This is such a clear explanation, and I really appreciate it the way you laid out the arguments. I would add a note that this piece focuses mostly on the affirmative action argument, though, and DEI efforts are so much more broadly construed by educational institutions and workplaces - especially the inclusion - and so even if someone disagrees with the quotas addressed by the courts, it’s important to note that the administration is coming for a much broader set of actions and activities.
Thanks for your comment, Leondra. You’re completely right that affirmative action and DEI are different. I wove them together here because I think that’s the approach the Trump administration is taking—conflating the recent affirmative action ruling with all DEI efforts, essentially arguing that all DEI policies are therefore illegal. I didn’t fully tease out the differences, focusing instead on affirmative action. That’s also why I referenced How to Be an Antiracist and The Diversity Delusion—they offer two very different perspectives that engage with these questions more fully.
Kendi’s point of view isn’t really an opinion, it’s fact, right? When looking at the diversity of our business leaders in Fortune 500 companies we still have about 60% of board seats occupied by white men. White males make up 30% of the population, yet make up about 90% of the CEOs.
There are two ways to explain that: systemic discrimination, or genetic supremacy of white males.
I appreciate exploring the other side in good faith, and there are some obvious ways to tweak policy to better align with fairness, but their arguments that recruitment tactics to counteract the default discrimination is worse than the default discrimination itself are the definition of white supremacy.
Timothy, thanks for your thoughtful comment. I’d just clarify that Kendi’s view is an opinion, not an uncontested fact. Both he and his critics start from the same data on disparities, but they interpret the causes differently and promote different solutions.
I used to see Kendi’s approach as obviously correct, but reading dissenting voices opened my eyes to some pitfalls. Authors like Jesse Singal (The Quick Fix), John McWhorter (Woke Racism), Coleman Hughes (The End of Race Politics), and Jonathan Haidt & Greg Lukianoff (The Coddling of the American Mind) offer thoughtful critiques.
Hughes argues, “disparities are like tumors; they can be malignant or benign… benign disparities arise naturally because of cultural and demographic differences.” Haidt and Lukianoff write, “If activists embrace the equal-outcomes form of social justice — if they interpret all deviations from population norms as evidence of systemic bias — they will get drawn into endless and counterproductive campaigns, even against people who share their goals.”
The takeaway is that acknowledging disparities doesn’t automatically justify labeling all outcomes as the product of discrimination, and it’s worth exploring multiple explanations and solutions in good faith.
The sentences that really struck me are just above the picture of Secretary of Education Linda McMahon near the end of the article: "Discrimination based upon race or ethnicity has no place in the United States," she said. "Our commitment to ending discrimination" means "fighting to ensure that students are judged as individuals, not prejudiced by their membership of a racial group."
What I find interesting is that is EXACTLY what is being done and has been endorsed by the Supreme Court in a recent ruling when it relates to immigration enforcement. Discrimination based upon race.
Some may say I'm guilty of "whataboutism". I say the hypocrisy of this administration is astonishing. Discrimination for me, but not for thee?
I recently researched and wrote about that Supreme Court ruling, so I can definitely see the connection you’re making—the parallel is striking.
Someone commented on my earlier piece, “The Supreme Court’s Double Standard on Race,” with a genuine question: if the reverse were true, would I still consider it a double standard? In other words, if the Court ruled that people shouldn’t be racially profiled for their immigration status, but that college students should have access to race-based programs, would that be inconsistent in my view?
I thought that was such a good question. My honest answer is no—that used to be the reality, and it never struck me as hypocrisy. But now that both positions have flipped, I can see the inconsistency in that. It’s interesting, and it's a reminder of how unevenly we sometimes apply our own ideas about fairness.
How would you say systemic racism plays into it? Both in your answer here (would I feel the same if the reverse were true?) and in the article you presented.
This is a great article that does a great job of laying out both sides of the issue. There used to be this show on Netflix called 'Explained," and they had this eye-opening episode where, in 30 minutes, they explained the Racial Wealth Gap. I learned so much that I didn't even know before about how far-reaching and how recently laws existed that racially discriminated against Black Americans. I watched it years ago, and I still think about it. It's on YouTube, I highly recommend watching it.
