It was too overt. From a strategic standpoint it was a lot to ask and it showed no functional advantage. A lot of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion programs were doomed from the start. They popped up all over corporate America and academia. Training programs popped up all over the place to get as many organizations on board as possible. But the truth is, there were a lot problems in its execution.

First of all, the programs were run exclusively as opposed to inclusively. Instead of having a focus on the operational improvement of organizations. It was mainly optic. It would be understandable to have an officer in charge of regulating the inclusivity of the programs but it becomes questionable when a department is created to hire professionals that will work exclusively in the D.E.I department, an addendum of little functional influence. In some areas, we would find a person who fit the description (personal of color, sexual minority or woman) be given a managerial role that had very little operational impact. For a lot of folks this was a steady paycheck and/or a raise. Given the recession of the Covid Pandemic, this was a welcome addition to any household. But anyone with common foresight had to know these departments were sitting ducks.

Secondly, as a movement it was too overt too soon. You may hear that the most successful movements have grassroots success before achieving mainstream success. A large part of grassroots success involves low visibility. Or visibility with exclusively those will positively impact it and no less. This usually gives them the space to gain clarity on their philosophy, modus operandi and their culture which is hard to do once in the spotlight. The spotlight thrives on what is already well designed. If things are not quite clear, it will be exposed and at worst exploited. This lends itself too easily to opposing movements who may also divert it but taking advantage of its exposure to discredit it before it can gain its wings. I believe this was the case with D.E.I. The death of George Floyd spurred a lot of organizations in the United States and the West in action. The goal was to change the culture by giving black people (which quickly became all other minorities, LGBTQ+ and women) a change to gain organizational leverage so they would not be such easy targets of law enforcement abuse. Not a bad idea from the start. But talking about the plight of black America by the end of May to talking about the plight of other minorities and LGBTQ+ by the end of June is a bit of an undue escalation. Not to say other minorities are not to have their own voice in the fray but George Floyd ignited a historic rage that lives in Black Americans (descendants of the Slavery and Jim Crow) more than in any other minority and they were the group that needed to be addressed first before any further aggregates.

Thirdly, the overall culture behind Diversity, Equity and Inclusion was not unifying. It was a form of forced assimilation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 faced similar backlash but black America for the most part was culturally on par with their white counterparts. They were just largely underfunded, underappreciated and stigmatized. The Civil Rights Act was a drastic change in the American organizational culture. Black people worked alongside white people and their main assertions were their qualifications to serve the operational culture not overturn it. A lot of D.E.I programs were not operationally integrated. They just sort of camped out while everyone else got to do the work and they got recognized as the people serve the D.E.I quota. If anything their visibility was used as a form of virtue signaling. As someone who knows just how important that moment was for a lot of professionals who deserved their moment in the sun, it was a slap in the face. Also, the whole act of D.E.I largely sought to antagonize white heteronormalcy. It seemed to feed on the assumption that all white and straight people were inherently against the progress of minorites and needed to brought under the mercy of said minorities in a rather drastic and Bolshevik way… Sponsored by rich white people of course. Oh the irony. How long was that supposed to last?

It is my view that the United States for the most part wants to live in harmony. There are people who profit from its volatility but those people are usually either too powerful or not empowered at all. Selling the overall American public on disruption only works if it makes their items in their Amazon carts cheaper. The moment inflation hits, everyone tends to be more worried about their pocketbooks than the skin color of their boss. But if you force them to like a boss of a certain skin color or gender or sexual orientation while their pocketbook feels lighter and lighter, all the types of bosses are going to get it. In a way, you could say, D.E.I programs are just being scapegoated for latent dysfunction.

by Julian Michael Yong