The DEI Crackdown: Politics, Perception, and the Path Forward

How will the Trump administration's efforts to end diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace and campuses?

Credit: Shutterstock.com/Sabrina Bracher

The recent crackdown on DEI initiatives by the Trump administration has far-reaching political, social, and cultural implications for millions of Americans. It also reveals deeply entrenched disagreements over the principle of equity and fairness in American society and the dangerous politicization fueled by social media and political tropes. We’ve long been aware of these divisions, but they have now become central to debates in politics, education, and everyday life.

What is DEI?

While the pursuit for equity can be traced back to the 1960s and policy initiatives were advanced during Obama administration, the official effort to institutionalize DEI initiatives in the federal government and catalyze substantial changes in organizational policy and hiring process in the private sector began with President Joe Biden’s Executive Order 13985, which aims to “pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all.”

DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Diversity refers to the representation of different identities (race, gender, etc.) in social, cultural, and professional settings, Equity refers to ensuring “consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals.” Inclusion refers to creating environments where diverse individuals feel valued.

The project of creating more diverse, equitable, and inclusive spaces is highly disputed in American politics today: “underserved communities” that have a particular shared characteristic have been, as stated in a Biden administration’s White House statement, “systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life.”

Supporters view it as a necessary effort to correct systematic disempowerment and discrimination to create a leveled playing ground for all Americans in their personal, professional, and social pursuits, where opponents, including President Donald Trump, regard it as violations of meritocracy and discrimination against specific populations.

Current Development

President Trump's EO 14151 of 1/20/2025 mandated the rollback of all DEI initiatives in federally funded American organizations, requiring them to “terminate, to the maximum extent allowed by law, all DEI, DEIA, environmental justice offices, and positions, all equity action plans, equity actions, initiatives or programs, equity-related grants or contracts, and all DEI or DEIA performance requirements for employees, contractors, or grantees.”

While several Fortune 500 companies have already ended or reduced their DEI initiatives as of January 13, 2025, the Executive Order “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” signed seven days later is posed to accelerate these efforts and catalyze other companies to join the reversal. Some companies will maintain their DEI initiatives unless a court ruling or law requires changes. The Attorney General’s report, due by May 21st, may clarify what constitutes illegal discrimination beyond existing case law.

Source of the Controversy

Critics of DEI initiatives say that DEI is both discriminatory, illegal, dangerous and performative. First, DEI initiatives immorally discriminate against white males and merited individuals (aka. reverse racism). Second, the Supreme Court Decision that banned affirmative action rendered all DEI programs illegal. Third, DEI programs are dangerous because they admit unqualified individuals based on their minority identity solely. Fourth, DEI initiatives are mere performative gestures with no tangible social or economic benefits.

Insights from the DCA Plane Crush

The political and public reaction to the recent plane crash at the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) exemplifies the misperception that DEI programs hire unmerited individuals, thereby posing threats to public safety and the general productivity and welfare of governmental agencies. While the DCA crash was significant due to its severity and the number of casualties, it has caught public attention at such a magnitude due to the politicization of political figures like President Trump and Elon Musk who claimed the tragedy was caused by unqualified pilots who were admitted based on DEI.

The National Transportation Safety Board’s investigation of the causes of the incidents points to a mix of human errors and circumstantial challenges with some unanswered questions remaining as of February 14, 2025. The long, complex investigation to clarify the combination of factors contributing to the crash gave leeway to different hypotheses and theories. From one side, prominent politicians blamed DEI for introducing unqualified individuals into the aviation industry. This accusation has invited criticism of being insensible and irresponsible exploitation of tragic events to advance political rhetoric against DEI practices. On the other hand, the argument that Trump’s administration is responsible for systematic understaffing that purportedly led to the crash is also flawed at best.

Jim Wang (SOH’ 26), who has been a licensed private pilot since 2023, contends that the incident is simply not related to politics and should not be politicized as either an attack on DEI by Republicans or criticism of federal staffing and funding cuts by Democrats.

DEI initiatives are not helping individuals bypass necessary qualifications or receive special treatment in high-stakes fields, such as aviation.

"There's no way you can get a certificate if you're not fully qualified. DEI doesn’t change that,” said Wang.

For example, when airlines hire pilots, their decisions are based purely on experience and flight hours. "All commercial pilots, including those with an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate, have to go through extensive training," Wang shared. "After the 2009 accident (Flight 3407 crashed near Buffalo, New York, due to pilot error and fatigue, killing all 49 people on board and one person on the ground), regulations became even stricter—the number of hours before one can even qualify as an airline transport pilot has increased from 250 to 1500 hours."

These regulations are designed to ensure pilots have the skills to handle high-pressure situations. It’s a very rigorous process with strict rules that must be followed. If someone isn’t highly experienced or doesn’t meet the standards, they simply won’t get certified.

“If anything, it can sometimes be harder, not easier,” Wang remarked. “I even know of some examiners who have biases, but at the end of the day, if a pilot meets the requirements and passes the tests, they should be certified.”

The rigorous certification requirements have created challenges for people from marginalized communities interested in the field. As of 2020, black women are significantly underrepresented in the U.S. aviation industry, making up less than 1% of all professional pilots, with fewer than 150 holding key certifications.