Also, seeing "Secretary of Education Linda McMahon articulated this view " made me laugh. I don't know if I would have ever thought the word 'articulate' would ever be used to describe Linda McMahon.
Thanks! I remember that Explained episode too—it was such a good breakdown. The part that really stayed with me was how even with a college degree, Black graduates often end up supporting family while white graduates are able to save and build wealth. I wish they’d kept that series going.
DEI and affirmative action are 2 different things. The second is a form of discrimination against a majority to make up for past discrimination against a minority. DEI just means give the minority a chance at admission /job when that person is equally qualified. Sometimes discrimination is intentional, but sometimes it is just because people naturally feel more comfortable and therefore hire someone like themselves. This could mean they are alumni of the same university or they both like golf... Also a boss does not want to be embarrassed by not knowing or being able to pronounce someone's name, for example Sharquesa. That is just human nature.
I believe that most Americans are unaware of the extent of discrimination against black Americans in this country. Yes, we all know about slavery and Jim Crow, but is was so much more extensive than that.
Side note: in the Harvard case, the judge acknowledged that the real admission problem was not affirmative action policies, it was preferential treatment given to the children of alumni, those with deep financial pockets, the children of faculty and student athletes.
Thank you for your comment. You’re right that DEI and affirmative action are distinct, and that some barriers can arise from natural biases or institutional habits, like favoring alumni or legacy admissions, as the Harvard case highlighted.
If we’re going to have an honest conversation about DEI, we really have to be honest. Minorities, meaning women, and people who are not white, are still considered second class citizens in this country. They make less for the same jobs and are profiled in public. While we have had periods of time in our history that have lessened the gap, it always swings back and widens. Trump has no issue pursuing superiority for white men. He’s shown that stance in his tweets, his speeches and in his horrible policies. While I agree that DEI needs to be looked at frequently to reflect the changes in our society, without something like it in place, only white men will prosper as a whole. It’s sad and disheartening that we have been fighting this issue for SO long.
Yes, and an honest conversation would probably start with what DEI programs actually are and do, and how the Trump administration has redefinded the term.
Thank you for this article. It's interesting to think about how all of these things are related and how what we want or meant to happen has unintended consequences. I'm sure we all have experiences and anecdotal evidence of both the good and bad parts of DEI and affirmative action policies. Because not all DEI policies were good, right? I think sometimes people just need to hear that as well. Working in the sciences I have seen the slow change in who works around me. It's nice to sit in rooms with as many women as men and see more than just white people.
Liberals really eat their own, lol. I am not saying I agree with the way the Trump admin is doing things. I think sometimes people need to hear that the way their company used DEI wasn't great and there are better ways to move forward. While still prioritizing DEI. I don't need to google specific references at individual businesses for you.
this is not an "eat their own" situation. I am asking you if you have examples of DEI policies actually being bad or implemented poorly, because you made a general statement that is a common talking point, but I have yet to see anyone provide actual evidence of that being true- it seems like more of a "vibes" statement, which is, I believe, what the Trump admin is counting on- that people will go off the vibes that DEI is harmful without actually having to show evidence of it actually being harmful.
Look at the rush to implement DEI policies after George Floyd. There was often no thoughtful implementation or even necessarily reaching out to impacted groups before trying to appear like they cared about DEI. Does adding a series of videos about being inclusive going to help? There are companies who have no one in the impacted groups even sitting on the DEI Committee. Obviously there are groups and businesses doing a great job. Rather than being unwilling to critique current policies we need to sit down and like this article does admit that not everything is perfect. And then take the step to ask where it’s being done right. Costco for example at least from what I have read seems to have an effective DEI policy. So what is the difference between how Costco operates versus other companies?
Clearly Sec of Education McMahon is correct in her comment about discrimination since there was no more qualified candidate to head the Department of Education than her. I view the funding cuts as discrimination against equality.
If I were presenting "both sides" of DEI, I would say that one side understands and believes in systemic racism, and the other doesn't.
