2025-05-01

Two definitions of DEI

Here is an excellent article that compares and contrasts those definitions:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/beltway-confidential/3395570/dei-critical-social-justice-civil-rights-act/

<Blockquote>One of American history’s most iconic comedy bits is Abbott and Costello’s Who’s on First? In this sketch, Bud Abbott and Lou Costello try to discuss the positions of a baseball team whose players have confusing names: The first baseman is named “Who,” the second baseman is “What,” and the third baseman is “I Don’t Know.”

Costello: Who’s on first?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: I mean the fellow’s name!
Abbott: Who.

This humorous misunderstanding goes on for several minutes and highlights the chaos that can arise from semantic confusion.

Unfortunately, a similar confusion in language, though far less amusing, is occurring in the United States today over diversity, equity, and inclusion. What should be a straightforward discussion about institutional goals has turned into a cultural flashpoint, partly because not everyone means the same thing when they say “DEI.”

Since his first day in office, President Donald Trump has worked to eliminate DEI from federal agencies and higher education, viewing it as an illiberal force that violates the Civil Rights Act by promoting racial and sexual discrimination. Many people, however, perceive these moves as an attack on civil rights and assume the administration is targeting the plain meanings of “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion.”

The problem is that both sides are, in a way, correct. DEI has become a label that refers to two very different sets of ideas and practices. In rhetorical theory, we would call this a lack of definitional stasis — a failure to agree on the meaning of the key terms under debate.

To understand the controversy, we must first clarify the two versions of DEI.

The more controversial version, criticized by commentators such as Chris Rufo and Bill Maher, is DEI grounded in critical social justice. This framework interprets all social relations as battles between power and oppression, focusing especially on race, gender, and identity. It assumes that systemic injustice is omnipresent and that achieving “equity” requires redistributing resources and opportunities to historically marginalized groups.

This model — let’s call it critical social justice DEI — rejects principles such as colorblindness, meritocracy, and even equality under the law. Instead, it emphasizes identity-based treatment and actively discriminates in favor of certain groups to counterbalance past discrimination. In doing so, it often runs afoul of the Civil Rights Act.

On the other hand, there is a version of DEI that genuinely aims to foster diversity of perspective, equal opportunity, and inclusion through accessibility — a vision much closer to the spirit of the Civil Rights Act. Let’s call this version Civil Rights Act DEI. It encourages institutions to ensure that people of all backgrounds have fair access to opportunities, and it includes, but is not limited to, considerations of race and gender. This model treats people as autonomous agents and promotes merit-based evaluation. It is inclusive without being prescriptive and strives for fairness without resorting to group-based favoritism.</blockquote>