DEI Unmasked: Rethinking DEI and Affirmative Action

Students at Iowa State University protest a proposed law that would restrict funding for DEI programs, highlighting the importance of diversity on campus. Source: Philanthropy.com.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and affirmative action have become central topics in recent political, social, and interpersonal discussions. DEI  refers to a framework for creating environments where individuals of all backgrounds can have fair access and participation in education, employment, and other civic spaces. The origins of DEI trace back to the civil rights movement. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 marked the point when legal doctrines were formally implemented to forbid discrimination. One of the framework’s most notable policies is affirmative action, first advanced under Executive Order 10925, which introduced proactive measures to ensure that historically marginalized groups were given equal representation.

The elimination of DEI under the Trump administration prohibited DEI-oriented preferences—specifically identity-based employment preferences—from being required or used in federal contracts, as outlined in Section 3(b)(ii)(C) of the January 21, 2025 executive order. This prohibition applies only to the federal government, its contractors, and recipients of federal funds. This section bans “workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin,” and instead mandates merit-based hiring, often framed as a “color-blind” approach.  Specifically, this was done through executive orders like Executive Order 13950 (2020), which banned certain forms of workplace diversity training for federal contractors, the military, some federal grant recipients, and federal agencies. It also led to a push toward race-neutral policies, which ignore deep racial divisions in society and are insufficient to address racial disparities. In response to the order, UNC–Chapel Hill took several steps to comply. These actions should not necessarily be interpreted as a reflection of individual board members’ personal beliefs or ideologies, as the elimination of 20 DEI positions campuswide may have been influenced by external pressures related to compliance and funding considerations. UNC reported that most of these DEI employees were offered and accepted other positions. The university also redirected portions of its budget away from DEI programs. Finally, UNC ended a hiring program designed to recruit faculty from underrepresented groups.  It is important to clarify that many of these decisions were made in response to federal directives and threats of losing federal funding, since Trump’s executive orders primarily targeted institutions with considerable federal contracts.

The rollback of DEI and affirmative action has not gone unchallenged. At UNC–Chapel Hill, about a dozen students protested during the Board of Trustees budget and finance committee meeting on May 15, 2024, after the committee voted to redirect $2.3 million in DEI funding to campus law enforcement. Chanting, “disclose, divest, we will not stop, we will not rest,” they voiced opposition to the funding shift, with divest referring to the call for the university to withdraw financial ties and support from police departments. Police eventually escorted the protesters out, and trustees have since debated whether to impose penalties on the individuals involved as well as on the student organizations that supported the demonstrations.

It remains difficult to determine whether the decline of DEI has directly caused underrepresented minorities to be disadvantaged in hiring and admissions practices. However, evidence suggests some potential impacts: after affirmative action ended, UNC reported that the percentage of Black students admitted dropped from 10.5 percent to 7.8 percent. Whether this decline is the result of direct discrimination or broader discounting of Black applicants is uncertain, but it raises pressing questions that deserve close attention. 

Nevertheless, the benefits of diversity remain clear. Research shows that companies with executive teams composed of more than 30 percent women are significantly more likely to outperform those with fewer financially. Similarly, companies in the top quartile for ethnic diversity enjoy an average 27 percent financial advantage over their peers. Beyond the corporate sector, studies have also shown that diverse learning environments reduce stereotypes, increase comfort in interracial settings, and enhance critical thinking and cognitive complexity.  Diversity, then, is not only socially and morally valuable, but also strategically advantageous.

Policies that diminish the representation of underrepresented minorities should not be ignored, as race-conscious efforts have historically served as corrective measures for systemic exclusion. The rollback of affirmative action forces us to ask: will “merit-based” approaches suffice, or will they simply mask persistent racial inequities? If the proportion of Black students admitted to UNC is already measurably declining, what might the long-term impacts be on professional fields, leadership representation, and innovation? The future of education and, therefore, the future of the workforce and governance depends on whether policymakers choose to confront historic inequities directly or adopt a “colorblind” approach that risks perpetuating systemic racism. A critical examination of these policies is not only necessary but urgent.  The stakes extend far beyond the demographics of a single campus or the rhetoric of “quotas”; they reach into the political and moral outlook of our nation itself. Irrespective of political ideology, it is deeply troubling that institutions and individuals often feel compelled to comply with federal mandates out of fear of reprimand or sanction, rather than from a good-faith effort to question and evaluate such policies. As we look to the future, the question is not simply who gets admitted or what type of people are hired, but what kind of society we are choosing to build.