Karen Attiah is Global Opinions Editor of The Washington Post and a columnist. She says in this column exactly what I have been thinking. The attack on DEI is intended to restore the days when women, Blacks, Latinos, and people with disabilities had little or no chance to rise in their field.
It’s ironic to hear Trump talk about the importance of merit when he has stocked his cabinet mostly with people who lack experience, knowledge, wisdom, or any genuine qualification for the position. His cabinet was not chosen based on merit. In what world would Pete Hegseth–no administrative experience, serial philander with an alcohol problem–be considered qualified to be Secretary of Defense? Or RFK Jr. qualified to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, having spent years fighting vaccines and having zero medical expertise? Or Tulsi Gabbard, Putin apologist, qualified to be Director of National Intelligence?
Attiah writes:
Across the United States, in government agencies and private corporations, leaders are scrambling to eliminate DEI programs. President Donald Trump is not only destroying any trace of diversity work within the government: He has ordered a review of federal contracts to identify any companies, nonprofits and foundations that do business with the government and keep their diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and he has warned that they could be the target of investigations.
Let’s call this what it really is: resegregation.
I don’t mean resegregation in the sense of separate water fountains. I mean it in the sense that a Black woman would never even be considered for a federal job or a management position at a big company — the way it was in, say, the 1960s. It is not “inclusion” the Republicans want to get rid of, it’s integration.
If you think I’m exaggerating, just look at a post made by Darren Beattie, who was just named an acting undersecretary of state: “Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work,” he wrote on X — not 10 years ago but in October.
Trump’s GOP is also threatening private companies that are trying to level the playing fields for Black people, women and other groups. After Costco’s shareholders voted to keep its diversity programs in place, 19 Republican state attorneys general sent a letter to Costco asking it to explain why it was maintaining a policy of “unlawful discrimination.”
A number of other corporations have begun their cowardly capitulations. In a memo, Kiera Fernandez, chief equity officer for Target, said the company would be ending its diversity, equity and inclusion goals “in step with the evolving external landscape.” Amazon, Meta and Walmart have also announced rollbacks.
For anyone wondering why “inclusion” is still needed: Since the Supreme Court ended affirmative action in 2023, first-year Black enrollment at top universities has dropped by 17 percent. That’s the sharpest drop of any major racial group. (For comparison, White enrollment has fallen by 5 percent.)
Or look at the business world: Black people represent 13.7 percent of the population but Black-owned businesses generally get less than 2 percent of venture capital funding. Despite a smattering of promises from venture capital companies to do better after the murder of George Floyd, funding to Black companies dropped from $4.9 billion in 2021 to $705 million in 2023 — an astonishing 86 percent drop. Sounds like a segregated market to me.
These facts, taken together, point to the removal of Black people from academic, corporate and government spaces: resegregation.
People are vowing to push back with their wallets — to shop at Costco and boycott Target, for example. But I believe the fight starts with language. Journalists have a role and an obligation to be precise in naming what we are facing.
Frankly, I wish the media would stop using “DEI” and “diversity hiring” altogether. Any official, including the president, who chooses to blame everything from plane crashes to wildfires on non-White, non-male people should be asked whether they believe that desegregation is to blame. Whether they believe resegregation is the answer. We need to bring back the language that describes what is actually happening.
“The function, the very serious function of racism is distraction,” Toni Morrison said. “It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again, your reason for being. Somebody says you have no language and you spend twenty years proving that you do.”
Black people have spent nearly 70 years “proving” ourselves. And in a flash, with a new administration, the gains of those decades are being washed away.
While Attiah focuses on the expansion of opportunity for Black people, the biggest beneficiaries of DEI policies–that is, efforts to diversify student bodies, the workforce, and corporate leadership–have been white women.
Thanks to DEI, white women now serve on corporate boards, as corporate leaders, and in positions that would have been closed to them in the past.

Diane: Your own first paragraph in this note exemplifies the inherent conflict in Trump’s whole political comportment.
That is, Trump SAYS or even brags about what we all agree should be, and calls problems rightly (for instance, we should fear being destroyed from within rather than from without) and then goes about doing what we all know shouldn’t be (destroying the country from within). They don’t even defend it–leaving Fox News and wimps to do it. They just go about doing it.
Vance did this over the weekend in Europe–Vance and his groupies and collaborator/capitulators are a bunch of criminals and corrupters calling out the problems of crime and corruption. It’s so very rich. CBK
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fancy words to whitewash the walls of discrimination long hallowed by silent, unwritten, unspeakable tradition.
LikeLike
I’ve been bothered by nearly everything this administration has done so far, but this is something that will divide Americans, and even Democrats. If DEI means believing diversity is good rather than bad, and that minorities should be made to feel welcome and safe, then the most people will be supportive of DEI. If DEI means trying to hit certain targets of representation for identity groups, and permitting or even requiring employers to consider employees’ race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation before hiring, promoting, or staffing them, it’s going to be unpopular, even if you try to rebrand it as “desegregation.”
