This past week, House Bill 171 was filed to ban DEI programs in state agencies. Opponents of this bill will decry the latest assault on efforts to create institutions of learning and places of work that are welcoming to all and celebrate diversity. There will be linguistic variations on the pushback, but the theme will be the same: a program with righteous intentions is threatened by others, therefore those same others cannot be righteous.

It is one of the cheapest and low-effort strategies in debate and, lately, if said loud enough with enough repetition, it is effective. However, I think this current update in the DEI maelstrom is an excellent opportunity to discuss the difference between advertised purpose… and true outcomes.

I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to those who championed DEI efforts in their infancy as folks who genuinely wanted to develop a workforce and student population that was broadly representative of our population and where everyone could feel a sense of belonging. Who couldn’t be in support of that? But, we all need to face the reality that DEI has mutated from a desire to do good to a bloated grift that is expensive, divisive, and ineffective.

One of the worst kept political secrets is, when an unsuccessful program falls under scrutiny by their funding sources, they will emphasize their aspirational and easily supported goals rather than measured outcomes. For example, if an agency was funded to convince the public that puppies are cute and had failed in achieving that goal because they screamed at anyone not holding a puppy, the scrutinized organization would simply respond to criticism by saying, “Well, you obviously hate puppies.” You might correctly suspect that they are more interested in securing their funding in perpetuity than helping the public perception of the best pets in the world (sorry, cat people).

So, to aid in this debate, let’s ask two questions: 1) Are DEI programs achieving their originally stated goals; and, 2) If not, what are they actually doing?

Measuring the results of DEI programs

The concerning answer to the first question is, for most part, no one is even looking. Boston University researchers published a systematic review of DEI programs in 2023. For the most part, their conclusions about objective measures of effectiveness of DEI efforts were not even occurring. 

In their summary, they declared “despite the increased number of organizations dedicating resources to diversity, equity, and inclusion training and/or antiracism training, little is known about which strategies yield successful results.” 

Furthermore, sociology professors Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev, from Harvard and Tel Aviv University respectively, state that “the positive effects of diversity training rarely last beyond a day or two, and a number of studies suggest that it can activate bias or spark a backlash.”

Just because our goals sound virtuous and make our souls feel warm and fuzzy does not exempt us from taking the time and effort to make sure our often long and expensive efforts are bearing fruit. Work without accountability can be a good gig, and even quite profitable, which leads to our second question.

What do DEI programs actually do?

Efforts draped in platitudes can become hard to assign boundaries to and are prone to grow in scope, definition, and cost.

In 2023-2024, the UNC System spent over $90 million on DEI staff, including annual salaries that approached half a million dollars. Keep in mind, these are only the salaries and do not include the costs of courses and employee time spent on mandating training. This was the figure for only one of many state agencies, many of whom bury the true costs in vague program language and position titles.

TalentCulture, a community of HR professionals who consult on employee matters, states that DEI company budgets range from $10,000 to $216 million. They suggest a company DEI budget “sweet spot” of… wait for it… $1.2 million. Nova Culture, a consulting firm who designs employee DEI programs, suggests budgeting up to $10,000 for a single employee training program, $30,000 for a keynote speaker, and $20,000 for a monthly retainer fee for DEI services. 

According to researchers at the Harvard Kennedy School, US companies spend over $8 billion annually on DEI programs. The Federal Department of Education alone has spent over $1 billion on DEI staff and programs since 2021.

If you haven’t picked up on the theme, there is a LOT of money flowing into the DEI universe with a lot of personal bank accounts relying on this river of funding to continue. But we must ask ourselves if these expenditures should continue with programs that do not measure effectiveness, or worse, suggest they are aggravating the problem. Unfortunately, those benefiting from the DEI pot of gold will argue that the answer to ineffective DEI… is more DEI.

This debate often presents the false dichotomy of diversity vs. meritocracy. Both concepts exist in the same space. I have spent a long career in healthcare and the military, and I can say without hesitation that merit and talent arise from all pockets of our society. Suggesting otherwise is false and harmful to the aspirations of millions who are being made to believe they cannot achieve their dreams without paid consultants to remind everyone how bad they are. 

If we are concerned about people being denied opportunities because of the color of their skin, their faith, or their political views… there are already laws to address that and punish those responsible. The answer is not to perpetuate blanket judgements on others based on characteristics such as race and political beliefs at a staggering cost to the taxpayer and consumer.

Neither side of this debate believes that anyone should be denied opportunities in education or the workforce based on immutable characteristics. But our side is the only one that recognizes that forced employee retreats discussing microaggressions and ableism is not only ineffective, but incredibly expensive.

There is an old truism that if you find yourself in a hole, the first step should be to stop digging. It’s past time to climb out.