Are DEI programs really the problem? 

Recently, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill board of trustees diverted $2.3 million spent on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs into public safety. 

Echoing sentiments from other campuses, Chair David Boliek said, “I think that DEI is divisive. I don’t think that it’s productive. I don’t think that it gives a return on investment to taxpayers and to the institution itself.”

Are we witnessing DEI’s quick rise and fall? And is its premise, properly understood, problematic, or is it all just a symptom of other problems?

The United Kingdom has reined in DEI for ostensibly similar reasons. While the U.S. government has not yet done so, states such as Texas, Utah and Florida have. Similar proposals exist in at least half a dozen others.

In theory, most people can support justice, equity, diversity, inclusion and belonging initiatives. Some Americans have indisputably been deemed subhuman or otherwise inferior for centuries through law and illegal methods.

The practitioners of justice initiatives seek to address racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, religious prejudice, climate wellness and the like. It’s their methods — which strike plenty of well-meaning Americans as extreme or overly ideological — that remain up for debate.

However, DEI critics can still acknowledge societal ills that create demand for the programming and remain open to more effective and nonpartisan initiatives. Unfortunately, many neglect to offer solutions of their own (or aren’t open to any).

Per UNC’s website, its DEI office “aspires to have all community members feel respected, valued, and visible with the ability to thrive.” Its mission “is to celebrate all members of the Carolina community, to broaden our collective understanding, and foster a sense of belonging by uplifting diverse identities, cultures, experiences, and perspectives.” Who would, in good faith, argue against that?

Most of us can also concede that both sides of the political spectrum suppress free speech. Both can demonize people with whom they disagree. Both sometimes legislate their way into more power at the expense of the average person. And people in power — whether pro-DEI or opposed — will maintain their preferred status quo at the expense of people with less social, economic and political power.

DEI done well should be synonymous with unity, healing and reconciliation, which I’ll represent with another acronym: UHR. Too few politicians and pundits genuinely want this, since division helps maintain their influence. 

Both the Pew Research Center and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace have conducted studies on U.S. polarization and its causes. Pew’s 2014 study showed the ideological divide between our two major political parties significantly widening. That gap has only increased.

Rather than echoing or entrenching polarization, the rest of us should build bridges and remain thoughtful about humanity’s most pressing injustices. This is the idea behind UHR: to help more people unify, heal and reconcile within themselves and then with other people. This can translate into a culture where we center justice and equity-centered ideals in more effective ways — a better world for all.

By rightly humanizing each other and being clearer about everything that means, we bring the lofty and righteous goals reflected in mission statements like UNC’s to fruition rather than “throwing the baby out with the bathwater,” as the saying goes. We have real frameworks, technology and methods to do this.

There is, for example, the “togetherness wayfinder,” a toolkit outlined in my next book that houses language, philosophies, information and tenets to navigate “who and how” we are in relation to others. 

There’s the “Diversity Atlas” by Cultural Infusion, technology that helps collect holistic data comprising tens of thousands of human attributes, “including every known language and dialect, secular and non-secular tradition, ethnic group and country of birth, gender, age, sexual orientation, sex at birth, position level, position type and many other dimensions.” It’s a truly anonymous global database that “can inform the correlation between experience and identity like never before.”

We can create a future without as much of the injustice, inequity, sameness and exclusion that we all maintain, even if unintentionally. First, be bold enough to imagine it’s possible. Second, hold with conviction that everyone deserves to grow intellectually, thrive socially and live purposefully. Then, we can chart a course with less fighting over the symptoms of our ailments and focus on root causes like social and economic class hierarchies.

DEI is not the problem, even if it’s sometimes used ineffectively. Instead, it magnifies actual problems for those open enough to recognize them. Even if the label dies, the core ideals at its heart should be allowed to burn brighter. 

UHR can help secure what everyone deserves and desires, and what nearly all of us — regardless of our other differences — want for our fellow humans: to feel respected, valued and visible with the ability and tools to thrive.

Sheena Michele Mason, Ph.D., is a visiting fellow with the Mercatus Center’s Program on Pluralism and Civil Exchange, an assistant professor in English at SUNY Oneonta, and the innovator of the togetherness wayfinder (formerly the theory of racelessness).