The Trump administration is working from a position of not believing that systemic racism exists, and that as long as people don't personally hold conscious hatred for other people groups, our society can function as a meritocracy.
The Biden administration worked from a position that America has many systems that were only accessible (home ownership, education, etc.) to white people for most of it's history, and even when those systems were made more accessible to people who aren't white, they are still most easily accessed by white people. Programs to bring people who had been historically disadvantaged up to speed are beneficial.
Ultimately, racism is both personal and systemic, but by spending the past 75ish years focusing on personal racism, it allows us as a society to keep the systems in place that will continue to benefit white people- white people can feel morally ok about not being personally racist and still be advantaged by the systems in play. Systemic racism means that things are set up so that there doesn't even have to be anyone personally racist in the system at all, and it will still functionally benefit white people.
This was really helpful. I find it interesting that historically affirmative action was pursued (by some of America) rather than reparations. I believe that Reparations are necessary for America to have any chance of moving out of our racist culture and history. That is obviously not anything this openly racist, misogynistic, anti-everyone who is not a healthy white male MAGA culture would pursue.
I’m glad you found the article helpful. It’s interesting to imagine how reparations might have played out differently from affirmative action. In theory, affirmative action was meant to be a more holistic form of support—more like, “teach a man to fish, and he’ll eat for a lifetime,” rather than just providing temporary aid.
I think of Dr. King’s writing on this. He considered both approaches but clearly supported affirmative action as a way to equip the Black community with needed skills, empower individuals, and affirm the dignity of the Black workforce.
This is such a clear explanation, and I really appreciate it the way you laid out the arguments. I would add a note that this piece focuses mostly on the affirmative action argument, though, and DEI efforts are so much more broadly construed by educational institutions and workplaces - especially the inclusion - and so even if someone disagrees with the quotas addressed by the courts, it’s important to note that the administration is coming for a much broader set of actions and activities.
Thanks for your comment, Leondra. You’re completely right that affirmative action and DEI are different. I wove them together here because I think that’s the approach the Trump administration is taking—conflating the recent affirmative action ruling with all DEI efforts, essentially arguing that all DEI policies are therefore illegal. I didn’t fully tease out the differences, focusing instead on affirmative action. That’s also why I referenced How to Be an Antiracist and The Diversity Delusion—they offer two very different perspectives that engage with these questions more fully.
Totally with you! Just wanted to draw it out because I think the conflation itself is really harmful.
Conflating DEI and Affirmative Action is so harmful, as is buying into the Trump Administration's false redefinition of DEI to just mean "benefitting Black and Brown people", - because the biggest benefactors of DEI policies are white women. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelleking/2023/05/16/who-benefits-from-diversity-and-inclusion-efforts/
Kendi’s point of view isn’t really an opinion, it’s fact, right? When looking at the diversity of our business leaders in Fortune 500 companies we still have about 60% of board seats occupied by white men. White males make up 30% of the population, yet make up about 90% of the CEOs.
There are two ways to explain that: systemic discrimination, or genetic supremacy of white males.
I appreciate exploring the other side in good faith, and there are some obvious ways to tweak policy to better align with fairness, but their arguments that recruitment tactics to counteract the default discrimination is worse than the default discrimination itself are the definition of white supremacy.
Timothy, thanks for your thoughtful comment. I’d just clarify that Kendi’s view is an opinion, not an uncontested fact. Both he and his critics start from the same data on disparities, but they interpret the causes differently and promote different solutions.
I used to see Kendi’s approach as obviously correct, but reading dissenting voices opened my eyes to some pitfalls. Authors like Jesse Singal (The Quick Fix), John McWhorter (Woke Racism), Coleman Hughes (The End of Race Politics), and Jonathan Haidt & Greg Lukianoff (The Coddling of the American Mind) offer thoughtful critiques.
Hughes argues, “disparities are like tumors; they can be malignant or benign… benign disparities arise naturally because of cultural and demographic differences.” Haidt and Lukianoff write, “If activists embrace the equal-outcomes form of social justice — if they interpret all deviations from population norms as evidence of systemic bias — they will get drawn into endless and counterproductive campaigns, even against people who share their goals.”
