If you liked DEI before, stick with it

Opinion editor’s note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Minnesota Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.

•••

Ten steps forward, 50 steps back. That’s what the sum of progress in the U.S. feels like for many who believe in civil and human rights following President Donald Trump’s executive order against diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. In one fell swoop, the new administration wiped out gains that had made America a more just place.

Included in Trump’s barrage of orders last week was a sweeping denunciation of DEI programs, policies and positions within the federal government. It calls for ending what it calls “illegal discrimination“ and restoring “merit to government service.”

Though research is mixed on the effectiveness of individual programs, it’s clear that overall DEI efforts over the past decades have made a positive difference in workplaces and other areas of American life. Some businesses report it improves their bottom lines. Still, much work remains to be done on this front. The access and opportunity playing field is not yet near level.

Not when the federal and local governments and private companies routinely have volumes of valid discrimination cases filed against them. Not when various types of bias continue to fuel police-related mistreatment of people of color.

Trump’s order implies that merit isn’t already a factor in decisions to diversify workplaces. The order suggests that no one who is nonwhite, disabled, female or otherwise “diverse“ can possibly also be qualified to do a job.

The core purpose of DEI has always been to open up access so a larger pool of qualified people from all backgrounds can be considered for jobs, promotions, better health care, housing, etc. The goal is to do away with discrimination, not promote it.

Yet, the order seeks to purge even the words diversity, equity and inclusion from the federal lexicon. How can we continue to combat historical wrongs if we cannot use the language that defines and explains solutions to past and present injustice?

Question for fair-minded Americans: What is so terrible or discriminatory about striving for workplaces that are more reflective of the actual American population? Why demonize even the discussion of having an equitable nation that truly provides equal opportunities for all — no matter your race, religion, gender or whom you choose to love?

Why is it a problem to intentionally enlighten employees about creating more welcoming spaces and understanding how to be more inclusive of co-workers? Doing so helps people work together and be more productive.

America has made undeniable progress. But plenty of work remains, work that just became exponentially more difficult. The president who now unravels diversity programs is the same leader who, as a candidate, publicly mocked a differently abled person. That’s problematic. It’s also discouraging that the same leader who has been found liable on charges of sexual misconduct opposes training that can create safeguards to prevent women from being treated in negative and illegal ways.

And the order, though it applies now to federal operations, has the potential to avalanche into the private and nonprofit sectors as well. As University of Minnesota law professor Jill Hasday points out, the order can have a chilling effect on DEI efforts of companies.

Included in the order, she said, was a vow to investigate and possibly sue nine companies. American businesses may respond by pulling back or ending their DEI initiatives so as not to be one of those nine. Indeed, Target appeared late last week to take deliberate steps to back off its DEI engagement efforts.

Following the 2020 murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police, many top companies strengthened their DEI policies. More recently, however, pushback against DEI measures has caused pullback on those initiatives.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said his department stands ready to challenge parts of the order in court if there are attempts to impinge on efforts in Minnesota. “States are sovereign entities,” he said. “The president cannot ride roughshod over states or the Constitution or conditionalize federal aid.”

And some of those now advising Trump have long been on an “anti-woke“ campaign that seeks to blame diversity for things such as last year’s Alaska Airlines incident in which a Boeing airplane door blew off midflight. Elon Musk and other anti-DEI commentators quickly said at the time that one of the reasons for the incident was the company’s DEI policies.

As the New York Daily News Editorial Board wrote in response, blaming DEI in the incident “is so facially absurd as to be detached from reality. In fact, it is only even fully intelligible to people already enmeshed in a sort [of] anti-woke industrial complex that has developed [on] the right … for reasons from political pressure to good old-fashioned racism.”

Certainly, courage is needed to fight back against the unabashed attack on civil and human rights that the Trump administration has unleashed. DEI still matters. It is a crucial tool that allows the nation to live up to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and other anti-discrimination laws this nation has wisely adopted.