Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) has been a major topic of discussion following the 2024 election. With President Donald Trump securing another term, DEI bureaucracies and departments within the federal government are being rapidly dismantled. Even before the election, conservative-leaning states such as Oklahoma had already begun rolling back DEI programs.
However, misconceptions persist about what DEI is and what it has entailed. In today’s polarized political climate, many argue that dismantling these programs could undo progress in promoting workplace diversity and ensuring equal opportunities for all.
While diversity, equity and inclusion are commendable principles, the bureaucratic structures built around DEI over the past several years have been criticized as bloated, inefficient, ideologically biased and divisive. Many of us who began their careers in the 1980s remember traditional diversity training, which primarily focused on racial, ethnic and gender representation within the workplace. These initiatives had clear, measurable objectives.
With the rise of DEI ideology, the scope expanded to include factors such as age, sexual orientation, disability and socioeconomic status. A key shift was the differentiation between equality and equity, with proponents arguing that systemic barriers must be addressed to ensure fair outcomes. Unlike diversity, which can be measured quantitatively, equity is difficult to assess. It often involves subjective experiences, such as perceived fairness and access to support, which are challenging to quantify.
One unintended consequence of DEI initiatives has been the prioritization of group identity over individual merit. In higher education, DEI bureaucracies promoted identity-based “safe spaces,” segregating individuals based on race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. While intended to foster inclusion, such practices often led to resentment, decreased morale, and perceptions of unfairness.
DEI aimed to create environments where diverse perspectives could be shared without fear, but in many instances, the exact opposite occurred. Reports surfaced nationwide of students and professors or staff feeling pressured to conform to certain ideological viewpoints, fearing repercussions for expressing dissenting opinions.
On some college campuses, rigid communication policies restricted open dialogue and stifled intellectual creativity. As cracks in the DEI ideology grew, many private companies and voters started viewing the programs as promoting censorship, identity politics and controversial workplace training sessions.
Dismantling DEI bureaucracies does not have to equate to abandoning the principles of creating diverse, welcoming and inclusive workplaces. Trump and Republicans should resist trying to rewrite or interpret long-held and effective equal opportunity laws that have protected workers for many years.
Instead, these ideals should be pursued through policies that emphasize fairness and equal opportunity for all, regardless of background.
By eliminating inefficient DEI structures, companies, federal agencies and institutions can refocus on their core missions while fostering an environment of genuine inclusivity—one based on respect, collaboration and capability rather than divisive identity-based initiatives.
Cindy Allen 