Navigating the DE&I Backlash: Understanding the Roots, Acknowledging Flaws, and Charting a Thoughtful Course Forward

Allison Davis
Jan 18, 2024
6 min read

“Death to Diversity” these were some pretty intense words spoken from the lips of none other than Elon Musk himself.

Musk has shamelessly taken his stance against diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&I) initiatives, but not without providing his reasons.

The billionaire acknowledged that DE&I initiatives were initially created with the intention to create safer and fairer work environments as well as to ensure equal access and opportunity for people who face historic and ongoing discrimination and are underrepresented in the workforce through schemes like dedicated training, mentorship opportunities and hiring programs.

However, Musk is also saying that even though DE&I initiatives were intended to “end discrimination,” they have actually only “replaced it with different discrimination.”

Musk has found himself in a chorus of dissenting voices against political correctness and the "woke" culture, reflecting a broader sentiment shared by several individuals.

In this blog, I aim to delve into the history behind this growing backlash and explain why companies can’t afford to lose progress in DE&I.

History of DE&I Initiatives:

I believe the reason for the backlash is rooted in the historical context of workplace diversity initiatives. It’s important to note that DE&I initiatives were originally established as a response to civil rights movements and as a means of complying with affirmative action requirements (Vaughn, 2018).

From an American perspective, diversity in the workplace can be traced back to the Second World War. At that time, many women entered the workforce to accommodate the major labor force shortages caused by the military draft.

The number of women in the workplace reached new heights during the 1940s, but opportunities and progress for women in their careers were stifled as men rejoined the workforce over the following decades. This later fueled protests and campaigns for more equal opportunities for women.

Also, in the 1940s, President Truman signed Executive Order 9981, which was the first legal move to desegregate the United States Army, which had been segregated mainly based on ethnicity up until that point.

This order is considered to be the first legislation regarding "diversity in the workplace" and paved the way for similar initiatives across industries.

Fast forward to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. This offered more opportunities and created space for cultural and ethnic diversity in the workplace. However, comparable to gender diversity, it took several decades for employers to fully understand the value of diversity initiatives based on cultural background or ethnicity.

Education and diversity training have been a staple of diversity and inclusion work since the 1960s. In its infancy, diversity training mainly focused on race, coinciding with the civil rights movements at that time.

The most common diversity training was facilitated by a Black and White duo of male facilitators, who would introduce the two perspectives and demonstrate interracial collaboration.

The role of the White facilitator was to openly display emotions about their own journey in recognizing systemic racism and their own biases.

It is important to remember how overtly people of color were being discriminated against back in the 1960s, as well as women and anyone else outside the stereotypical White male.

Because the training was used to initiate radical change, confrontation was extremely common, particularly toward White Americans who “gave excuses for” or “denied their racism.”

The goal was to increase White American sensitivity to the effects of racial inequity and lay a stepping stone to achieve equality within organizations in a world that has historically oppressed those with less social, political, and economic power. However, this approach generally only resulted in one of three outcomes:

Participants gained deeper insights about the barriers to race relations as a result of being put on the hot seat.
Participants became more resistant to racial harmony as they fought against accepting the facilitators' label of them as racists.
Participants became fanatics and started to advocate against any perceived form of racial injustice after the training.

Starting in the 1970s and increasingly into the 1990s, women began entering the workforce more frequently in industries that were primarily dominated by men. As a result, gender sensitivity training of a similar fashion started to become more prevalent.

While cultural diversity efforts and progress became stagnant, the feminist movement of the 1970s prompted women in the US to take a much larger share of management positions between 1980 and 2010.

Initially, businesses largely relied on diversity initiatives and education to protect themselves against, and even settle, civil rights lawsuits.

Over the years, there has been a significant increase in education, initiatives, and laws aimed at addressing bias and discrimination against various other identity groups, including those based on differences in age, ability, religion, sexual orientation, and even body type.

Today, several corporations have made diversity training a routine practice. Many employers require their employees to attend truly riveting annual training sessions, during which someone from Human Resources lists the various protected classes via PowerPoint presentations, reminding employees that discrimination is both unethical and illegal.

In worst cases, they force employees to participate in initiatives or activities which only make everyone involved uncomfortable and waste company time.

While I do feel that we have unintentionally reduced diversity to over physical characteristics and agree with Elon in that some efforts have been not only ineffective but rather counter-intuitive, I don’t believe that is cause to stop this work altogether. Why DE&I Work Still Matters: Despite the progress made since the 1940s, women and other minority groups still face oppression and are significantly underrepresented, especially in executive positions, across industries.

Reports are published every year that highlight the progress that still needs to be made to achieve global equality with regard to race and sex. Marginalized groups remain underrepresented in key positions and talent from diverse backgrounds continue to struggle to achieve equal opportunities for skill development and career advancement.

Organizations aren’t exactly doing a stellar job making an ongoing commitment to DE&I issues outside of the annual training.

Case in point, Wells Fargo found themselves in the midst of yet another scandal. This time, grappling with no less than five lawsuits from shareholders who claim that the bank's board conveniently acted on DE&I issues only after negative media coverage had exposed them (Hudson, 2023).

Even though the bank's CEO, Charlie Scharf, initiated a 'Diverse Search Requirement' program back in 2020 (around the time George Floyd was murdered), which made interviews with diverse candidates a requirement for positions that paid more than $100,000 per year, the lawsuits indicated that the organization continued to violate basic federal anti-discrimination laws.

And they're not alone, according to a Bloomberg Law report, employment lawsuits have increased by more than 400% during the past 20 years. They showed that employees have a 16% chance of receiving more than $1 million from claims and a 70% chance of receiving $165,000.

Did you know these are all the things an employee can sue an organization for? Lost Pay Damages: This includes all the money and fringe benefits they would have earned if their employer had not discriminated against them

Compensatory and Emotional Distress Damages: Emotional distress damages can cover a range of harms, including diagnosed psychiatric conditions, sleeplessness, loss of enjoyment of life, and reputational harm. Punitive Damages: Designed to punish employers for particularly appalling discrimination, punitive damages can be another heavy financial blow, especially when the discrimination is accompanied by “malice or reckless indifference". Attorneys’ Fees and Costs: Winning employees are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, which can range from thousands to over seven figures.

I think I rest my case in that completely forgoing DE&I initiatives can result in significant repercussions. Conclusion: While it's evident that traditional, ineffective approaches to DE&I need a revamp, the answer isn't abandoning them altogether. There's a need for a more nuanced and effective strategy.

For a comprehensive guide on navigating the complexities of DE&I in 2024, I invite you to explore my book, "Beyond Comfort Zones: The Real-Talk Approach to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion." In it, I address common pitfalls, provide insights on avoiding haphazard initiatives, and offer practical solutions to meet the real needs of your employees.

Additionally, if you're looking to elevate your HR strategy in the coming year, consider joining the Open Heart Inclusion movement. We'll be unpacking key HR trends for 2024, delving into their implications for the future of DE&I, and setting the stage for a transformative year ahead.