DE&I Didn’t Cause the Plane Crash—Let’s Talk About It

For anyone who has been following me, you may have noticed I’ve been quiet these past few months.

Last year was a whirlwind. I hosted my first-ever Beyond Comfort Zones DE&I Summit (you can watch the replays by speaker here), where I introduced my book, Beyond Comfort Zones: The Real-Talk Approach to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. The purpose was to acknowledge that DE&I hasn’t been done right for the last decade and rewrite the narrative—I had speakers from all over the world present successful DE&I case studies for participants to learn from and potentially model off of if they were experiencing a similar challenge within their organization. This was right around the time Elon Musk was calling for the “death of DE&I,” and believe me, I got the frustration even then, but I still believe in my heart of hearts that just because we haven’t gotten it right, doesn’t mean we should abandon it altogether. 

Since then, I’ve led multiple masterclasses for business professionals, breaking down the ROI of DE&I and how to create initiatives that actually work—not just performative policies that get abandoned at the first sign of controversy.

Honestly? It was exhausting. On top of my full-time work helping others write, self-publish, and market their books, I’ve also been pouring energy into a fiction series (no surprise, even my fiction novels have a dash of DE&I in them).

But after Trump’s recent comments suggesting DE&I efforts potentially playing a role in the recent Washington D.C. Aviation accident, I had to speak up.

If you have been living under a rock the last two days, an American Airlines passenger jet collided mid-air with a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter near Washington, D.C.'s Ronald Reagan National Airport on January 29th. 

Here is what we know:

• The jet was rerouted to another runway, which is not unusual. There are various reasons an airliner could be asked to land on a different runway such as runway maintenance (as a basic example).

• The air traffic controller asked the helicopter crew if they had the jet in sight. They confirmed they did.

• The helicopter requested visual separation, which was approved. This means that instead of relying on the tower for instructions, the pilot of the helicopter took full responsibility for avoiding the other aircraft. This is standard procedure and also quite normal.

• The helicopter appears to have been flying 100 feet higher than authorized at the time of the crash. The helicopter seemed to be flying at approximately 200 feet for most of the time, which is the maximum altitude allowed in that corridor. However, it ascended to around 300 feet shortly before the collision.

Some possible theories: 

• While the helicopter crew claimed to have had the jet in sight, it’s possible they were referring to a different jet—one that was landing or in the surrounding area.

• The helicopter crew was wearing night vision goggles, which could have impaired peripheral vision and depth perception, potentially contributing to the crash.

If you want an actual professional analysis of what happened from a former military and commercial pilot, I highly recommend watching this video. And please, count how many times he mentions DE&I as a factor in the crash. Spoiler alert: It's Zero Trump’s False DE&I Narrative

Now, love him or hate him, Donald Trump's allegation that DE&I efforts were a potential cause of this tragedy in which 67 individuals perished seems like something that belongs in my next book, Beyond Inappropriate. Let’s just be real for a second. The air traffic controller sounds like a white man. So it is highly unlikely that this happened because a Black, LGBTQ+ woman in a wheelchair was “diversity-hired” and unqualified. That’s just ridiculous.

Also, the controller likely wasn’t solely at fault—let’s remember, the helicopter crew took responsibility for visual separation.

So, let’s talk about what DE&I efforts the FAA were implementing and if they really could have been a factor in this incident. DE&I in Aviation: The FAA’s Approach Explained

The FAA had implemented DE&I initiatives with the intention to create a workforce that better reflects the nation’s diversity. These efforts included recruitment practices that opened doors for underrepresented groups—but let’s clarify what that actually means.

In 2014, the FAA expanded hiring criteria so that applicants could qualify for air traffic control positions with either:

A four-year degree or Five years of full-time work experience.

This broadened the applicant pool beyond just those coming from elite aviation programs. That’s it. Keep in mind, there are several other requirements to be an air traffic controller that all individuals, including those post DE&I initiatives, have been held to.

First of all, applicants need to be 31 years of age or younger. They also must have the ability to speak English clearly enough to be understood over communication equipment. All entry-level applicants must also complete several months of training at the FAA Academy in Oklahoma city. Even after graduation all individuals need at least 1-3 years of experience to truly become a professional air traffic controller. 

Critics argue that these DE&I efforts may have lowered standards, prioritizing diversity over merit. But in reality, this change did not eliminate testing, training, or performance evaluations—it just allowed more people a chance to apply and qualify. Trump Ending DE&I

On January 22, 2025, Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum terminating all DE&I programs.

The order:

Ceased all DE&I hiring programs

Mandated a return to merit-based hiring

Therefore, there was already an ordered review of FAA employees in safety-critical positions.

Where I Actually Agree With Trump on DE&I

Listen, I’m not blindly defending DE&I. In fact, I actually agree with some of Trump’s criticisms outside of this incident, and I’d like to believe that if we sat down, we could have a rational, solutions-driven conversation about what DE&I should be.

I have seen it up close and personal, DE&I done wrong is a complete waste of time, energy, and money.

Too many organizations have thrown together haphazard initiatives just to check a box, with no real strategy, sustainability, or accountability. I talk about this in Beyond Comfort Zones—the way companies jump on the DE&I bandwagon after high-profile social movements, make grand promises, and then fail to follow through​. That isn’t DE&I—it’s corporate posturing.

So, let’s get specific about what I actually believe DE&I should be:

Diversity: The limitless combinations of characteristics that make each individual unique.

Inclusion: The attempt to understand, appreciate, and leverage whenever possible the limitless combinations of characteristics that make each individual unique.

Equity: Offering opportunities that acknowledge and address individual needs without diminishing anyone else's worth or potential.

These definitions matter because, unlike the traditional DE&I rhetoric, they aren’t about labels. They aren’t about putting people into boxes or hiring people based solely on visible diversity markers. They’re about seeing people as people—complex, dynamic, and valuable for reasons beyond just their demographic traits.

Why DE&I Is Still Essential—But Needs a Makeover

Throwing DE&I away entirely because some companies have done it poorly is like this picture below, quitting just before you’re about to strike diamonds.

The solution isn’t elimination—it’s improvement.

Historically, DE&I has been reduced to superficial metrics that focus only on hiring quotas and representation, instead of fostering true cultural and structural change​.

The problem isn’t too much DE&I—it’s DE&I done badly.

Companies need to stop reactive DE&I—launching rushed initiatives after bad PR moments.

They need to stop performative DE&I—like hiring a Chief Diversity Officer or someone else with a fancier title just for show.

And they need to ditch one-size-fits-all DE&I, because not every workplace has the same challenges or needs the same solutions.

Instead, DE&I should be about solving real organizational problems, improving workplace culture, and making business operations stronger—not just looking good for a diversity report​.

A Final Thought (And Yes, A Shameless Plug)

I wrote Beyond Comfort Zones because I know DE&I has problems—but the solution isn’t abandoning it altogether. It’s about doing it better.

If you’re actually interested in fixing DE&I instead of just complaining about it, check out my book here. I promise—it’s not the DE&I fluff piece you’re expecting. It even has a dude on the cover! 

It’s time to get real and just do this work better.

And for goodness sake, let’s not let people weaponize DE&I as a scapegoat for tragedies that have nothing to do with it!

Lastly, if you work in DE&I and find yourself on paid leave, don’t lose heart. The value of this work is real, and the ROI is undeniable. I truly believe DE&I has a future in the workplace—not as a trend, but as a strategic advantage that, when done right, drives meaningful impact. Stay resilient.