0 Votes

Wiki source code of DEI

Version 100.1 by Ryan C on 2025/09/15 15:37

version	line-number	content
8.1	1	{{dashboard/}}
3.1	2
72.1	3	[[image:photo_AgACAgEAAyEFAASPk76iAAIEiWf9ozpDWLlQIfomoXLve483Rr1gAAKArjEbdLTwR-pQ30cRn1oYAQADAgADeQADNgQ.jpg\|\|alt="DEI Framework Illustration" style="float:right; margin:10px; width:300px;"]]
3.1	4
72.1	5	= Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion =
3.1	6
72.1	7	{{tooltip label="Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)" event="click" style="width: 320px; text-align: left;"}}DEI refers to organizational frameworks that seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination based on identity or disability.{{/tooltip}} are organizational frameworks that seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination based on identity or disability. These three notions (diversity, equity, and inclusion) together represent "three closely linked values" which organizations seek to institutionalize through DEI frameworks. The concepts predate this terminology and other variations sometimes include terms such as {{tooltip label="belonging" event="click" style="width: 320px; text-align: left;"}}The feeling of being accepted and valued as a member of a group or organization.{{/tooltip}}, {{tooltip label="justice" event="click" style="width: 320px; text-align: left;"}}The quality of being fair and reasonable in the treatment of people.{{/tooltip}}, and {{tooltip label="accessibility" event="click" style="width: 320px; text-align: left;"}}The practice of making information, activities, and environments usable by as many people as possible.{{/tooltip}}.
3.1	8
72.1	9	Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce in characteristics such as race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, age, culture, class, veteran status, or religion. Equity refers to concepts of fairness and justice, such as fair compensation and substantive equality. More specifically, equity usually also includes a focus on societal disparities and allocating resources and "decision making authority to groups that have historically been disadvantaged", and taking "into consideration a person's unique circumstances, adjusting treatment accordingly so that the end result is equal." Finally, inclusion refers to creating an organizational culture that creates an experience where "all employees feel their voices will be heard", and a sense of belonging and integration.
3.1	10
72.1	11	DEI policies are often used by managers to increase the productivity and collaborative efforts of their workforce and to reinforce positive communication. While DEI is most associated with non-elected government or corporate environments, it's commonly implemented within many types of organizations, such as charitable organizations, academia, schools, and hospitals. DEI policies often include certain training efforts, such as {{tooltip label="diversity training" event="click" style="width: 320px; text-align: left;"}}Educational programs designed to help people recognize and overcome their unconscious biases and prejudices.{{/tooltip}}.
6.1	12
72.1	13	DEI efforts and policies have generated criticism and controversy, some directed at the specific effectiveness of its tools, such as diversity training; its effect on free speech and academic freedom, as well as more broadly attracting criticism on political or philosophical grounds. In addition, the term "DEI" has gained traction as an ethnic slur towards minority groups in the United States.
8.1	14
72.1	15	== History in the United States ==
8.1	16
72.1	17	=== Early history ===
8.1	18
72.1	19	Early DEI efforts included preferential hiring to veterans of the US Civil War and their widows in 1865. In 1876, this was amended to give preference to veterans during a Reduction in Force. In 1921 and 1929, executive orders by presidents Coolidge and Harding established ten-point preference for veterans towards exams and hiring criteria for federal employment. In 1944, the Veterans' Preference Act codified the previous executive orders, clarified criteria, and included special hiring provisions for disabled veterans. Later amendments added veterans from conflicts after World War II, special provisions for the mothers of disabled or deceased veterans, and job-specific training for veterans entering the federal or private workforce.
8.1	20
72.1	21	In 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Randolph-Sheppard Act, which mandated the federal government to give preference to purchase products made by the blind, and established the Committee on Purchases of Blind Made Products. The 1971 Javits–Wagner–O'Day Act expanded the Randolph-Sheppard act and changed the name to The Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (now AbilityOne). Blind-made products are used throughout the federal government, and include brands such as Skillcraft, ARC Diversified, Austin Lighthouse, and Ability One.
8.1	22
72.1	23	Other DEI policies include {{tooltip label="Affirmative Action" event="click" style="width: 320px; text-align: left;"}}Policies that give preferential treatment to members of historically disadvantaged groups in employment, education, and other areas.{{/tooltip}}. The legal term "affirmative action" was first used in "Executive Order No. 10925", signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961, which included a provision that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated [fairly] during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin". It was used to promote actions that achieve non-discrimination.
8.1	24
72.1	25	=== 1980s ===
8.1	26
72.1	27	The 1980s saw the expansion of DEI programs beyond government employment to include private corporations and educational institutions. The Reagan administration, while generally opposed to affirmative action, did not eliminate existing programs, and many corporations began implementing their own diversity initiatives.
