In Defense of DEI- Prioritizing Progress, Not Privilege

Adam Shirley

Staff Writer

Since beginning his second term, President Donald Trump has issued executive orders effectively dismantling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs across the nation. These actions reflect a broader historical trend of resisting efforts to address systemic racism, particularly in education and employment. 

Contrary to claims that DEI initiatives compromise meritocracy, statistical evidence demonstrates that these programs are essential for fostering equitable representation and opportunity. Before delving into the statistical evidence that favors the implementation of DEI policies, we must examine the history that led us to this moment and the historical impact of the language surrounding racial equity movements in America. Throughout his campaign, Donald Trump waged an ideological war against the “woke.” Ending “wokeness” became a Republican rallying cry, with analysts even claiming that “wokeness” cost Kamala Harris the election. DEI policies have been framed as a key pillar of “wokeness,” allegedly prioritizing race over merit. But what does “woke” even mean? Where does it come from? 

The term woke has deep roots in Black political consciousness, dating back to the 1920s and 1930s. It emerged in response to racial violence and injustice, exemplified by the case of the Scottsboro Boys, where nine Black teenagers were falsely accused and lynched. To be woke was to be aware of the systemic racism shaping Black life in America. Today, this term has been co-opted, reduced to a partisan talking point wielded by politicians and commentators to attack any mention of systemic injustice. 

The National Women’s Law Center has criticized Trump’s executive orders for restricting federal funding for initiatives perceived as promoting “divisive concepts.” These orders targeted training programs, educational curricula, and workplace diversity efforts, framing them as vehicles for “reverse discrimination” against White Americans. However, these narratives disregard empirical realities of systemic underrepresentation and the benefits of DEI programs. 

If every attempt to address systemic underrepresentation is labeled discriminatory, what are we actually saying? If efforts to increase the number of minorities in positions of power are inherently “unfair,” then are we not implying that minorities are simply unqualified? The push against DEI isn’t about fairness, it’s about maintaining historical power structures. The question is whether we, as future leaders of America, will recognize systemic racism (something confirmed by countless studies) and take the necessary steps to address its historical legacy. 

NPR reports that after California’s 1996 ban on affirmative action, Black and Latino student enrollment at UCLA and UC Berkeley plummeted by 40 percent. Conversely, institutions maintaining affirmative action policies have seen higher graduation rates for Black students, challenging the notion that DEI lowers academic standards. The Economic Policy Institute similarly found that “race-blind” admissions policies exacerbate existing inequalities, undermining the recognition of unique challenges faced by minority students. 

Now, let’s talk about generational wealth. We can all agree that major civil rights legislation was passed in the 1960s. For argument’s sake, let’s pretend that systemic racism ended with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (it didn’t, but let’s pretend). How many generations of wealth accumulation have occurred since then? How many cycles has the monetary summation of a life’s work turned over, providing financial security for the next generation? Wealth has been circulating in White communities since the inception of America, while Black communities have been systematically denied opportunities to build it. If we acknowledge that racism historically shaped wealth distribution, then we must also acknowledge that it still impacts economic mobility today. 

DEI is not about “choosing labels over merit”; it is a basic recognition of how we arrived at the point where representation in leadership, education, and employment is so disproportionately skewed. 

Forbes found that in 2022, Harvard’s overall admission rate was 3.2 percent, yet legacy students had a 34 percent acceptance rate, and donor-related applicants had a 42 percent acceptance rate. A civil rights lawsuit revealed that of these legacy and donor-related applicants, 70 percent were White. If meritocracy is truly the priority, why aren’t legacy admissions under fire? Legacy admissions—where students of alumni receive preferential treatment—are a blatant contradiction to merit-based advancement. 

So, let’s get this straight: Programs designed to create opportunities for historically underrepresented students are considered unfair, yet a system that overwhelmingly benefits wealthy White applicants is not? The selective outrage over DEI exposes the real issue—this isn’t about merit; it’s about maintaining privilege. 

The American Civil Liberties Union reports that students admitted through affirmative action graduate at rates comparable to or higher than their peers, disproving the argument that DEI lowers academic standards. If fairness were truly the concern, the focus would be on eliminating legacy admissions, donor preferences, and other systems that overwhelmingly benefit wealthy White applicants—not on dismantling DEI. The attack on DEI isn’t about equality, it’s about maintaining the historical status quo. 

The National Law Review notes that despite their proven benefits, DEI programs face immense political opposition, legal battles, and misinformation campaigns. The defunding of DEI programs threatens to erase progress in racial equity. Trump’s executive orders have created uncertainty for employers, making it harder for companies to invest in diversity initiatives. 

The dismantling of DEI initiatives threatens to undo decades of progress in racial and economic equity. Studies from the Pew Research Center show that Black women earn only 70 percent of what White men earn, while Hispanic women earn just 65 percent. These disparities are not coincidences; they are the result of systemic barriers that continue to shape economic outcomes. 

Anti-intellectualism is running rampant in this country. People refuse to research basic facts, and instead, they parrot the talking points of politicians who have weaponized ignorance. Regardless of political affiliation, we should be able to agree that race still plays a role in society. 

Some may not care, but if we acknowledge that racism exists, we should also acknowledge that it must be addressed. DEI is not about “giving people an unfair advantage”—it is about recognizing historical inequities and working to correct them. If we truly care about fairness and meritocracy, we must fight for policies that ensure opportunity is not dictated by race, wealth, or privilege.

Image courtesy of Getty Images.