Eric, I appreciate the attempt at staying 'neutral' here but I think the premise itself is not framed correctly. The "debate" around DEI is often framed as it being a divisive and ineffective tool rather than assessing its impact based on measurable outcomes. Your article arguing against DEI fails to engage with the central question - which is not whether DEI is "good" or "bad" in a moral sense, but whether it effectively addresses the systemic inequities it was designed to combat.
Whether we look at the wealth gap - a direct legacy of slavery, discriminatory Jim Crow laws, redlining, and exclusion from federally backed homeownership programs - as of 2022, the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances found that the median white family holds $184,000 in wealth, compared to just $23,000 for Black families.
Or, we if look at gaps in access to education: EdBuild research shows that largely non-white school districts receive $23 billion less in funding than majority-white districts, despite serving the same number of students.
Or, if we looking at access to capital - a 2024 Crunchbase report noted that Black-founded startups received just 0.3% ($228 million) of the $79 billion in U.S. venture funding in the first half of 2024.
I can keep going - I can give more examples, bolstered by stats but that's not really the point.
The point is most arguments against DEI, including this article, fails to acknowledge the depth and persistence of structural inequities in American society. DEI initiatives aren't about granting unfair advantages—they are about correcting a playing field that has never been level. (This article doesn't take into account the full-throated campaigns against DEI/Affirmative Action since inception which inhibited these programs from being more effective i.e., getting to the outcomes noted above).
Dismissing these initiatives as ineffective ignores the overwhelming evidence that disparities in wealth, education, professional access, and hiring outcomes are not self-correcting.
Eric, I appreciate the attempt at staying 'neutral' here but I think the premise itself is not framed correctly. The "debate" around DEI is often framed as it being a divisive and ineffective tool rather than assessing its impact based on measurable outcomes. Your article arguing against DEI fails to engage with the central question - which is not whether DEI is "good" or "bad" in a moral sense, but whether it effectively addresses the systemic inequities it was designed to combat.
Whether we look at the wealth gap - a direct legacy of slavery, discriminatory Jim Crow laws, redlining, and exclusion from federally backed homeownership programs - as of 2022, the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances found that the median white family holds $184,000 in wealth, compared to just $23,000 for Black families.
Or, we if look at gaps in access to education: EdBuild research shows that largely non-white school districts receive $23 billion less in funding than majority-white districts, despite serving the same number of students.
Or, if we looking at access to capital - a 2024 Crunchbase report noted that Black-founded startups received just 0.3% ($228 million) of the $79 billion in U.S. venture funding in the first half of 2024.
I can keep going - I can give more examples, bolstered by stats but that's not really the point.
The point is most arguments against DEI, including this article, fails to acknowledge the depth and persistence of structural inequities in American society. DEI initiatives aren't about granting unfair advantages—they are about correcting a playing field that has never been level. (This article doesn't take into account the full-throated campaigns against DEI/Affirmative Action since inception which inhibited these programs from being more effective i.e., getting to the outcomes noted above).
Dismissing these initiatives as ineffective ignores the overwhelming evidence that disparities in wealth, education, professional access, and hiring outcomes are not self-correcting.
You might be interested in this —>