DEI: Down, But Not Out

Trump made progress against the civil rights regime, but much remains to be done

Donald Trump is the first president to successfully roll back elements of the civil rights regime. Most presidents since the 1950s, including Republicans, expanded these practices. Ronald Reagan was the only one to try to challenge these structures, but he ultimately failed to roll them back.

Trump, however, has succeeded where Reagan fell short. He revoked LBJ’s executive order mandating affirmative action in government hiring. He ended the DOJ’s use of “disparate impact” analysis to find non-existent instances of racism. He’s targeted universities and businesses over racial preferences in hiring. He banned DEI in government training and demanded schools end these practices nationwide. He’s considering potentially ending Section 8 grants for housing. The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division now focuses on conservative priorities rather than imposing leftism on Americans.

Trump himself declared victory over DEI last month. “I ended all of the lawless, so-called diversity, equity and inclusion bullshit all across the entire federal government and the private sector,” Trump said at a Michigan rally.

The Trump presidency offers the hope of ending affirmative action as we know it. The 2023 Supreme Court decision scuttling its use in college admissions provides the legal basis for further assaults on it. It’s much harder for institutions to discriminate against whites. Racial quotas could finally be a thing in the past.

But elements of DEI still linger on. Many institutions carry on with the diversity cult like nothing has changed. Whether Trump will succeed in his crusade against DEI depends on how one looks at it. Racial quotas and explicit anti-white discrimination will likely be a thing of the past. However, American universities and companies will still strive for “diversity” and maintain rules that enforce “cultural sensitivity.” They’re just not going to be as brazen about it.

USA Today published a report examining whether DEI is “dead” last week. It found that while many corporations have ditched overt expressions of wokeness, they still quietly maintain “inclusive” practices:

Just 8% of business leaders surveyed by the Littler law firm are seriously considering changes to their DEI programs as a result of the Trump administration’s executive orders. Nearly half said they do not have plans for new or further rollbacks.

Instead of backing off, corporations are evolving their diversity programs to focus on what works and jettison what does not, said Joelle Emerson, CEO of culture and inclusion platform Paradigm.

Some 85% of companies report that their executive teams are just as committed – or even more – to building fair and inclusive workplaces as they were a year ago, according to a recent Paradigm survey.

“We’re seeing organizations back away from highly scrutinized and increasingly legally risky efforts like setting and sharing representation goals as well as evolving their language, moving away from the politically charged acronym ‘DEI,’” Emerson said. “But most appear to be continuing or even doubling down on initiatives that have the greatest impact. Benefits that allow a broader range of people to thrive in the workforce. Processes that empower companies to cast wider nets and hire and advance the best talent. Training and other programs that focus on creating cultures for everyone where all employees can do their best work.”

Bloomberg also discovered the same trend in a recent report. According to the outlet, Trump’s moves haven’t fundamentally changed employment law, which means companies still feel they can employ these practices because they don’t “discriminate”:

Nor have the orders persuaded executives that all the programs that came to be known as DEI were a bad idea. Many admit that some elements of DEI went too far. However, by and large they continue to believe that efforts to recruit, promote and retain candidates from underrepresented groups are key to making sure they have the most capable and talented staff. They are loathe to eliminate policies that help workers feel welcomed and supported. They continue to fear discrimination lawsuits from workers of color, women, LGBTQ people and those with disabilities— not to mention the wrath of investors and the press.

With guidance from lawyers, many companies have focused on a handful of changes. Gone are specific targets for demographic representation across their workforces, though companies are still required to collect data on the race and gender of their employees. Some people who once had titles like “diversity officer” are now called something else and run newly renamed initiatives. Employee resource groups — affinity organizations that cater to a characteristic like race, gender, sexual orientation, disability status and more — face new scrutiny and limits on their spending, but most continue to exist. Health benefits for trans employees and employees’ trans family members have hardly budged.

Internship and mentorship programs developed to elevate traditionally marginalized groups mostly remain, with the new caveat that anyone can apply. Recruiting programs, especially at historically Black colleges and universities, haven’t changed. Molson Coors Beverage Co., Ford Motor Co., Deloitte LLP, McDonald’s Corp. and Boeing Co. are among those who’ve sought applicants in recent weeks through partnerships with the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, a non-profit group that helps some of the country’s largest companies orchestrate internship and scholarship programs for students at HBCUs, primarily Black institutions and historically Black community colleges.

Many DEI programs have been rebranded under the term “Belonging,” allowing companies to sidestep scrutiny. Several colleges still have DEI offices. Blue states around the country are fervently defending this practice from the Trump administration and insist their schools will still teach these pernicious ideas to kids.

This obviously challenges the Trump admin to do more. The president needs to order the DOJ to target these DEI-loving companies to set a clear standard. Many companies will further retreat from DEI just over the threat of litigation. The ones that do go to court will set the policy for the rest of corporate America–whatever that might be.

The biggest roadblock here is the civil rights regime itself. Unless Congress decides to overturn prevailing employment and anti-discrimination laws, companies can defend their new “Belonging” practices by claiming they merely uphold federal law. It’s more likely we colonize Venus next year than Congress passes anything that dramatic this decade. Trump is doing all he can possibly do through executive power, but he faces limits without new legislation. The courts will determine the new paradigm. However, the judicial branch may end up protecting “moderated” DEI.

Another problem is the fact that many corporations want to keep these policies. They feel it’s in their business interests to have “diverse” offices that strive for “tolerance” and “sensitivity.” They want their executive board to look like multicultural America. When the civil rights regime was first enacted, America was over 85 percent white. Companies felt there was nothing wrong in having an all-white executive board and management team. It looked like the rest of the country, and merit mattered far more than color. Civil rights laws imposed diverse hiring on them. Now, on their own, they seemingly desire diversity.

We live in a very different America today. Whites in the 1960s would’ve not cared that they were sitting in an all-white office.Thanks to decades of propaganda, they feel there’s something inherently wrong with it. It’s also much harder to have an all-white office when just 57 percent of the country is white. The working-age population is barely majority-white, further diminishing its prospects.

Freedom of association was gutted by civil rights laws. The great irony is that what remains of it may help secure a toned-down version of DEI. If companies prefer diversity without explicit quotas, the state is limited in what it can do to change that. Many institutions will still strive to achieve diversity in whatever way they’re allowed because of prevailing pro-diversity sentiment.

The second Trump term will decide the future of DEI. Whatever happens, Trump will have made the country better for a white applicant for a good job or a good university. A white employee will have more recourse if subject to anti-white discrimination. Merit will matter far more in university admissions and corporate hiring than before.

But our current demographics and social attitudes will still be evident–and those will play a major role in DEI’s ultimate fate.