The takeaway is that acknowledging disparities doesn’t automatically justify labeling all outcomes as the product of discrimination, and it’s worth exploring multiple explanations and solutions in good faith.
Timothy, thank you for pointing out: “White males make up 30% of the population, yet make up about 90% of the CEOs.”
Let’s all remember that when local groups confront our school boards chanting, “D-E-I must
D-I-E.”
The sentences that really struck me are just above the picture of Secretary of Education Linda McMahon near the end of the article: "Discrimination based upon race or ethnicity has no place in the United States," she said. "Our commitment to ending discrimination" means "fighting to ensure that students are judged as individuals, not prejudiced by their membership of a racial group."
What I find interesting is that is EXACTLY what is being done and has been endorsed by the Supreme Court in a recent ruling when it relates to immigration enforcement. Discrimination based upon race.
Some may say I'm guilty of "whataboutism". I say the hypocrisy of this administration is astonishing. Discrimination for me, but not for thee?
I recently researched and wrote about that Supreme Court ruling, so I can definitely see the connection you’re making—the parallel is striking.
Someone commented on my earlier piece, “The Supreme Court’s Double Standard on Race,” with a genuine question: if the reverse were true, would I still consider it a double standard? In other words, if the Court ruled that people shouldn’t be racially profiled for their immigration status, but that college students should have access to race-based programs, would that be inconsistent in my view?
I thought that was such a good question. My honest answer is no—that used to be the reality, and it never struck me as hypocrisy. But now that both positions have flipped, I can see the inconsistency in that. It’s interesting, and it's a reminder of how unevenly we sometimes apply our own ideas about fairness.
How would you say systemic racism plays into it? Both in your answer here (would I feel the same if the reverse were true?) and in the article you presented.
Well said.
This is a great article that does a great job of laying out both sides of the issue. There used to be this show on Netflix called 'Explained," and they had this eye-opening episode where, in 30 minutes, they explained the Racial Wealth Gap. I learned so much that I didn't even know before about how far-reaching and how recently laws existed that racially discriminated against Black Americans. I watched it years ago, and I still think about it. It's on YouTube, I highly recommend watching it.
Also, seeing "Secretary of Education Linda McMahon articulated this view " made me laugh. I don't know if I would have ever thought the word 'articulate' would ever be used to describe Linda McMahon.
Thanks! I remember that Explained episode too—it was such a good breakdown. The part that really stayed with me was how even with a college degree, Black graduates often end up supporting family while white graduates are able to save and build wealth. I wish they’d kept that series going.
I too never expected to see the words "Linda McMahon" and "articulated" in the same sentence! Isn't she the steak sauce lady?
DEI and affirmative action are 2 different things. The second is a form of discrimination against a majority to make up for past discrimination against a minority. DEI just means give the minority a chance at admission /job when that person is equally qualified. Sometimes discrimination is intentional, but sometimes it is just because people naturally feel more comfortable and therefore hire someone like themselves. This could mean they are alumni of the same university or they both like golf... Also a boss does not want to be embarrassed by not knowing or being able to pronounce someone's name, for example Sharquesa. That is just human nature.
I believe that most Americans are unaware of the extent of discrimination against black Americans in this country. Yes, we all know about slavery and Jim Crow, but is was so much more extensive than that.
Side note: in the Harvard case, the judge acknowledged that the real admission problem was not affirmative action policies, it was preferential treatment given to the children of alumni, those with deep financial pockets, the children of faculty and student athletes.
Thank you for your comment. You’re right that DEI and affirmative action are distinct, and that some barriers can arise from natural biases or institutional habits, like favoring alumni or legacy admissions, as the Harvard case highlighted.