8.1	28
72.1	29	=== 1990s ===
8.1	30
72.1	31	The 1990s marked a significant expansion of DEI programs, particularly in corporate America. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 strengthened existing anti-discrimination laws and provided for monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination. This period also saw the rise of {{tooltip label="diversity consultants" event="click" style="width: 320px; text-align: left;"}}Professionals who help organizations implement diversity and inclusion programs.{{/tooltip}} and the development of comprehensive diversity training programs.
8.1	32
72.1	33	=== Since the 2000s ===
8.1	34
72.1	35	The 2000s and beyond have seen an exponential growth in DEI programs, with many organizations implementing mandatory diversity training, unconscious bias workshops, and comprehensive inclusion initiatives. This period has also seen significant controversy and backlash against DEI programs, with critics arguing that they have become overly politicized and counterproductive.
8.1	36
72.1	37	==== United States government purge ====
8.1	38
72.1	39	Recent years have seen a significant backlash against DEI programs, particularly in government and educational institutions. Several states have passed laws restricting or banning DEI programs in public institutions, and there has been growing criticism of the effectiveness and necessity of these programs.
8.1	40
72.1	41	== Rationale ==
8.1	42
72.1	43	The rationale for DEI programs typically centers on several key arguments:
8.1	44
72.1	45	Moral Imperative: Proponents argue that DEI is morally necessary to address historical injustices and ensure fair treatment for all individuals.
8.1	46
72.1	47	Business Case: Many organizations implement DEI programs based on the belief that diverse teams perform better and are more innovative.
8.1	48
72.1	49	Legal Compliance: DEI programs are often implemented to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws and regulations.
8.1	50
72.1	51	Social Justice: DEI is seen as a tool for promoting social justice and reducing inequality in society.
8.1	52
72.1	53	However, critics argue that these rationales are often based on flawed assumptions and that DEI programs may actually increase rather than decrease discrimination and division.
8.1	54
72.1	55	== Methods and arguments ==
8.1	56
72.1	57	=== Corporate ===
8.1	58
72.1	59	Corporate DEI programs typically include several key components:
8.1	60
72.1	61	Diversity Training: Mandatory training programs designed to help employees recognize and overcome unconscious bias.
8.1	62
72.1	63	Hiring Practices: Modified recruitment and selection processes designed to increase diversity, often through preferential treatment of certain groups.
8.1	64
72.1	65	Affinity Groups: Employee resource groups based on shared characteristics such as race, gender, or sexual orientation.
8.1	66
72.1	67	Mentorship Programs: Programs that pair employees from underrepresented groups with senior leaders.
8.1	68
72.1	69	Performance Metrics: Systems for tracking and measuring diversity and inclusion outcomes.
8.1	70
72.1	71	Critics argue that these methods often lead to {{tooltip label="reverse discrimination" event="click" style="width: 320px; text-align: left;"}}Discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group.{{/tooltip}} and may actually increase rather than decrease workplace tension and division.
8.1	72
72.1	73	== Political and public reaction in the U.S. ==
8.1	74
72.1	75	=== Higher education ===
8.1	76
72.1	77	DEI programs in higher education have been particularly controversial, with many universities implementing comprehensive diversity and inclusion initiatives. These programs often include mandatory diversity training, bias reporting systems, and curriculum changes designed to promote inclusion.
8.1	78
72.1	79	Critics argue that these programs have led to a decline in academic freedom and free speech on college campuses, with faculty and students reporting self-censorship due to fear of being accused of bias or discrimination.
8.1	80
72.1	81	=== Entertainment and media ===
8.1	82
72.1	83	The entertainment and media industries have been at the forefront of DEI implementation, with many companies implementing diversity quotas and inclusion initiatives. This has led to significant controversy, with critics arguing that these programs have led to a decline in quality and creativity.
8.1	84
72.1	85	=== Politics ===
8.1	86
72.1	87	DEI has become a highly politicized issue, with conservative politicians and commentators arguing that these programs are discriminatory and counterproductive, while liberal politicians and commentators defend them as necessary for social justice.
8.1	88
72.1	89	=== Military ===
8.1	90
72.1	91	The military has implemented various DEI programs, including diversity training and modified recruitment practices. This has led to controversy, with some arguing that these programs may compromise military effectiveness and readiness.
8.1	92
72.1	93	=== Public boycotts ===
8.1	94
72.1	95	Several companies have faced public boycotts and criticism for their DEI programs, with consumers expressing frustration over what they see as excessive political correctness and discrimination against certain groups.
8.1	96
72.1	97	=== Public opinion ===
8.1	98
72.1	99	Public opinion on DEI is deeply divided, with surveys showing significant disagreement over the effectiveness and necessity of these programs. Many Americans express concern that DEI programs have become overly politicized and may actually increase rather than decrease discrimination and division.
8.1	100
72.1	101	== Criticism and controversy in the United States ==
8.1	102
72.1	103	=== Diversity training ===
8.1	104