LikeLike
Back in the day it used to be called Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (can’t remember which came first) and I never saw much problem with those concepts in principle. I gather a lot of the troubles arising in practice had more to do with what always happens when the first hurdle to hiring gets controlled by HR departments full of bean‑counters and rinky‑dink test‑givers instead of the the units who know what kind of experience and qualifications count on the job. And, yes, I could give as you many personal horror stories on that score as anybody.
LikeLike
With all the focus on DEI, little attention has been paid to Trump’s rescinding of Johnson’s executive order establishing/mandating affirmative action for government contractors.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jon and all: The problem still remains that such biases as racial and gender, sexual identity (and many others) are based in sub- and semiconscious ideas, feelings, habits, and cultural norms that easily remain “normal” but are still on a range from subtly demeaning to-mean and even horrific. If that’s the case, then if one is not self-reflective about the immediacy of one’s own feelings, then those feelings and not one’s reflective intelligence, are in charge.
In this situation, if a culture such as ours is based in democratic ideals of justice and equality but administered by biased people, then hiring practices will suffer the influences of subconscious biases of all sorts resulting in unfairness (a lack of social and even legal justice) UNLESS at least being accountable on a conscious level (DEI job requirements).
It IS a top-down approach and suffers from the common afflictions of being so, rather than expecting everyone be fair because they now understand why it’s a good thing to be so (tra la, ha ha).
However, the alternative is for the culture itself, that does not want to regress to a caste system, to find some very slow ways to become fair, just, OR to enable the unjust forces (like racism) to stay, fester, and even to metastasize (as we are doing now).
In my view, presently we are experiencing a white-male backlash where, instead of understanding their place in a just and fair (for all) society, many white men are merely missing and regretting the loss of what was, before, and still is in some factions in our culture, unwarranted privilege–unless you think being white and male somehow gives you a qualitative leg-up just for being so. Such privilege is so deeply buried in the subconscious arenas of history, who knows if the greater WE will ever root it out enough for it to become a mere artifact of human history. CBK
LikeLike
CBK,
Thank you for this important comment.
The anti-DEI, anti-affirmative action folks have a double standard. A white person hired just has to be “qualified”. But anyone hired because of affirmative action has to be “superior to all other applicants”.
That double standard reveals their implicit racism. Just being “qualified” isn’t good enough UNLESS a white person is hired.
I am old enough to remember when Affirmative Action was the old “DEI” – the right wing propaganda turned “affirmative action” into “superior white men were not being hired for jobs that unqualified inferior women and minorities were getting”.
That was never true. Jobs were never awarded on merit before affirmative action, and inferior white men never had to be better than all other applicants — they just had to be “qualified” to be judged “meritorious”. The fact that there might be dozens or hundreds of more qualified folks of all races who could do the job didn’t matter to other white people if the person who beat them out for the job was white. But the racist, sexist double standard means that women and underrepresented minorities cannot be hired just because they were “qualified”. That standard ONLY applies to white people. Why?
Did a white person get a job over applicants of all races? As long as the person hiring them says the white person is “qualified”, there’s no problem.
Why is it that affirmative action/DEI-haters don’t care whether or not white men who are hired are superior to all other applicants, but they are obsessed with whether qualified Black people and qualified women are superior to all other applicants? Implicit racism and sexism. One standard (is he “qualified”?) for white men, and a different standard (“is that person superior to all other applicants”?) for women and URMs.
The pre-affirmative action/DEI system the Republicans love means giving inferior white men jobs that then allow them to claim they had “experience”, and that “experience” was the excuse for them being hired for even better jobs. It’s amazing to me that all those doge hires will have their pick of jobs over far more qualified candidates because they will have “high level experience” in government that they got because they were hired because of who they knew, not because they had any qualifications for the job that was handed to them.
I haven’t heard any critics of affirmative actions actually fighting for a true merit system. Their extreme outrage is reserved for a system that allows qualified women and URM to get the same jobs that used to be reserved exclusively for qualified white men because the people hiring knew that those in charge felt more “comfortable” working with white men, and as long as that white man was “qualified”, he deserved to be hired without any concern about whether he was “better” than all other applicants.
Why do white men only have to be “qualified” to make their hiring okay? Especially when the doge hires demonstrate that even being “qualified” is defined as “do powerful white men say you are qualified?”
Implicit racism.