If we’re going to have an honest conversation about DEI, we really have to be honest. Minorities, meaning women, and people who are not white, are still considered second class citizens in this country. They make less for the same jobs and are profiled in public. While we have had periods of time in our history that have lessened the gap, it always swings back and widens. Trump has no issue pursuing superiority for white men. He’s shown that stance in his tweets, his speeches and in his horrible policies. While I agree that DEI needs to be looked at frequently to reflect the changes in our society, without something like it in place, only white men will prosper as a whole. It’s sad and disheartening that we have been fighting this issue for SO long.
Yes, and an honest conversation would probably start with what DEI programs actually are and do, and how the Trump administration has redefinded the term.
Thank you for this article. It's interesting to think about how all of these things are related and how what we want or meant to happen has unintended consequences. I'm sure we all have experiences and anecdotal evidence of both the good and bad parts of DEI and affirmative action policies. Because not all DEI policies were good, right? I think sometimes people just need to hear that as well. Working in the sciences I have seen the slow change in who works around me. It's nice to sit in rooms with as many women as men and see more than just white people.
Which DEI policies weren't good? Do you have examples of specific policies?
Hi - speaking to individual businesses. The way DEI policies were implemented was not always great. Not the intent behind the policies.
sure, but do you have examples of actual policies and how they were implemented?
Liberals really eat their own, lol. I am not saying I agree with the way the Trump admin is doing things. I think sometimes people need to hear that the way their company used DEI wasn't great and there are better ways to move forward. While still prioritizing DEI. I don't need to google specific references at individual businesses for you.
this is not an "eat their own" situation. I am asking you if you have examples of DEI policies actually being bad or implemented poorly, because you made a general statement that is a common talking point, but I have yet to see anyone provide actual evidence of that being true- it seems like more of a "vibes" statement, which is, I believe, what the Trump admin is counting on- that people will go off the vibes that DEI is harmful without actually having to show evidence of it actually being harmful.
Look at the rush to implement DEI policies after George Floyd. There was often no thoughtful implementation or even necessarily reaching out to impacted groups before trying to appear like they cared about DEI. Does adding a series of videos about being inclusive going to help? There are companies who have no one in the impacted groups even sitting on the DEI Committee. Obviously there are groups and businesses doing a great job. Rather than being unwilling to critique current policies we need to sit down and like this article does admit that not everything is perfect. And then take the step to ask where it’s being done right. Costco for example at least from what I have read seems to have an effective DEI policy. So what is the difference between how Costco operates versus other companies?
Clearly Sec of Education McMahon is correct in her comment about discrimination since there was no more qualified candidate to head the Department of Education than her. I view the funding cuts as discrimination against equality.
If I were presenting "both sides" of DEI, I would say that one side understands and believes in systemic racism, and the other doesn't.
The Trump administration is working from a position of not believing that systemic racism exists, and that as long as people don't personally hold conscious hatred for other people groups, our society can function as a meritocracy.
The Biden administration worked from a position that America has many systems that were only accessible (home ownership, education, etc.) to white people for most of it's history, and even when those systems were made more accessible to people who aren't white, they are still most easily accessed by white people. Programs to bring people who had been historically disadvantaged up to speed are beneficial.
Ultimately, racism is both personal and systemic, but by spending the past 75ish years focusing on personal racism, it allows us as a society to keep the systems in place that will continue to benefit white people- white people can feel morally ok about not being personally racist and still be advantaged by the systems in play. Systemic racism means that things are set up so that there doesn't even have to be anyone personally racist in the system at all, and it will still functionally benefit white people.
This was really helpful. I find it interesting that historically affirmative action was pursued (by some of America) rather than reparations. I believe that Reparations are necessary for America to have any chance of moving out of our racist culture and history. That is obviously not anything this openly racist, misogynistic, anti-everyone who is not a healthy white male MAGA culture would pursue.
I’m glad you found the article helpful. It’s interesting to imagine how reparations might have played out differently from affirmative action. In theory, affirmative action was meant to be a more holistic form of support—more like, “teach a man to fish, and he’ll eat for a lifetime,” rather than just providing temporary aid.
I think of Dr. King’s writing on this. He considered both approaches but clearly supported affirmative action as a way to equip the Black community with needed skills, empower individuals, and affirm the dignity of the Black workforce.