Opposing D.E.I. Does Not Mean Opposing Diversity

There are few national conversations more frustrating than the fight over D.E.I. Short for “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” the term — like the related progressive concepts of wokeness and critical race theory — used to have an agreed-upon meaning but has now been essentially redefined on the populist right. In that world, D.E.I. has become yet another catchall boogeyman, a stand-in not just for actual policies or practices designed to increase diversity, but also a scapegoat for unrelated crises.

For example, after a door plug blew off a Boeing 737 Max 9 jet this month, X’s Elon Musk, among others, launched a series of tirades against D.E.I. The idea, if it can be called that, was that efforts to diversify airline work forces had contributed to the accident. The problem was that there was zero evidence that these efforts had anything to do with it. In fact, the airline industry is much safer than it was when it was a virtually all-white enterprise decades ago.

So, yes, the immense backlash from parts of the right against almost any diversity initiative is a sign of the extent to which millions of white Americans are content with their vastly disproportionate share of national wealth and power.

But that’s not the entire story when it comes to controversy over D.E.I. Outside the reactionary right, there is a cohort of Americans, on both right and left, who want to eradicate illegal discrimination and remedy the effects of centuries of American injustice yet also have grave concerns about the way in which some D.E.I. efforts are undermining American constitutional values, especially on college campuses.

For instance, when a Harvard scholar such as Steven Pinker speaks of “disempowering D.E.I.” as a necessary reform in American higher education, he’s not opposing diversity itself. Pinker is liberal, donates substantially to the Democratic Party and “loathes” Donald Trump. The objections he raises are shared by a substantial number of Americans across the political spectrum.

To put it simply, the problem with D.E.I. isn’t with diversity, equity, or inclusion — all vital values. The danger posed by D.E.I. resides primarily not in these virtuous ends, but in the unconstitutional means chosen to advance them.