The future of DEI: Cutting back? Really?

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

“You know what I did for Black History Month?” the comment began, “Nothing but laugh at this nonsense!”

I was not expecting that type of response to my Feb. 28 commentary exploring how I could have done more in my day-to-day experience to celebrate and understand Black history and culture, and it was not the only one.

However, the biggest surprise since writing about my journey with Black History Month has been how much people want to talk about it. From dinner conversations to direct messages on LinkedIn and Facebook, people had something to say. I even had someone comment, “I read your article about Black History Month,” she said, “I’m curious what you plan on doing in March to honor Women’s History Month.” Her question was more than fair, and I’ve learned that there is always more that I can and should do. But I also realize that all the passionate discussions I was sparking were important.

We need to keep talking about it — now more than ever.

The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial early this month headlined “No more DEI at the University of Florida.” The university had recently made major cuts to its diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

What?

Down the rabbit hole I went, only to learn that in December, big tech companies like Google and Meta had made similar cuts. After huge commitments to DEI after the George Floyd tragedy, there were broad retreats. Following a nearly 30% increase in job postings on Indeed between November 2020 and November 2021 that mentioned DEI, there was a 23% decline in these postings between November 2022 and 2023, CNN reported. These cuts come as the tech industry doubles down on artificial intelligence. I have seen economics dictate cuts in many corporate efforts, but DEI? Really?

The WSJ editorial said the problem was “consultants-for-hire who have created an industry.”

This personally stung because I represent one of those consultants, and DEI departments have been some of my best customers. For more than 25 years, I have researched, written and spoken about generational differences between traditionalists (otherwise known as the Silent Generation), baby boomers, Gen Xers, millennials and Gen Zers. I have watched employees of every race and gender in industries ranging from government to business to nonprofit work together to bridge generational gaps. I have learned firsthand that when people share their lived experiences, they are not only more understood but the energy shifts from trying to figure out who is right, wrong, better or worse to embracing the differences between us.

I often stand in front of audiences and ask, “When I say ‘millennials,’ what comes to mind?” Without skipping a beat, people yell out endless stereotypes including “entitled,” “snowflakes,” or “babies.” Can you imagine if I asked, “Asians, what comes to mind?” But here’s my concern: While there may be more political correctness around race, that doesn’t mean people don’t have stereotypes. They just don’t talk about them. This makes it more important to share our lived experiences.

Cutting back on DEI efforts? Really?

Traditionalists (born pre-1946) in the workplace never thought about something like a DEI department because they didn’t have to. Everyone looked the same, and there were even laws in place that kept it that way.

When 80 million baby boomers (born 1946 to 1964) showed up, they were willing to challenge the status quo, and lack of diversity was top of mind. From civil rights to women’s rights, baby boomers did more than spark conversations; they launched action, and the workplace couldn’t ignore the new rules of the game. So much so that boomers did what they always did at work; they formalized processes and procedures so that by the time Gen X (born 1965 to 1979) showed up in the late 1980s, it was common to see a diversity department in the office. Employees were categorized into five neat boxes, including White, Black, Asian, Hispanic or Other. The challenge, however, was that DEI departments originally focused primarily on compliance and addressing grievances. In other words, DEI felt more like a department where you got your hand slapped instead of bridging any gap whatsoever.

When millennials (born 1980 to 1994) arrived, they were way beyond merely accepting diversity efforts and were now expecting them. From more training and development to broader employee resource groups (ERGs), millennials really did lead the way in talking about DEI and even pushed for a new letter to be added — “B” — for belonging.

Now there is Gen Z (born 1995 to 2012). Thankfully, ERGs had already expanded beyond those five neat boxes to include many more groups of employees. In true Gen-Z fashion, ERGs have also had a big push to include allies as members. However, with cuts being made, who will be around to run any of the gatherings? And if no one is even in the office to chat with, then how will Gen Z ever learn about all those lived experiences we share that lead to more understanding?

Sure, there are lots of developments surrounding Gen-Z careers. As we heard from the tech giants, they are doubling down on initiatives like artificial intelligence. It makes sense and can even be exciting. However, if we haven’t been able to talk about our differences in the real world, what will happen in the virtual world? Who is monitoring how people will be represented in the metaverse, or how AI algorithms account for diversity to ensure it is representative of its users?

Cutting back on DEI efforts? Really?

David Stillman, of Minnetonka, is a generational expert and author.