For several years, I have criticized diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives for prioritizing narratives over truth. These programs clearly impose an authoritarian brand of political correctness under the guise of the “woke agenda.”
This was done to suppress valid criticism of the cultural narrative turned political. For this reason, I have been generally supportive of the North Carolina General Assembly stepping in and correcting course where both our social institutions and capital markets have failed to put an end to the excesses of a cultural narrative gone totalitarian.
As the programming aspect of DEI is coming to an end, I believe it is worth pivoting our discourse and considering the value propositions of diversity, equity, and inclusion, such that we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I hope that, as one of the strongest critics of DEI in recent years, people see this as an olive branch to misguided intentions. Those who oppose the dismantling of DEI programs in social institutions should understand the issue isn’t with the individual components but with the program itself and the intolerant, divisive culture it often fosters. Recall the mistreatment of Asian students during the admissions process, and the antisemitism that later emerged on campus — often from the same individuals who claimed DEI was “needed” to combat the very kind of bigotry they now promote.
Over the course of my professional career, both in capital markets and social institutions, I have observed several instances where diversity, equity, and inclusion were practiced effectively without the need for special programs. It merely required individuals doing good for their fellow human beings, given the unique circumstances they found themselves in. It did not require a grand narrative of historical consciousness to rectify an obscure notion of “systemic racism” to be effective. It just needed good people.
Let’s consider the concept of diversity first. During my time working for one of the largest audit and assurance services firms in the world, I supplemented my already busy work schedule by leading what was called the Involved Committee, where I was given a budget to support community engagement and recruiting efforts. One initiative my team and I thought would be meaningful was to change our alumni-based recruiting approach in our Raleigh office and engage universities we didn’t typically recruit from.
For example, our office would usually recruit from universities like the University of North Carolina, NC State University, Duke University, and Wake Forest University. However, we began reaching out to campus recruiters at universities with which we had little or no alumni relationship, and started setting up opportunities to hire students there.
Here, diversity for us was about creating opportunities for potential employees and expanding our recruitment pool to universities that attract students with different outlooks on life and faculty with varied perspectives and curriculum structures.
There was no program. No one told us we had to do this. We came together as a team and decided we wanted to.
What I learned from this experience is that diversity can be a win-win proposition. It does not have to be predicated on the zero-sum framing often promoted by DEI programs — for example, that white employees should “give up space.”
Likewise, equity has its noble attributes worth considering. Here, equity is not an income redistribution scheme designed to promote certain individuals based on uncontrollable factors masquerading as “social justice,” but rather a principle that looks at those uncontrollable factors and ensures equal opportunities despite them.
Working on K–12 education policy has taught me that special education, for example, is truly a noble line of work. These teachers take it upon themselves to ensure that children with disabilities are given the opportunity to have a positive educational experience and to feel included among their peers. However, this level of care requires that children with learning disabilities receive additional support — support that other children may not need. In this case, equity means providing the necessary resources to ensure these children can participate in the developmental process just like other children, despite being born into circumstances beyond their control.
The point is not to establish equal outcomes but to ensure equal opportunity for each child to live as normal a life as possible. The child is not a charity case but is instead ennobled by the opportunity to take part in the same educational process as their peers — albeit with a bit more support.
Now juxtapose this with DEI programs that sought to eliminate advanced curricula for gifted students on the grounds that academic excellence represents a form of “systemic inequality.”
Finally, inclusion — when detached from the DEI program and treated as a standalone framework — offers new opportunities to support individual growth and to cultivate a more inclusive and accommodating society. For example, the decision by women to bring life into the world is a noble endeavor that deserves both honor and support. Many companies have recognized this by extending maternity leave, offering flexible schedules, and providing nursery rooms where mothers can privately care for their babies or pump during the workday.
This became personal for me recently: my wife and I just welcomed a new baby girl, and her company went out of its way to accommodate her and ensure she felt supported throughout the process. Here, inclusion is about identifying opportunities to support individuals as they enrich their personal lives while continuing to grow professionally.
In contrast, several universities — not only in North Carolina but across the country — have required faculty job applicants to submit DEI statements. In practice, these statements have often functioned as ideological litmus tests. Candidates who supported race-neutral approaches or questioned race-based policies have reported being targeted or denied opportunities. Rather than being inclusive of differing viewpoints, these policies excluded qualified individuals whose political or philosophical beliefs did not align with prevailing DEI orthodoxy.
Make no mistake: The DEI program must be abolished from our social institutions. Instead of being a force for good, it became a tool for corruption, mistreatment, and division. However, not all is lost. Diversity, equity, and inclusion — as individual concepts — can still be a force for good, as I have demonstrated.
Let’s pivot the discussion toward how these principles can create opportunities for everyone in ways that both strengthen society and dignify the individual.