By Parfait Bassalé
The recent attack on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) from the Trump Administration has forced DEI advocates onto the defensive. Even more, it has prompted counteroffensives directed at those who agree with the executive actions. Such back-and-forth will likely lead us down the old, tired road of "us versus them." This moment calls for a different approach: a nuanced and reasonable dialogue—the very kind that has been missing from the conversation. Unless we can lower the temperature and listen to concerns from all sides, we risk missing a crucial opportunity to move the country forward.
The Rise and Fall of Momentum
In the months following George Floyd's death on May 25, 2020, at the height of the COVID pandemic, Black Lives Matter protests erupted across the nation and internationally. During this time, there was a significant surge in the popularity of books addressing race and racism. By early June 2020, 15 of the top 20 bestselling books on Amazon were about race, racism, and white supremacy in the U.S. Similarly, The New York Times nonfiction bestseller list was almost entirely comprised of books about race and white privilege during this period.
Over the past decade, U.S. companies have poured billions into DEI initiatives. In 2020 alone, global corporate spending on DEI was estimated at $7.5 billion, with projections suggesting it could more than double to $15.4 billion by 2026. These efforts aimed to address inequities and foster belonging in workplaces that had historically excluded entire demographics from leadership, decision-making, economic opportunity, and culturally sensitive services.
How did we go from such widespread interest, a genuine desire to learn, and a push for systemic change to the backlash we are witnessing today? Theories abound—from "white rage" to outright racism—all of which hold some plausibility. However, in my experience as a professional who has designed, implemented, and coached others through DEI initiatives, I often invite people to introspect and assess their own contributions to a problem. That is the only thing they can truly control. While difficult, self-reflection is the key to growth and transformation.
Applying this principle to this sociopolitical moment, we must ask the hard but necessary question: how have DEI professionals, like myself, contributed to the current opposition to DEI? In my experience, I have seen four fundamental mistakes from the field that have contributed to the current backlash:
We failed to understand the psychology of our audience.
We confused the moment and used the wrong communication strategy.
We lacked consistency and effectiveness in our practices.
We relied on inaccessible and adversarial jargon.
1. Failing to Understand the Psychology of Our Audience
For any message, there are generally three audience segments:
Champions: Those who are already in favor.
Cynics: Those who are opposed.
Skeptics: Those in the middle, open to the idea but with questions and concerns.
This skeptical segment is the most critical when advancing any movement. Their questions and concerns can sharpen ideas and implementation. For instance, in the months after George Floyd’s murder, I was struck by how even influencers with traditionally anti-DEI audiences were urging their followers to pause and reflect.
Many DEI advocates, however, missed the opportunity to invest time, patience, and grace in engaging the skeptics. Instead, we often shamed them, mislabeled questions or objections as opposition and misinterpreted critiques as outright rejection. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. poignantly captured the exhaustion of engaging white moderates in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, but dismissing skepticism as complicity risks making DEI appear dogmatic—akin to extremist ideologies where dissent is not tolerated. Instead of leaning into engagement and curiosity, we shunned it, leaving a vacuum that cynics eagerly exploited.
2. Confusing the Moment and Using the Wrong Communication Strategy
DEI advocates had longed for an attentive audience. When they finally had one, many responded by unloading their trauma, anger, and frustration all at once. This overwhelmed white audiences and even some BIPOC communities, leaving many feeling blamed and shamed for the past.
Learning does not happen in an environment where people feel attacked and/or lectured about all their shortcomings. Moreover, the saturation of DEI training—repetitive and often mandatory—led to emotional exhaustion. Critics may argue that such exhaustion mirrors the daily experiences of marginalized communities, and while that is true, the field of learning psychology teaches us that such conditions aren’t optimal for adult learning.
3. Performative and Ineffective Practices
Many DEI practitioners remained fixated on bias awareness conversations and historical education rather than implementing systemic changes that could lead to long-term transformation. True change happens throughout the entire employee lifecycle—hiring, onboarding, promotions, pay structures, and leadership pipelines.
For instance, rather than relying on hiring targets, we should focus on building cultural transformations within organizations and institutions that then result in fairness, expanded access, inclusion and representation. This includes:
Elevating critical socio-emotional skills essential for navigating and leading a diverse workforce.
Standardizing hiring, promotions, pay and procurement decisions to eliminate subjectivity, remove barriers, and prioritize transparency.
4. Inaccessible and Adversarial Jargon
Many DEI practitioners are immersed in advocacy work. Certain terms may be familiar to them, but are inaccessible and adversarial language to audiences like the “skeptics.” For example, terms like "whiteness,” "white supremacy,” and “white fragility” are sociologically dense, complex, or condescending. Yet, they are often deployed without providing sufficient background and contextual knowledge or psychological preparation for audiences to engage meaningfully.
