DEI may have a new path forward, but it will require an openness to change

Since anti-DEI provocateurs began gaining attention and influence, some DEI leaders have had to pivot, making hard funding and strategy choices. Some have continued the practice under a different name, while others have fought openly to protect DEI work in their organizations.

Employers have had to make similarly tough decisions, often bending to unclear directives from the White House or federal agencies.

Some practitioners have debated the terminology. Many acknowledge that the DEI ideals of 2020 didn’t achieve their goals. Now, the industry is focused on what’s next.

A new framework in an uncertain time. How Equality Wins by NYU Law School’s Kenji Yoshino, a constitutional law professor, and David Glasgow, executive director at the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging, tries to provide some perspective and answers.

Glasgow and Yoshino said they developed the book concept shortly after Trump returned to office last January, as executive orders were signed and DEI was blamed for a plane crash in Washington, DC.

“We had built up some expertise over the previous couple of years on the legal dimensions of this [DEI],” Glasgow told HR Brew. “We wanted to be able to put our ideas forth on how can this work evolve in order to survive this incredible onslaught that it's experiencing?”

Over roughly 140 pages, the book offers strategies and acknowledgements that there isn’t a “right” way forward.

Since they began writing the book last year, roughly half of Fortune 100 companies have changed their DEI programming in some way, often through language shifts. Several surveys indicate the work is still happening, though more quietly. Glasgow is hopeful that as the temperature comes down, more employers will speak out in support of DEI principles.

“You don’t need to think of this as this incredible hot button issue that you can’t talk about and that you need to be scared of,” he said. “You can lean into this in a way that is more palatable for public consumption.”

Expanding the pool. While supporters have said that DEI is everyone’s responsibility, Glasgow and Yoshino acknowledge that some have felt excluded by the initiatives. This should not be the case.

The book explores the pushback against DEI, including some people who have complained of unfair treatment for having different opinions or making language mistakes. Some felt that they weren’t free to speak openly.

“Some folks don’t want to hear right now, given everything that’s going on, that this is a moment for empathy and for grace,” Glasgow said. “They think, ‘how could we not condemn them and call out this resurgent racism, misogyny, all the rest of it?’”

But the authors aren’t saying that racism and discrimination should be tolerated—quite the opposite, they said. Rather, there should be more space for honest mistakes, because “all of us make mistakes in this area, even when we’re well-meaning people.”

If a person uses the wrong language or disagrees with a particular policy, there should be a place for discussion and understanding.

“Let’s create a culture on our side of this debate where people feel like they have the freedom to speak their mind,” Glasgow said.

The authors also encourage practitioners and workers to avoid falling into the trap of “exclusive inclusion,” whereby initiatives center mainly on groups protected under civil rights law.

“There’s a bunch of other groups that are saying, ‘Hey, you’re excluding us,’” Glasgow said, adding that he hopes DEI takes on more people in pain. “You’re still able to say your paper cut is not equivalent to this other person’s flesh wound. But the default position is, I’m open to hearing from all these different groups.”

In recent years, scholars and research have found that men have higher rates of suicide, loneliness, and gambling addiction, than women. The book suggests that acknowledging men’s struggles does not invalidate women’s experiences or mean that employers should focus less on women’s issues.

Still a business imperative. A company’s bottom line has been one of the best arguments for DEI, many studies and experts have said. Glasgow said employers should keep this in mind when considering the future of their DEI programming and if, in light of the country’s changing demographics, they want the best possible talent.

“If so, we’re going to need to know how to find those talented people in unfamiliar places. We don’t want to have a homogeneous pool of people coming in, so that we’re only employing the same type of folks,” Glasgow said. “If people show up, and the only people who feel like they are included and have a voice are white men, for instance, and you lose all the other talented people, they’re quiet quitting, or they’re disengaged in their workplace, that’s not good for your business success.”

Furthermore, consumer businesses typically want to reach diverse customers. So whether it’s Mattel’s autistic Barbie, Sephora’s program highlighting Black-owned brands, or Apple’s accessibility features, companies need people who can create products capable of reaching a wide consumer base.

“I don’t really know how organizations do without it [DEI],” Glasgow said. “You can call it whatever you want. I don’t particularly care, but whatever it is, you do have to care.”