LikeLike
It’s a good comment, nycpsp. RE: women, I would add only that the “old way” was not precisely about discrimination in the minds of the hirers. You get closer to it when you speak of what was “comfortable:” it was about social norms. The 30-somethings doing the hiring came from decades of single-breadwinner families, women who quit when they got married or pregnant—despite pressure to hire differently, they were wary. They could not predict that these 20-something promising female applicants were part of a generation that would postpone kids for 10 yrs, soon divorce, even have SAH dads. At that transition point, affirmative action laws were prescient, the only way to break the mold. With today’s cultural backlash and fantasy to turn the clock back, they are still necessary in some form. DEI seemed to me a good enough substitute.
LikeLike
DEI literally means diversity, equity and inclusion. Unless you support homogeneity, inequity and exclusion I don’t see what possible objection you have to it. It’s not about hiring/admitting unqualified minorities over qualified whites, it’s about making sure that qualified minorities get a shot in a world that has been controlled by unqualified whites.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is like the CHUDs who say “it’s called the Department of Government Efficiency. What possible objection could you have to efficiency?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
With regard to what is in a name, I have personally participated in decisions to staff or not staff cases that were based largely on the race, sex, and/or sexual orientation of the attorneys. I did not feel good about this, but I did it to comply with client diversity preferences. The clients were state and municipal entities, which routinely (in the past, at least) consider law firms’ ability or willingness to staff cases with “diverse” attorneys in their RFP processes. (This criterion usually appears in a portion of the RFP with the heading “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.”) Usually this meant picking attorneys who could check a diversity box, which meant you would bounce a white male attorney in favor of any available minority. But there also have been instances where black attorneys have been sidelined because there was already a black attorney on the case, which would have been a “waste” because that black attorney could have been used for diversity purposes on another case. For the most part, this doesn’t involve a tradeoff in terms of competence, although on occasion it has. My real issue with it has much less to do with competence and merit than that I find the reduction of people to identity categories offensive on a very basic level. I haven’t seen any RFPs this year yet, but I do hope that states and municipalities are going to stop this practice. And if they don’t, I hope to convince my firm to.
I’ll repeat what I initially said:
I think this is clearly true and not a close call at all, although there may be many here who don’t like that fact.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
LikeLike
Let’s say you are officiating at a track meet and you’re responsible for the 1600 meter race. You soon realize that the runner in the rear is shuffling along. You stop the race and find that he’s been shackled at the legs. Being the fair minded guy you are, you unshackle the guy, then restart the race from that point – that’s fair, right?
Of course not, because the the guy in the rear had several seconds’ of major disadvantage, which in a race of less than four minutes is crippling, so you need to do something to equalize that, right? Start the race over or bring the guy forward or something.
Wouldn’t you say that if a group of people has faced hundreds of years of slavery followed by lynchings, KKK, Jim Crow, redlining and numerous other forms of discrimination, that that group should be brought forward in the name of leveling the playing field? The mere fact that Blacks make up such a small percentage of elite college graduates, college professors, politicians, business executives, etc. indicates that the field has not yet been leveled. Either that or you’re saying that Blacks really are inferior – feel free to put your name on that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think that is a simplistic analogy, a simplistic argument, and an unfair question.
LikeLike
In a way, you’re right in that Blacks have suffered far more and for far longer from slavery and its ongoing aftermath than one mere runner in one lousy race, and are therefore much more entitled to recompense for the wrong they’ve suffered, including and especially their stolen labor that built this country. Can you seriously not acknowledge the debt owed?
LikeLike
The harm was immense and immeasurable. We can analogize it to debt but it cannot be repaid. Reparations as policy is a complicated topic about which reasonable people can disagree.
LikeLike
The harm **is** immense and immeasurable.
So, are you saying we shouldn’t even try to repay it? Do you think the problem is going to just go away? Maybe if the freed slaves had actually gotten their 40 acres and a mule we wouldn’t be in this mess. What’s 150 years’ worth of interest on 40 acres and a mule?
Anyway the harm of the Holocaust was immense and immeasurable, but somehow reasonable people seem to agree that reparations are the right thing to do. Can’t qwhite put my finger on the difference….
LikeLike
F!: Right on! But you’re talking about nuances that completely go over the heads of so-called cabinet secretaries who have zero experience and no ability whatsoever to dissect these nuances. I’m pretty sure they don’t even care to learn the details of what they’re doing. Instead, the all-or-none approach, rather than a careful or surgical repair, throws the baby out with the bath water.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Our country just put a criminal thug in the White House over a highly qualified Black Woman. Says it all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The attack on DEI is just another way to produce grievances. Unlike fascists of the early Twentieth Century, modern authoritarian rulers must create grievances to stir their ignorant supporters. These buzzwords —woke, CRT, DEI—will soon pass on and other little words will take their place, creating meaning where there is none.