On the other hand, the argument that Trump’s administration is responsible for systematic understaffing is flawed at best. External shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the issue that has existed since the late 20th century. It began with the first-ever labor union for Traffic Controllers — Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) — formed in 1968. They led a 1981 strike, prompting President Reagan to fire over 11,000 controllers and permanently ban them from federal employment. The mass firing created long-term staffing shortages, with waves of retirements continuing to strain the FAA’s ability to maintain a stable workforce.

While understaffing deserves attention, the staffing level at the time of the January 29 crash was within acceptable regulatory range. The occurrence of a once-in-a-decade incident does not constitute sufficient evidence that staffing level is the ultimate culprit of this major aviation tragedy.

Given the strict skill and practice requirements for receiving a pilot license in the aviation industry, licensing under qualified pilots is unlikely. In light of this, politicians who claim that DEI is responsible for tragedies such as the DCA plane crash are not only irresponsible and reckless but also guilty of intentionally misrepresenting to stoke public sentiments for political gains. Those who respond to such allegations with other political attacks are no better by fueling the irrational and unproductive politicization.

DEI in the Military

The DEI controversy has influenced daily operations in federal agencies and the private sector while also having a significant impact on the military.

Professor Matthew Hawks, who is a retired U.S. Navy officer with 30 years of service in submarine warfare and engineering and served as an assistant professor at the U.S. Naval Academy. He specializes in operations research and data analysis and currently teaches at Georgetown University. The views shared below are his own and do not reflect the official views of the Department of Defense.

Before diving into the current controversy, Professor Hawks observed that many have focused on the racial diversity element of DEI and often overlook the impact they have on women, the disabled, and other marginalized communities.

“Diversity was not solely referring to visual racial differences or things like that, but also gender differences."

Drawing on his experiences and observations, he attests to the tangible positive impact of commitment to diversity, inclusion, and fair representation in the submarine force and the Navy as a whole.

Initially, he says, the “Risk Rule” extended women's combat exclusion to bar their participation in any non-combat unit where the risks of exposure to combat were equal to or greater than the combat units they supported. After President Clinton lifted the restriction in 1994, allowing women to serve in all positions in the military except for direct ground combat roles, female enrollment at the Naval Academy grew.

“Eventually, the percentage of female students at the Naval Academy increased from about 8% to 30%,” said Professor Hawks. “When I returned as an instructor, this was a significant change—not just in the overall atmosphere of the campus, but also in reducing gender isolation and broad generalizations about female midshipmen.”

The submarine force remained closed to women until 2010 due to logistical concerns. While no women have commanded submarines yet, they are nearing that milestone.

Professor Hawks highlighted the power of framing. "What I've seen most successful is when things are talked about in the sense of removing barriers to performance and having equal standards across the board."

Some critics object to this line of reasoning, saying that DEI is a way to reverse historic discrimination and attack white males and other privileged groups.

Pointing out “framing” matters, however, does not disprove that systematic efforts are needed to address historical disadvantages and discriminatory practices.

"It sounds good to say everything should be merit-based and have standards and it’s all performance,” Professor Hawks commented. “But sometimes that can fail to recognize inherent bias in the performance metrics and the standards the way they are."

The challenge facing efforts to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion today is a feeling that it is inevitably a zero-sum game, where only a particular group of people benefits at the expense of another. Creating an entire department or distinct roles dedicated solely to DEI—such as establishing DEI divisions led by specialized personnel—can unintentionally create a "passing the buck" mentality, where the responsibility for fostering inclusivity is shifted to a separate group rather than embraced by the entire organization.

The Effectiveness of DEI Practices Presents Significant Challenges

The perception of an uneven playing field—where two candidates compete and one is less qualified but is selected due to representation or equity considerations—can create mistrust. Even if this had only happened a few times, it can be amplified, leading to skepticism about the system.

Therefore, while there are some misled beliefs about the intention of DEI efforts, many of the objections against it come from the lack of proven outcomes and sustainable changes in the programs. DEI fatigue is a common phenomenon due to the repeated failure to meet targets with limited resources and tremendous institutional inertia.

Meanwhile, more diverse representation in leadership has seen limited progress. Despite decades of recruitment efforts, Black representation in managerial roles remains low, at just 7% in 2021, despite making up 14% of employees. Women also face challenges in leadership, despite evidence of their effective leadership styles.

Despite the widespread prescription of DEI trainings, they often fail to change bias or reduce prejudice. And consequently, attract criticism and discontent.

That being said, the mission of DEI to provide equitable opportunities and eliminate discriminatory practices due to implicit or conscious biases in recruiting, promoting, or resource-allocating processes remains one that we should fight for collectively as a society. Rather than eliminating such effort, research and policies should see room for improvement that brings more if not all stakeholders on board and deliver tangible results.

What’s Next?

To move forward effectively, we must depoliticize DEI initiatives. It requires focusing and highlighting the core purpose of removing barriers to performance that serve all in the system rather than as a zero-sum game. Only with a shared understanding and vision, we can begin to have dialogues and implement programs that benefit every stakeholder.

A more impactful approach focuses on enhancing fairness and equity through meaningful, rather than performative, measures. This includes adopting a merit-plus strategy, which upholds merit-based standards while acknowledging and addressing bias.

By centering initiatives on fostering a culture of dignity and respect for all individuals, rather than solely pursuing numerical diversity targets, we can build a more inclusive and high-performing environment that benefits everyone.