Additionally, some well-meaning advocates, driven by guilt, unhealed trauma, or unbridled zeal, stigmatize anyone who does not engage with DEI work exactly as they would. This "my way or the highway" approach creates exclusion within an inclusion movement. The metaphor of war—where allyship implies battle—frames the conversation as an "us vs. them" dynamic, hindering collaboration and alienating potential partners in progress.
The Case for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Initiatives
Much of the anti-DEI sentiment, as echoed by President Donald Trump during his second inaugural address, presumably stems from a call for a “color-blind and merit-based society.” Meritocracy sounds beautiful in theory—who wouldn’t want a world where talent and effort alone dictate opportunity? In practice, however, meritocracy assumes a fair starting line and a level playing field. History tells us this was never the case in America. Without acknowledging the deeply entrenched structural barriers that have long excluded and impeded entire communities, “meritocracy” becomes an illusion—one that ignores the ways that systemic exclusion has shaped our institutions.
The data speaks for itself. Nearly sixty years after the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, representation in leadership across industries remains disproportionately skewed. For example:
Financial Sector: A 2022 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that Black representation in senior management positions within the financial services industry remained at just 3% from 2007 to 2020.
Healthcare Leadership: A 2021 study by The Chartis Group and the National Association of Health Services Executives found that among the 100 great hospitals listed in U.S. News & World Report, less than 10% of C-suite executives were Black.
Higher Education: The University of Michigan’s Leadership Institute reported in 2021 that minorities hold just 16% of leadership positions in higher education—a number that has barely shifted in the last decade.
Sports: Since its inception in 1920, American football has had 500 head coaches, but only 24 have been black. That is just 4.8%. It’s only in the 2024 season, thanks to DEI advocacy, that the NFL reached a record high of nine minority head coaches, six of whom are Black.
These numbers highlight a persistent tendency to hire, promote and serve within familiar networks—within our tribes, limiting access for underrepresented communities. Beyond leadership disparities, systemic inequities extend into healthcare, education, and financial outcomes. For instance, maternal mortality rates have dropped overall, but not for Black women who still face disproportionately high risks in childbirth. According to the Policy Center for Maternal Mental Health, the mortality rate for Black women has widened due to systemic inequities in healthcare and is now three times the rate of white women.
The inability—or unwillingness—of dominant culture to befriend and integrate those outside their established circles limits access for underrepresented communities. If we are serious about fostering true meritocracy, we must first address these foundational disparities rather than dismiss them.
A Better Way Forward
If DEI is to remain effective, it must evolve. Instead of adversarial, performative, and condescending approaches, we should foster constructive dialogue that acknowledges DEI’s tangible benefits, such as:
Parental leave (both time and pay)
Family restrooms
Lactation and breastfeeding rooms
Subtitles and captions on media
Baby changing tables in men’s restrooms
Dietary accommodations (vegetarian, vegan, kosher, halal, gluten-free)
Materials available in multiple languages
Interpretation services in hospitals and clinics
Ramps on streets
Flexible work schedules
To advance these efforts, we must communicate in a way that meets people where they are—one of DEI’s fundamental principles. According to Pew Research, a declining share of U.S. workers say DEI is a good thing (from 56% to 52%). Meanwhile, the percentage of those who believe DEI is a bad thing has risen from 16% to 21%. The future of DEI hinges on engaging the 26% of workers who remain undecided—the skeptics.
I believe The Be a Friend Model can help us navigate this next phase. It challenges the "us vs. them" paradigm through the lens of befriending the "Other"—as a relational and structural practice that reimagines the power of friendship in leadership, policy, and institutional culture. It elevates four core values:
Be Courageous: Address barriers at personal, interpersonal, and systemic levels.
Be Curious: Foster a mindset of continuous learning and questioning.
Be Compassionate: Prioritize well-being and proactive support to ALL, interpersonally and systemically.
Be Collaborative: Strengthen shared success through teamwork and alignment.
Imagine transformative conversations where skeptics, cynics, and champions alike can ask:
What would you suggest in place of the practices you object to?
What would it take for you to engage with DEI constructively?
What can you live with?
Imagine transformative spaces where all can engage in substantive and genuine exploration of the following questions:
Who do I need the courage to befriend?
Who do I need the courage to be curious about?
Who do I need the courage to show compassion to?
What policy do I need the courage to change?
What policy impact do I need to be curious about?
Which community do I need to show compassion to through policy reform or systemic change?
DEI must evolve. It is not about abandoning its core mission, but rather ensuring it is applied in ways that foster engagement, sustainability, and genuine transformation. The opportunity for a redo if we genuinely desire it is here. The question is: will we take it?
Comments