Dear John, It’s Time to Stop Blaming DE&I for Everything

As I said, I was taking a little hiatus from DE&I work, but after publishing my latest blog post, DE&I Didn’t Cause the Plane Crash—Let’s Talk About It, I received a rather lovely message from a reader that I think deserves a deeper response. Out of respect for this individual—who didn’t exactly extend the same courtesy to me—I’ll protect his last name and simply call him John Superfan.

Here’s what Mr. Superfan had to say:

Well, John… Let’s Talk About It. 😊

Let’s start with Boeing, since you brought it up.

Some people like to pin Boeing’s financial struggles on its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DE&I) initiatives, claiming that the company prioritized DE&I over safety and quality. Even Elon Musk jumped in, arguing that Boeing’s decision to tie executive bonuses to DE&I goals—instead of focusing solely on safety and quality—was a contributing factor to their recent failures.

"Do you want to fly in an airplane where they prioritized DEI hiring over your safety? That is actually happening." – Elon Musk

But… is it though?

Musk made that statement after the Alaska Airlines flight incident, where a fuselage panel blew out mid-flight. His reaction was fueled by a screenshot of Boeing’s 2022 proxy statement, which showed a shift in executive incentive plans—adding climate and DE&I goals alongside safety and quality targets.

Let’s clarify something here: Boeing didn’t replace safety incentives with DE&I; they added new priorities to their long-term business plan. Their Global Equity, Diversity & Inclusion 2023 Report highlighted that, for the first time, Boeing linked some executive compensation to inclusive hiring practices:

“Our goal was to achieve diverse interview slates for at least 90% of manager and executive openings… and we exceeded that, with 92% of interview slates being diverse, resulting in 47% diverse hires.”

For 2023, Boeing raised that bar slightly to 92.5% diverse interview slates.

Now, here’s where things get ridiculous. After the Alaska Airlines door plug failure, Musk doubled down, saying:

“People will die due to DEI.”

Really? So DE&I is now responsible for structural failures of an aircraft?

I feel very comfortable writing that Boeing’s problems—whether it’s the 737 Max disasters or the door plug failure—are very likely not the result of DE&I efforts. They are the result of years of mismanagement, cost-cutting, and prioritizing profits over safety.

Let’s look at the actual reasons behind Boeing’s troubles:

🔹 The 737 Max Crashes (2018 & 2019): Two fatal crashes that grounded the 737 Max fleet worldwide were caused by a flawed MCAS system, ignored safety concerns, and suppressed whistleblowers—all happening before these DE&I initiatives were even a teardrop in someones eyes.

🔹 The Alaska Airlines Incident (2024): A door plug failure mid-flight forced an emergency landing. Boeing admitted to manufacturing defects and lax quality control—not DE&I.

🔹 Air Force One Debacle: Boeing signed a deal to build new Air Force One jets and is now $2 billion over budget. The CEO himself admitted, “We probably shouldn’t have signed that contract.” Was that DE&I’s fault too?

🔹 Production & Safety Failures: Boeing employees and safety experts have been raising red flags for years, only to be ignored—or worse, retaliated against.

So Why Blame DE&I?

Because it’s an easy scapegoat. When people see a company failing, they look for a reason that fits their preconceived biases. Instead of admitting that corporate greed, mismanagement, and cost-cutting killed Boeing’s reputation, some seem to prefer to push the “DE&I ruined everything” narrative. Which is precisely why I am writing these articles. To gather the facts and rewrite that narrative. 

Let’s be clear:

Boeing’s safety problems started long before DE&I initiatives.

Cutting corners and ignoring whistleblowers—not hiring diverse candidates—led to Boeing’s current crisis.

If anything, a true commitment to ethical leadership and accountability—which DE&I, at its core, should support—could have helped prevent these issues.

A quick Google search would confirm this, but hey, I’m happy to save you the trouble John.

Now, Let’s Talk About Budweiser.

John, if you were really a superfan, you’d already know that I covered Budweiser’s marketing missteps back in October of last year. Way ahead of ya bud, but since we’re here, let’s do a quick refresher:

In July 2022, Alissa Heinerscheid became VP of Marketing—the first woman to lead at Bud Light. Her goal? Rebrand Bud Light to shed its outdated “fratty” image and attract younger consumers.

From the start, Heinerscheid made it clear that inclusivity was a priority. She recognized that Bud Light’s audience was aging, and if the brand wanted to stay relevant, it needed to expand its appeal beyond its traditional base.

