doesn’t exist, and that a future where the concept of “race” is totally ignored will mean better outcomes for everyone. However, at the very least, I believe these views are naïve and oversimplified. At worst, I believe they are disingenuous and strategic rationalizations.

  Honestly, I guess time will tell. But I can’t say I’m not concerned.

  December 30, 2025

  DEI

  ---