The problem is that people who desire to help create a society that promotes broad participation always butts into people who want to crush the opposition. This latter group is always more vicious and unrelenting than the former because it is composed of thieves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Roy: Our favorite billionaire has brought his own word to signify his view of the subhuman among us:
Hitler’s “vermin” has morphed into Musk’s “parasite” . .
. . . only it’s less ethnic and more about the “evil” of using government services because you happen to be poor for any number of reasons that often link back to the policy and practices of the rich.
BTW, all those government bureaucrats are or were also middle-class taxpayers. The numbers of job losses that do not recovery will probably have its effect on tax revenues across the board. CBK
LikeLike
It explains in part the animosity toward public education that aspires to teach all students to the best of their ability regardless of gender, sexual orientation, religion, skin color, ethnic origin or special needs. They want to dismantle a pillar of democracy and opportunity, our public schools. If they hold certain groups back, then white men will once again rise to the top, at least that’s what the extremists think.
LikeLike
Retired: right on. I am embarrassed to say that I remember my “moment of enlightenment” some years ago when I realized that there were people in this country who didn’t think like I did (and most teachers that I know) about the education-for-all children idea. (duh)
Now, the opposition (racist, Maga, or whatever you want to call them) have forgotten or just flat-out rejected the principles of democracy that the U.S. Constitution was built on. Now, to them, those principles are not, even as we do fail sometimes, what we all reach for; but rather what they are openly opposed to . . . but while singing their endorsement of it, e.g., in its simplest expression, the American flag is always present. And then they constantly update their pejorative labels for, e.g., the hated opposition, “the left.”
And so, at once, while they claim to love America, even as they look back at it (to make it great again), everything they DO (e.g., Project 2025 and the takedown of already well-working institutions, the treatment of immigrants and even children) speaks of their opposition to that same U.S. Constitution and its embodied principles. Think of the regular abuse of the emoluments clause alone.
I heard Trump this morning talking about freedom of speech–which he would not recognize in its untwisted form if it bit him in the . . . uh . . . face. Trump and his minions are nothing less than historical examples of unvarnished hypocrisy. And the U.S. Constitution is the best historical harbor to date, in the history of political systems, for the whole idea of intelligence and knowledge as distinct from political identity. CBK
LikeLike
For public education, once they get rid of ALL of it, they’ll be able to organize education around (1) their ideology (so called Christian nationalist) and (2) restrict access to it according to racist (etc.) principles; and (3), for the poor, hooked to unaffordable or unnegotiable payments. CBK
LikeLike
Unfortunately, Indiana has one of the worst governors in the United States. Governor Michael Braun [R-IN] is a fervent Orange FELON47 man-child lover.
Here are some of the things Braun supports:
1.] Braun has announced that diversity, equity and inclusion are concepts of the past. “We replaced the political DEI ideology with a level playing field of MEI – Merit, Excellence, and Innovation. Diversity and equality are hallmarks of what we believe as a country, but these top-down DEI mandates led to division and inefficiency. MEI puts merit and results at the forefront, and everyone has the chance to get ahead with hard work.
Braun signed an executive order abolishing DEI programs, including closing the Office of the Chief Equity, Inclusion and Opportunity Officer, which former governor Holcomb created in 2020.
2.] Gov. Mike Braun thanked President Donald Trump for his “level of fiscal discipline,” adding that the freeze was “in line with the values of Hoosiers” as well as the millions of Americans who elected the president to this second term. “I applaud @realDomalTrump’s direction to pause government spending, fulfilling his campaign promise to rein in out-of-control government,” Braun said in a post on social media sit X that was liked 1,400 times. “I am confident we will continue to deliver needed services to Hoosiers with efficiency, doing more with less.”
Braun praised the austerity measure, which was designed to root out progressive agendas, promote efficiency and end “wokeness” through federal spending nationwide.
4.]Indiana has largely embraced the president’s platform, including immigration crackdown and rollbacks of LGBTQ initiatives.
Rev. David Greene Sr., president of the Concerned Clergy of Indianapolis says, “That ideology of President Trump, (Braun’s) going to be doing at the state level.”
Greene predicted that Trump-endorsed Braun and his team will be paving the way for the president’s vision for America and that Indiana will become a laboratory of sorts for Project 2025, a controversial conservative blueprint to drastically overhaul the federal government. “Some of the stuff Trump’s thinking about doing, Gov. Brau will probably do first to test the waters here in Indiana.” the pastor said. “He’s going to be our front. Indiana is going to lead in a lot of things you’re going to see coming out of Project 2025. You’re going to see Indiana doing it first and then Trump.”
Andy Qunell, the Republican Party treasurer for Lake County, Indiana, said he’s pleased with the service of Trump and Braun so far.
“Both the Trump administration and the Braun administration are doing exactly what we voted for them to do,”Qunell said. “They have made the government more accountable for its actions and spending, something you never see in Illinois.”
LikeLike