Over the past quarter century, a belief system known as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) has worked its way into many institutions in America. Currently, DEI is most conspicuous in academia and the corporate world.
What is DEI?
Proponents define DEI as principles meant to create environments that respect and appreciate differences among individuals. The goal is to ensure fair treatment, access, opportunity, and advancement for all, and establish a culture where everyone feels valued and included. These are laudable principles.
Over time, DEI has developed into different offshoots of its core tenets.
For example, the DEI programs initiated by many American corporations can differ greatly from the DEI programs ingrained in academia.
Since the turn of the century, most large American corporations have created a DEI department headed by a new DEI executive officer, who is charged with advancing the company’s DEI initiatives.
However, website searches of corporate DEI programs turn up little in the way of specific publicly stated DEI goals within these companies. Instead, their site content often shows DEI generalities, such as fostering a more inclusive and equitable working environment, and/or engaging with suppliers, customers, and other external partners to promote proactive DEI efforts.
They also usually tout, as shipping giant UPS does on its website, an “ongoing commitment to advance ESG, diversity, equity and economic empowerment.”
ESG stands for environmental, social, and governance. It’s a framework for evaluating the extent to which a corporation works on behalf of social goals that go beyond the role of a corporation to use resources efficiently and create profitable products. ESG is another arm of DEI that has its strong proponents, as well as its fierce critics.
In general, corporate DEI programs strive to promote a diverse workforce within their organizations and give opportunities for all their workers to advance. In that sense, the term “equity” in corporate DEI-speak broadly refers to equality of opportunity—a noble goal.
Equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity
However, there are iterations of DEI that define its equity tenet as equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. Examples of this are academic admissions policies that weigh immutable characteristics such as race and gender in decisions on who gets admitted to universities and who does not.
Moreover, DEI-based ideologies have been used as justification to silence and even penalize individuals with different points of view. These efforts have been labeled as “cancel culture.”
DEI has become thoroughly entrenched in today’s academic and corporate culture. This trend begs serious questions:
- Do DEI initiatives champion individual opportunity and respect freedom of expression?
- Does DEI honor diverse points of view, as its name implies?
- Or has DEI, perhaps born of noble intentions, become in some quarters an intolerant ideology attempting to foist its authoritarian tenets upon organizations and, in a larger way, upon an entire Western culture?
A leading voice for the latter point of view is Bari Weiss, a self-described liberal, whose credentials include founding The Free Press, a popular online news publication. Weiss is also a founding director of the new University of Austin. Previously, she was an acclaimed feature writer for the New York Times.
Both The Free Press and the University of Austin reflect Weiss’s vision of creating spaces where diverse perspectives can be heard and where robust debate and intellectual engagement are valued.
According to Wikipedia, The Free Press now has more than 100,000 paid subscribers and more than 750,000 total subscribers. Such impressive numbers show there is a strong market for investigative stories and provocative commentaries that fill gaps left by traditional media outlets.
Through these endeavors, Weiss continues to advocate for the importance of free speech and open discourse in society.
The dark side of DEI?
Weiss argues that DEI initiatives are being used by institutions as justifications to enforce codes of conduct that are illiberal, authoritarian, and, ironically, intolerant of diverse expressions of thought.
Her critique of DEI programs is grounded in her perception that they have strayed from their original goals of fostering inclusivity and equality, instead becoming vehicles for promoting a divisive ideology that prioritizes identity over individual merit and achievements.
“People were to be given authority in this new order not in recognition of their gifts, hard work, accomplishments, or contributions to society, but in inverse proportion to the disadvantages their group had suffered, as defined by radical ideologues,” she asserts.
Weiss contends that this ideology recategorizes Americans not as individuals but as representatives of identity groups. “Over the past two decades,” she says, “I saw this inverting worldview swallow all of the crucial sense-making institutions of American life…The takeover is so comprehensive that it’s now almost hard to notice it—because it is everywhere.”
Does DEI threaten fairness and opportunity?
The ideological underpinnings of DEI threaten the foundational principles of fairness and opportunity that should guide American society and its institutions, Weiss argues. She says the movement has grown to such an extent that it influences education, media, and corporations, and often compels allegiance to DEI principles for career advancement.
Citing her own experience of being shunned for her views by colleagues at the New York Times, she argues that DEI ideology has spawned environments within organizations where dissenting views are not tolerated and where the celebration or justification of certain ideologies over facts and knowledge is encouraged.
“A new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else,” she wrote in her scathing letter of resignation from the Times.
Weiss’s experience at the New York Times
In that letter, she also described the harassment she endured:
“My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m ‘writing about the Jews again.’ Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly ‘inclusive’ one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.”
“There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge,” she concluded. “I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.”
Remedies: Weiss’s Core Principles
So far for Weiss’s observations concerning the wrongful impacts of DEI. But what are her remedies for an ideology she deems antithetical to true diversity of thought and expression?
Weiss’s stance on DEI, encapsulated in what can be termed her Core Principles Call, offers a fresh perspective on the discourse. She advocates for a reevaluation of current DEI paradigms. Her Core Principles include:
Intellectual diversity and free speech
Weiss places a significant emphasis on the importance of intellectual diversity and the protection of free speech. She argues that true diversity cannot be achieved without including a range of viewpoints, even those that may be unpopular or controversial.
Weiss contends that open dialogue and debate are fundamental to discovering truth and fostering innovation.
Meritocracy and excellence
Another cornerstone of Weiss’s principles is the belief in meritocracy—the idea that individuals should advance based on their abilities and achievements rather than their identity characteristics.
She argues that affirmative action and quota systems in academia can erode trust in institutions and hinder the pursuit of excellence.
Individuality over identity politics
Weiss criticizes the current focus on identity politics within DEI initiatives. She argues that it often reduces individuals to their group identities and overlooks their unique experiences, talents, and viewpoints.
She advocates for recognizing and valuing individuals for their contributions and character, rather than viewing them primarily through the lens of race, gender, or other demographic factors.
Constructive engagement
While critical of certain aspects of the DEI agenda, Weiss does not dismiss the goals of creating more inclusive and equitable environments. Instead, she calls for constructive engagement and dialogue to find solutions that respect diversity of thought, uphold principles of fairness, and encourage mutual understanding.
As society grapples with these critical issues, Weiss’s Core Principles Call serves as a provocative contribution to the ongoing debate around DEI.
To sum it up
In summary, Bari Weiss’s critique of DEI programs is grounded in her perception that they have strayed from their original goals of fostering inclusivity and equity, instead becoming vehicles for promoting a divisive ideology that prioritizes identity over individual merit and achievements.
Whether one agrees with her perspective or not, the importance of engaging with diverse viewpoints in the quest for a more just and inclusive society remains undisputed.
The conversation around DEI is far from settled, but one thing is clear: it is only through robust, open, and respectful dialogue that progress can be made.
Leave a Reply