Three letters have become capable of starting an argument almost anywhere in America: DEI.
Diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives have become a dividing line in politics, education and the workplace. Supporters see them as tools for removing barriers and expanding opportunities, while critics argue some initiatives can place identity ahead of individual merit and, in attempting to eliminate discrimination, create new forms of unequal treatment.
That national debate recently found a local connection when Sampson Community College President Dr. Bill Starling informed trustees that the college will comply with a new North Carolina law restricting DEI initiatives at public colleges and universities. Starling emphasized that SCC expects little practical change because the college did not maintain a DEI office or engage in many of the practices targeted by the legislation.
The development raises a larger question worth considering: Have DEI initiatives been beneficial?
There are legitimate arguments in their favor. Organizations can benefit when people with different experiences and perspectives contribute to decision-making, while equity initiatives can help identify unnecessary barriers that prevent qualified people from receiving opportunities. Inclusive workplaces can also improve morale and retention, and businesses that understand different communities may be better positioned to serve a broader customer base.
There are equally legitimate criticisms. Perhaps the greatest concern arises when an effort intended to provide equal opportunity begins treating a person’s race, sex or another characteristic as more important than individual qualifications. A qualified person should not lose an opportunity because of race or sex, regardless of who that person is.
Poorly administered programs can also create resentment among employees who believe opportunities are being distributed according to demographic categories rather than ability and performance. There is also a difference between meaningful change and performative DEI, as training sessions, statements and checklists do not automatically make an institution fairer. Programs should be judged by what they accomplish, particularly when taxpayer money is involved.
Unfortunately, nuance frequently disappears once DEI enters the political conversation. One side can characterize nearly every initiative as discriminatory or ideological, while the other can treat nearly every criticism as hostility toward diversity. The reality may lie somewhere in between, with some programs proving beneficial, others failing and still others producing unintended consequences despite worthwhile intentions.
There should be nothing controversial about wanting a workplace or college where a person’s race, sex or background does not prevent that person from receiving a fair opportunity, just as there should be nothing controversial about believing individuals should ultimately be evaluated on their qualifications, work, character and ability. Those principles do not have to contradict one another.
The General Assembly has made its decision regarding DEI in North Carolina’s public higher education institutions, but whether North Carolinians agree with that direction is theirs to determine. Those who have experienced programs that removed unfair barriers should tell their representatives, while those who have witnessed initiatives become wasteful, divisive or ineffective should make their experiences known as well.
Representative government works best when lawmakers hear from the teachers, students, employers, employees, parents and taxpayers who have experienced the policies being debated, rather than only national political voices.
DEI should not be above criticism simply because its stated goals sound admirable, nor should every effort to broaden opportunity be condemned because it carries three politically controversial letters. Examine what the policies actually accomplish, whether they treat people fairly and whether they produce meaningful results, then make your voice heard and remember the decisions of your elected representatives when you enter the voting booth.
Ultimately, the people should decide whether these policies have helped create greater opportunity or whether it is time for a different approach.