Some of her team’s early initiatives included a Super Bowl ad featuring Miles Teller and Keleigh Sperry, which subtly highlighted inclusivity by showcasing a woman effortlessly carrying a round of beers—something rarely seen in previous Bud Light marketing.

But then came the Dylan Mulvaney partnership.

What Actually Happened?

Bud Light collaborated with Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer with a massive following, to promote a March Madness contest—a one-off influencer campaign like thousands of others in corporate marketing.

Mulvaney’s role? Simply to create a sponsored video encouraging people to enter Bud Light’s “Easy Carry Contest” for a chance to win $15,000. As part of the promo, Bud Light sent her a custom can with her image—something brands do all the time for influencers.

Meanwhile, Bud Light also launched Pride-themed cans with various pronouns as part of their ongoing LGBTQ+ support efforts.

Sounds pretty standard, right? Wrong.

The Backlash

The second Mulvaney posted her video, conservative consumers lost it.

🚨 Calls for a boycott flooded social media.

🚨 Right-wing commentators and celebrities fanned the flames.

🚨 Kid Rock even filmed himself shooting cases of Bud Light.

The outrage wasn’t about the contest itself—it was about the symbolism. The idea that Bud Light was aligning itself with a “woke” agenda sent some of its longtime customers into full meltdown mode.

Budweiser’s Mistakes

At this point, Bud Light had two options:

1️⃣ Stand firm in their messaging. Explain the partnership, support Mulvaney, and double down on their commitment to inclusivity.

2️⃣ Panic and backtrack.

They chose option 2, and it was an absolute disaster.

🔹 They distanced themselves from Mulvaney, which alienated the progressive consumers they were trying to attract.

🔹 They failed to support her in the face of harassment, making them look spineless.

🔹 They made vague, contradictory statements, which only added fuel to the fire.

The result? They managed to piss off both sides.

Sales plummeted. The company lost billions in market value. And Bud Light became the ultimate case study in how NOT to handle DE&I marketing.

The Real Issue: Inauthenticity

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: DE&I marketing isn’t inherently bad. But if a company doesn’t actually believe in it, then using it as a performative stunt will backfire every single time.

Budweiser’s failure wasn’t because of DE&I—it was because they:

❌ Didn’t fully understand their audience.

❌ Tried to appeal to two conflicting consumer bases at once.

❌ Folded under pressure instead of standing by their decision.

They didn’t “lose money because of DE&I.” They lost money because they made a weak, half-hearted attempt at DE&I—and then abandoned it the second it got hard.

Since we've gotten close enough to hand out life advice…

John, since you’ve taken it upon yourself to tell me how to spend my time, let me return the favor:

📖 Read my book. You’ll find actual analysis on why brands like Budweiser fail at DE&I. Here’s where to start:

📖 Chapter 2: Inauthentic DE&I Efforts

📖 Chapter 4: Limiting Diversity to Superficial Features

📖 Chapter 6: Haphazardly Creating Initiatives That Won’t Work Long-Term

Only then will you be halfway qualified to make an assessment of my knowledge or stance on DE&I because if you actually knew what I was all about you would know I wouldn’t have done things the way Alissa did and you and I might have a lot more in common than you think. 😊 A Final Note on Inclusion and Basic Respect

Without getting political, what I will say is that I surmise this type of hateful rhetoric will increase as the current president continues to attack DE&I. 

So let me say this one more time, loud and clear:

✔️ I AGREE that DE&I has its failures.

✔️ I WELCOME valid, logical criticism of my work.

❌ What I don’t entertain? Personal attacks and lazy generalizations.

If you are going to provide constructive criticism, there’s a way to do it respectfully and logically—not by resorting to personal attacks and sweeping generalizations. That is not acting in an inclusive, open hearted manner which is what my work is all about.

You don’t have to like me. You don’t have to agree with me. But if you’re going to challenge me, at least bring an argument that holds up.

If my logic and love for progress aren’t your cup of tea, feel free to unfollow. But if you appreciate real, nuanced conversations about DE&I, then do yourself a favor and buy my book—because, honestly, I think it’s pretty darn good (if I do say so myself).

And if you ever find yourself up against the “John Superfans” of the world, this book will be your toolkit—helping you navigate tough conversations, ask the right questions, and actually make DE&I work the way it should.

📖 Get it. Read it. Use it. Let’s do this the right way.