President Donald Trump had a hunch about the cause of the tragic mid-air collision of an American Airlines passenger plane and a US Army helicopter over the Potomac River in Washington DC on 29 January 2025, in which 67 people lost their lives. He did not hold back as he addressed a press conference at the White House the following day, strongly criticising his predecessors and claiming somewhat prematurely that safety standards had been lowered by DEI recruitment processes at the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), despite the facts that air traffic controller have to meet rigorous training standards before being allowed to practice and that the last major commercial air disaster in America happened back in February 2009, when 50 people were killed. Trump claimed that the FAA was “actively recruiting workers who suffer severe intellectual disabilities, psychiatric problems and other mental and physical conditions under a diversity and inclusion hiring initiative spelled out on the agency’s website.”
In a nation divided between liberal and conservatives, two parallel narratives have playing out for some time until now. Demographic shifts and multi-ethnic immigration have created an increasingly diverse society in America. Diversity within communities, schools, workplaces, and wider society reflects growing differences in race, age, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical ability, religion, and socioeconomic status, some of which are visible and others not. People with diverse backgrounds often differ in their life experiences, educational backgrounds, skill sets, and professional experiences, all of which combine to create an uneven playing field when it comes to their chances in later life.
DEI initiatives date back to the Civil Rights campaign of the 1960s, culminating in the Civil Rights Act 1964, which outlawed discrimination in jobs based on race, sex, colour, religion, and national origin and established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Executive Order 11246 in September 1965 then abolished discriminatory practices in hiring and employment by the federal government. Since then, many organisations, at federal, state and local government level, in academia, and in business and industry have developed their own DEI policies.
Advocates of DEI programmes point to systemic and structural barriers that have historically disadvantaged some segments of American society, including women, BIPOCs (Blacks, Indigenous, and People of Colour) and other ethnic minorities, the physically and mentally disabled, and LGBTQ people, among others. Equity implies fairness of treatment and justice for marginalised and underrepresented communities, by granting them access to the same resources as opportunities as the rest of society. It is not same as equality, which indicates equal treatment for all irrespective of their qualifications for a given job. Equity is also not the same as affirmative action, which gives preferential treatment to people from marginalised and underprivileged backgrounds. Even before Trump returned to power, affirmative action had already been dealt a fatal blow, when the Supreme Court ruled in June 2023 that race-based affirmative action college admission policies to colleges and universities are unconstitutional.
Inclusion means that employees feel welcome, safe, and supported in the workplace, thereby ensuring their full and whole-hearted participation. Enforcing diversity through arbitrary employment quotas without simultaneously fostering inclusion is nothing more than tokenism, as a diverse workplace is ineffective without genuine inclusion. Merely having a workforce that is representative of the wider population is not enough. Inclusion is a hearts-and-minds issue that cannot be enforced by legislation and regulation alone.
DEI programmes, intended to redress historical discrimination, include inclusion and diversity training, and fair recruitment, promotion and pay policies, which promote engagement and retention. The postulated benefits of DEI policies include a sense of belonging, enhanced job satisfaction, and increased productivity and creativity in the workplace. But DEI has its limitations, and society will always remain unequal as equal opportunities do not necessarily guarantee equal outcomes.
Opponents of DEI policies, mainly those from the right of the political spectrum, claim that these initiatives are only serving to perpetuate discrimination and to disadvantage the interests of disenfranchised Whites. They see a “reverse racism” which is threatening the status and challenging the hitherto socially dominant White majority. DEI initiatives are considered part of a liberal “woke agenda” that is “harmful” to America, leading to “illegal discrimination and wasteful spending across the federal government.” Overzealous implementation of “divisive ideology” in both public and private sectors is a particular target of their criticism. After dispatching so-called “DEI hire” Democratic Presidential candidate Kamala Harris, Donald Trump thus used his inaugural address to share his vision of a “colour-blind and merit-based society”, in which there are only two genders. The Trump administration has issued a new Executive Order, ‘Ending Political and Wasteful DEI Programs and Preferencing’, and placed “employees charged with leading DEI initiatives on paid administrative leave.” The Diversity & Inclusion Council, established by ex-President Obama under Executive Order 13583, has been dissolved. The federal government, state legislatures, schools, institutions of higher education, big corporations, and the military have all joined the race to roll back their DEI programmes.
The precise reasons for the recent tragedy in America’s capital have yet to be determined, but DEI policies have nonetheless been singled out for Presidential wrath. Whatever one’s political views, no one should have a quibble with the laudable goal of universal access to equal opportunities, however unachievable this might seem at present. But as we move towards America’s new recruitment processes, based solely on “merit, excellence, and intelligence,” we will be given the opportunity to assess their effects on the attainment, gender, wealth, and other gaps that characterise contemporary American society. Only time will tell.
Ashis Banerjee