Over the past few years in the U.S., more than a hundred federal lawsuits have been filed challenging diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in companies, firms, universities, and the public sector.
As legal scholars who monitor these cases closely, we have noticed a clear pattern. To avoid legal liability, organizations that formerly restricted diversity programs to specific demographic groups (such as people of color, women, or LGBTQ+ individuals) are now opening such programs to everyone.
{snip}
Prior to the Supreme Court’s seismic 2023 decision ending affirmative action in higher education, many organizations had developed programming such as scholarships or internships restricted to students of color, mentorship programs and leadership retreats restricted to women, or affinity groups restricted to LGBTQ+ people. Since then, a tsunami of lawsuits has challenged these programs. Most recently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against a regional Coca-Cola distributor for organizing a women-only corporate retreat.
Many organizations have changed course in response to these legal attacks. {snip}
{snip}
Our litigation tracker shows more than a dozen cases fitting this pattern. And outside of the courtroom, we’ve seen many other organizations quietly open up their affinity groups, retreats, mentorship programs, and other diversity initiatives behind the scenes. While we’re not aware of formal data on how these changes have affected the programs, anecdotally some of our organizational partners have told us that they haven’t seen much difference in participation following a switch to a universal program.
{snip}
Extensive research demonstrates the benefits when members of dominant or majority groups are engaged in efforts to advance equality and inclusion. One study found that women and people of color received diminished performance and competence ratings when they pushed for hiring more members of underrepresented groups, while white men were spared this penalty. Other studies have found that members of dominant groups are taken more seriously than members of targeted groups when they confront non-inclusive behavior.
{snip}
A final important benefit of universal programs is that they trigger less resistance—not just legally, but socially. One national survey found that some of the most effective pro-DEI messages were universalist, emphasizing how the work enables “everyone to reach their full potential” and reflects “our shared vision for a country where everyone, regardless of background, has a fair shot at success.” By contrast, the most effective message opposing DEI was one that highlighted themes of division and exclusion: “Organizations should be working to bring people together—not divide us by focusing on our differences. DEI programs often create resentment by pitting people against each other and placing people into rigid categories and boxes.”
Even as we support the normative case for some targeted programs, we recognize that excluding some groups from participating appears to create winners and losers, stoking bitterness among the people who “miss out.” Triggering such zero-sum resentment can be harmful: Research shows that people with a zero-sum mindset are less likely to support diversity and inclusion efforts in general. Universal programs take this resentment off the table.
{snip}
The post The Upside of Opening Up DEI Programs to Everyone appeared first on American Renaissance.
American RenaissanceRead More
R1
T1
