In the annals of American political theater, the Trump administration’s war on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives stands out as a particularly cynical production. This crusade ignores the well-documented benefits of diversity in enhancing organizational performance and decision-making and undermines the government’s ability to serve a diverse populace. It makes no distinction between DEI programs that work well and those that don’t. While McCarthyism had the coherence of a single enemy, Trump’s casts a broader net—not just DEI but the idea of racial diversity itself.
Let’s be clear: Good-faith criticism of DEI initiatives should be welcomed. Critics have pointed to some DEI efforts as inflaming rather than soothing racial tensions and oversimplifying complex issues. These shortcomings have led to a backlash, even among those who support the core principles of DEI.
The University of Michigan’s ambitious programs serve as a case study of the potential and pitfalls of DEI initiatives. Despite investing nearly $250 million since 2016, the university has struggled to meet key objectives, such as increasing Black student enrollment, underscoring the importance of clear, measurable goals, practical implementation strategies, and regular evaluation and adjustment. Some of those most negatively affected were the very students it was intended to support, as Nicholas Confessore, the New York Times correspondent and Washington Monthly alum, found in his compelling and nuanced exposition on the challenges inherent to integrating these values into the formal structure of a public institution.
But diversity, equity, and inclusion should not be jettisoned wholesale.
Unfortunately, Trump’s executive order and administrative actions are dismantling DEI programs with the accuracy of a toddler wielding a paint roller. Federal agencies, now tasked with rooting out any whisper of diversity initiatives, mirror the Senator Joseph McCarthy-era paranoia when Americans were encouraged to report on their neighbors. Letters have been issued across agencies that order employees to identify any efforts to “obscure” connections to DEI that have taken place after November 5. Trump also revoked Executive Order 11246, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, which had insisted that federal contractors “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”
The goal of diversity is still valid even if some DEI programs have been clumsy and ill-conceived. Studies have shown that diverse teams often outperform homogeneous ones. Diverse groups are generally more likely to remain objective and challenge each other’s approaches to problem-solving, leading to improved decisions. Workforce diversity can influence an agency’s capacity to accomplish its mission by more effectively meeting client needs and inspiring public trust and cooperation.
Trump’s second-term cabinet is on a path to being the least diverse this century, which mirrors his first-term cabinet, the least racially diverse since 1980. It’s a partywide issue: Only 16 percent of minority members in Congress are Republicans. To be fair, Trump has appointed the first Hispanic Secretary of State, the first openly gay Treasury Secretary, and the first female White House Chief of Staff.
The administration’s actions extend beyond his cabinet, federal agencies, and contractors. Trump’s executive order requires each federal agency to identify “up to nine potential civil compliance investigations” of private companies, large nonprofits, and other institutions with DEI programs that “constitute illegal discrimination or preferences.” This move appears designed to intimidate the private sector and discourage DEI initiatives beyond government.
Trump’s war on DEI threatens to roll back decades of progress in creating a more inclusive society. Public administration and organizational studies experts warn that this approach could have severe consequences. It may undermine the government’s ability to serve its entire population, especially historically disenfranchised communities. It could reduce the potential for innovation and creative problem-solving in public agencies. It may even work against traditional conservative appeals to bring more small business acumen to government.
Ben Brunjes, a federal contracting expert at the University of Washington, pointed out that the first five days after Trump’s executive decision significantly impacted small enterprises, particularly those classified as disadvantaged. Data indicates that over half of the canceled diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) agreements are with small, disadvantaged businesses (SDBs). Companies owned by minorities, women, and veterans—groups that federal agencies have been trying to engage with more—now find Washington an unreliable collaborator in business ventures. These will likely reconsider their relationships with federal contracts, to the detriment of everyone.
Source: SAM.gov
As a scholar who studies public sector organizations, I know civil servants across agencies and the ideological spectrum. In just a few months since the election, I have seen dozens of these highly competent professionals leave the federal government due to the fear the incoming administration has instilled because of its war on DEI and contempt for a professional federal workforce. Other civil servants have privately confessed a need to bury or end work that provides evidence counter to MAGA’s ideology or even tangentially reflects DEI values. This ideological assault has created a genuine panic within federal agencies, leaving many civil servants grappling with difficult choices about their work and careers. As one said, “I just have to figure out if it’s a firing squad.”
History has shown such fear-mongering campaigns often backfire. The excesses of McCarthyism eventually led to its downfall, as the public grew weary of baseless accusations and infringements on civil liberties as Senator Joseph McCarthy, the Wisconsin Republican, aimed his fusillades at federal mainstays from the State Department to the U.S. Army. There are signs that Trump’s anti-DEI may also lead to blowback, with legal challenges likely and many institutions vowing to continue their commitment to diversity. In this new era of ideological persecution, standing firm for evidence-based research and a commitment to an inclusive society is essential.
As we navigate this complex landscape, it’s crucial to remember that DEI’s goals are not to divide or discriminate but to create a more equitable and inclusive society for all. By learning from the successes and failures of DEI initiatives to achieve those ends, we can work towards a future where diversity is celebrated and effectively leveraged to create stronger, more innovative, and more just institutions.
The post Trump’s Blunderbuss War on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion appeared first on Washington Monthly.
Continue reading...