I was in business for 25 years before being terminated in a “restructuring” last year. I was the only one in my division that was released (well, my manager was, too, but that was only because he was managing two of us and without me his role wasn’t necessary), and I found out that there was also one here and one there, many of them long time employees of the company like I was. “Restructuring,” while a legitimate business activity, is also a useful catch-all for corporate downsizing when the motivation is somewhat suspect.
While I miss some things about the business, there’s a lot I don’t miss. The emphasis on “DEI,” for instance, the acronym for “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion,” a.k.a. Diversity, Equality and Inclusion, a.k.a., Diversity and Inclusion, a.k.a., Diversity. The company had significantly increased its attention on getting more women and minorities in positions of leadership, along with supporting celebrations of sexual deviancy of all kinds, and that was all reflected regularly in communications at all times of the year—not just when it was a particular month to recognize some group in some square in the matrix of so-called disadvantaged people.
I am not at all opposed to women, blacks, hispanics, gays, lesbians and other “under-represented” peoples having gainful employment. I’m not opposed to them being in positions of leadership. Over the course of my career the majority of my managers have been women, with one or two exceptions. Many of them were high performers. Some of them were not. Two of them were LGBTQ+, one being a lesbian in a same-sex “marriage.” And I’ve had many female, black, gay and lesbian co-workers.
So it’s not “diversity” that I’m opposed to. What I am opposed to is the artificial imposition of “diversity” for the sake of diversity.
For example, I’ve seen a more qualified white male get passed over for a role in favor of a less experienced Asian female because “diversity.” DEI is clearly reverse discrimination and, while you could never prove it in court with that example, that’s what it is.
Lately, it seems like others are getting annoyed with it, too, and the current iteration of employment discrimination is having to morph into some other euphemism to avoid the legal risks that come with profiling candidates for jobs.
The demise of DEI has been in the news for a while, but outlets like Jeff Bezos’ The Washington Post (Democracy Dies in Darkness—pfffft!) has recently sat up and taken notice (hard left liberal link alert!).
Last year, Eli Lilly’s annual shareholders letter referenced the acronym for diversity, equity and inclusion 48 times. This year, “DEI” is nowhere to be found.
In March, Starbucks got shareholder approval to replace “representation” goals with “talent” performance for executive bonus incentives. At Molson Coors, “People & Planet” metrics have displaced environmental, social and governance (ESG) goals, and the acronym DEI has disappeared altogether.
Amid growing legal, social and political backlash, American businesses, industry groups and employment professionals are quietly scrubbing DEI from public view — though not necessarily abandoning its practice. As they rebrand programs and hot-button acronyms, they’re reassessing decades-old anti-discrimination strategies and rewriting policies that once emphasized race and gender to prioritize inclusion for all.
In other words, the DEI label will be retired in favor of a new term that will cloak the same activities.
“DEI has only been the acronym du jour since 2020,” Emerson said. “Regardless of what we call it, we’ve done a really poor job storytelling what this work is actually about.”
The rebranding is clearly being sparked by the “baggage” now associated with DEI, Emerson said. She pointed to conservative activist Christopher Rufo, who led the campaign to oust Harvard’s first Black president, Claudine Gay, framing her exit as “the beginning of the end for DEI in America’s institutions.”
“Companies with leaders that might be particularly supportive of DEI might also be the ones that are uniquely averse to drawing scrutiny,” Emerson said. “A lot of the companies that were vocal in the past have already been sued.”
“DEI” and all of its antecedents are part of the cultural Marxism that seeks to divide us into separate, warring groups, pitting the bourgeoisie (those who own the means of production) against the proletariat (working class), whose labor produces the goods, in a power struggle. It’s the “victims” of discrimination versus the “oppressors,” those who supposedly have an “unfair” advantage over someone who’s gay, female, black, hispanic, fat, trans, or some other characteristic that somehow puts them at a disadvantage. Men v. women. Gay v. straight. Black v. white. Fat v. fit. You get the idea.
As a man of faith, I can’t in good conscience write copy for “Pride” month celebrations or any other celebration of something that runs counter to God’s established order. DEI always posed a threat to my role, but thankfully I was never put in a position where I had to refuse an assignment (although I got close a couple of times).
It’s still a threat to my prospects, though, since most corporate roles I find list the support of “diversity, equity and inclusion” as part of the job description.
Death to DEI and anything else that favors one group over another.
