Chapter 1: The View of Diversity

Why do some White individuals regard diversity as a looming threat rather than a beneficial aspect of society? An age-old adage suggests that those who are used to privilege may perceive equality as a form of oppression. They become so familiar with an unblemished, blue sky that they view any diversity as an unwelcome disruption rather than an enriching addition. By portraying the predominantly white status quo as the norm, they perceive diversity as a challenge to the existing social framework. However, it's crucial to recognize that a society that denies Black individuals equal access to opportunities is far from normal or just.

Despite the natural occurrence of diversity, many White Americans, in particular, view it as a significant threat to the nation. For instance, Jim Fein and Mary Mobley, writing for The Heritage Foundation, criticized diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives as distractions from the military's core responsibilities. They argue that under President Biden's administration, the financial investment in DEI programs has risen. Instead of appreciating efforts aimed at fostering unity through shared values, they label these initiatives as wasteful, claiming they compromise military standards to meet arbitrary quotas. Yet, it is worth noting that the federal government does not utilize quotas to address racial discrimination.

Long before the Supreme Court eliminated race-based affirmative action policies, universities were not implementing quotas to enhance student diversity. This misconception perpetuates the false narrative that certain positions are unearned. The authors assert that DEI efforts do not contribute to the primary mission of national security, overlooking the historical context of internal conflict over racial policies. The U.S. has a troubled history of fighting over issues of race, and initiatives aimed at unifying the military could be advantageous. However, many White individuals feel threatened by diversity initiatives, with some conservatives arguing that simply advocating for diversity is detrimental and distracting—a stance that seeks to justify their resistance and maintain national division.

Iyer (2022) suggests that the controversy surrounding DEI policies stems from differing opinions on their necessity and potential impacts. Those who believe that resources and opportunities are distributed fairly may view diversity initiatives as unnecessary and even unjust. The fear of losing access to resources, the introduction of new cultural values, and concerns about their group's role in perpetuating inequality all contribute to the opposition against diversity programs. Many prefer a clear blue sky, fearing the implications of diversity—whether it signifies a gentle breeze or an impending storm. Addressing this fear is essential for cultivating a truly multiracial democracy.

Research indicates that enhanced diversity can positively influence individuals' well-being (Bai et al. 2020). Yet, the backlash has led numerous states and organizations to restrict or eliminate pro-diversity initiatives. This resistance reveals that White individuals cannot collectively reap the benefits of increased diversity when some reject the inclusion of Black individuals. This is particularly evident when Black individuals occupy leadership roles, which often elicits defensive reactions. Historically, the brutal violence and intimidation faced by Black communities during the Reconstruction Era significantly suppressed political participation among Black citizens, demonstrating a fear-driven response to the end of slavery.

In contemporary society, similar reactions persist. Conservative activist Christopher Rufo has repeatedly accused Claudine Gay, the first Black president of Harvard University, of plagiarism, questioning her qualifications. Likewise, Tennessee Republican Representative Tim Burchett labeled Vice President Kamala Harris a "DEI hire," reinforcing the notion that DEI equates to unmerited positions. This rhetoric is damaging; it implies that a Black individual, or any racial minority, is inherently less qualified than their White counterpart. To assume White individuals are naturally more qualified is a prejudiced stance. Yet, this narrative remains powerful, framing efforts to address discrimination as fundamentally unjust.

Recently, the University of Alabama announced the closure of its DEI offices following new state legislation, reflecting a broader conservative campaign against DEI initiatives. This trend, akin to anti-woke and anti-critical race theory legislation, disproportionately affects Black individuals and other racial minorities, undermining efforts to address systemic racial disparities. The persistent resistance to diversity initiatives serves as a stark reminder of the deep-seated racist attitudes that continue to permeate American society. For example, when Harris addressed the Zeta Phi Beta Sorority in Indianapolis, Fox News correspondent Brian Kilmeade referred to the organization as a "colored sorority," suggesting Harris should have canceled her appearance to attend Congress instead. Another commentator implied that if Harris were elected president, she would become the "Queen of DEI," emphasizing the derogatory connotation of the term.

DEI stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion, yet when used disparagingly by some White individuals, it often implies that a person is unqualified and undeserving of their position. Over time, DEI programs and their beneficiaries have come to be viewed as a primary threat to American society. Those who believe that specific roles should be reserved solely for White individuals may feel insecure about the inclusion of Black or other racial minorities. If societal policies are crafted solely to maintain White comfort, we risk overlooking the necessity of ensuring that everyone has a place at the table. It's simpler for some to argue that diversity initiatives are unfair than to confront how their stance denies Black individuals and other minorities equal opportunities. While "Whites-only" signs were overtly offensive, their absence does not mean that racial disparities are not maintained. Resistance to diversity, both as a concept and as a program, illustrates this ongoing challenge.

Chapter 2: The Future of DEI Initiatives

As DEI programs face closure across the nation, leaders advocating for these principles find themselves increasingly marginalized and systematically discredited. This trend is alarming, indicating a shift in standards for promoting diversity since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In this post-civil rights era, opposition to diversity-based policies could further entrench the racial hierarchy. As long as diversity continues to be perceived as a significant threat, meaningful change seems unlikely. Those who regard a clear blue sky as the only acceptable view will quickly denounce any cloud that obscures their perspective.