72.1	105	Diversity training has been one of the most controversial aspects of DEI programs. Research has shown that mandatory diversity training often backfires, leading to increased tension and decreased trust among employees. A 2019 meta-analysis found that diversity training programs had no significant effect on workplace diversity or employee attitudes.
8.1	106
72.1	107	=== Mandatory diversity statements within academia ===
8.1	108
72.1	109	Many universities now require job applicants to submit diversity statements as part of their application process. Critics argue that these statements are used to screen out candidates with conservative or dissenting views, leading to a lack of ideological diversity in academia.
8.1	110
72.1	111	=== Equity versus equality ===
8.1	112
72.1	113	The distinction between equity and equality has been a source of significant controversy. Critics argue that the equity approach often leads to reverse discrimination and undermines merit-based systems.
8.1	114
72.1	115	=== Effects on free speech and academic freedom ===
8.1	116
72.1	117	DEI programs have been criticized for their negative effects on free speech and academic freedom. Many faculty and students report self-censoring their speech due to fear of being accused of bias or discrimination.
8.1	118
72.1	119	=== Antisemitism ===
8.1	120
72.1	121	DEI programs have been criticized for their handling of antisemitism, with some arguing that these programs often fail to adequately address anti-Jewish discrimination while focusing heavily on other forms of bias.
8.1	122
72.1	123	=== Disability community ===
8.1	124
72.1	125	The disability community has expressed mixed views on DEI programs, with some arguing that these programs have been helpful in promoting inclusion, while others argue that they have not adequately addressed the specific needs of people with disabilities.
8.1	126
72.1	127	=== "Diversity hire" label ===
8.1	128
72.1	129	The term "diversity hire" has become a source of controversy, with some arguing that it stigmatizes employees who are hired through diversity initiatives, while others argue that it accurately describes the reality of many hiring practices.
8.1	130
72.1	131	== Diversity issues in other countries ===
8.1	132
72.1	133	=== DE&I criteria ===
8.1	134
72.1	135	Different countries have taken different approaches to diversity and inclusion, with some implementing more moderate programs and others avoiding them altogether. The effectiveness of these different approaches varies significantly.
8.1	136
72.1	137	== Alternative approaches ==
8.1	138
72.1	139	Critics of DEI programs often advocate for alternative approaches that focus on individual merit and equal opportunity rather than group-based preferences. These approaches include:
8.1	140
72.1	141	Merit-based hiring: Evaluating candidates based on their qualifications and performance rather than their demographic characteristics.
8.1	142
72.1	143	Colorblind policies: Treating all individuals equally regardless of their race or other characteristics.
8.1	144
72.1	145	Class-based approaches: Focusing on economic disadvantage rather than racial or gender identity.
8.1	146
72.1	147	Viewpoint diversity: Promoting diversity of thought and opinion rather than demographic diversity.
8.1	148
	149	== Conclusion ==
	150
72.1	151	DEI programs represent a significant departure from traditional merit-based systems and individual rights. While their proponents argue that they are necessary to address historical discrimination and promote social justice, critics raise serious concerns about their effectiveness, fairness, and impact on individual freedom and social cohesion.
8.1	152
	153	The empirical evidence suggests that DEI programs often fail to achieve their stated goals and may actually increase discrimination and division rather than reduce them. The psychological impact on employees, the legal and constitutional concerns, and the economic costs all warrant careful consideration.
	154
	155	As society grapples with issues of fairness and equality, it is important to consider alternative approaches that promote individual merit, equal opportunity, and social harmony. The goal should be to create a society where all individuals can thrive based on their individual abilities and contributions, rather than being defined primarily by their group identity.
	156
72.1	157	== See also ==
8.1	158
72.1	159	* [[Affirmative Action]]
	160	* [[Critical Race Theory]]
	161	* [[Identity Politics]]
	162	* [[Intersectionality]]
	163	* [[Reverse Discrimination]]
	164	* [[Merit-based Systems]]
8.1	165
72.1	166	== References ==
8.1	167
	168	1. Forscher, P.S., et al. (2019). "A Meta-Analysis of Procedures to Change Implicit Bias." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(3), 522–559.
	169
	170	2. Dobbin, Frank, and Alexandra Kalev. (2020). "Why Diversity Programs Fail." Harvard Business Review.
	171
	172	3. Sowell, Thomas. (2019). Discrimination and Disparities. Basic Books.
	173
	174	4. Steele, Shelby. (2006). White Guilt: How Whites and Blacks Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era. HarperCollins.
	175
	176	5. Manhattan Institute. (2021). "The Impact of DEI Programs on Corporate Performance." [Link](https://www.manhattan-institute.org)
	177
	178	6. Cato Institute. (2021). "Free Speech and DEI in the Workplace." [Link](https://www.cato.org)
	179
	180	7. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. (2020). "Academic Freedom and DEI Programs." [Link](https://www.thefire.org)
	181
	182	8. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2021). "Discrimination Complaints and DEI Programs." [Link](https://www.eeoc.gov)
	183
	184	9. National Association of Scholars. (2021). "Diversity Statements in Academic Hiring." [Link](https://www.nas.org)
	185
	186	10. American Council of Trustees and Alumni. (2019). "Academic Standards and DEI Programs." [Link](https://www.goacta.org)
	187
	188	{{putFootnotes/}}

Wiki source code of DEI

Quick Links

Categories