Is DEI rollback a thing?

And an update on the Disability Visibility book group

Thanks to the group that got together to discuss the book Disability Visibility; it was such a gift. I’m so sorry to anyone who had technical difficulties or who missed the announcement (or couldn’t join because of rescheduling). We talked about the systemic nature of ableism, and about how we navigate our own disabilities and/or how to show up well with and for friends, family, and colleagues with disabilities. We also talked about what a community or workplace centered on access and inclusion would mean for everyone. Note: I had so much fun gathering with people to talk about something that matters to us that I’m wondering if folks would like to do a discussion this summer about another book I read for school—Poverty: By America, by Matt Desmond, who also wrote the book Evicted. Let me know in the comments if folks would be interested in that. (And I learned my lesson; not going to try to do it during the school semester.)

---

There was an article in today’s New York Times about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives diminishing in corporate spaces. The article talked about last year’s Supreme Court decision banning race-based admissions in the cases Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (Harvard) and SFFA v. University of North Carolina (UNC).

The article acknowledged that Students for Fair Admissions is the ideological project of one particular bile-filled antagonist against justice and equality, Edward Blum. (You may have heard that after these 2023 cases, he turned his attention to a Black women-led venture capital company, because that is how obsessed he is with trying to roll back any successful efforts to create a truly inclusive and just nation. After all, he had already succeeded in gutting the Voting Rights Act, so why not branch out into the corporate arena?)

Another piece I recently heard on “The Backlash Against DEI” was on CNN correspondent Audie Cornish’s podcast The Assignment. She interviewed Celeste Headlee (whom you might know from her amazing series on race or on gender on the podcast Scene On Radio, and who got into DEI mid-2020 much like myself, to fill a sudden gap and respond to organizations hungry to discern effective strategies to address systemic racism in their institutions). Audie Cornish started out the episode by talking about toxic anti-equity activist Chris Rufo, who has played a key role in shaping anti-trans legislation and generating political energy around “wokeness” and “CRT in classrooms,” contributing to regressive legislation across the country on both of those issues as well. Rufo takes credit for displacing Claudine Gay as President of Harvard, and he noted it as a victory against DEI, which he wants to remove from across educational institutions and beyond. He has stated he sees DEI as akin to China’s re-education camps. (I’m not citing this with a link because I’m not giving him traffic. You can find it on his twitter account from January 4, 2024.)

Photo by Brittani Burns on Unsplash

I know many of you from DEI work we’ve done together, so you know why this issue matters to me. Largely, it’s for the same reasons it matters to you: a desire for the full thriving of everyone in our workplace and everyone in our community.

Obviously there are other reasons for the decline in DEI: the boom-and-bust nature of American corporate passions for “it” issues, and the major job cutbacks in many companies that had built out DEI positions before industry-wide cuts, to name two of the more obvious examples. But we’ve all seen legislation sweeping the country that is creating a “chilling condition” for DEI work, especially among workplaces that receive state funding in states with anti-DEI legislation.

I wanted to bring this discussion about DEI in corporate and educational spaces so we can think together strategically and thoughtfully. I mention Blum and Rufo so we can look at the intentional web of anti-POC, anti-LGBTQ, and anti-accuracy they have helped to build. Both are connected to the Federalist Society and are part of an agenda to dismantle any efforts to create equal dignity for all, to dismantle the promise of liberty and justice for all, because they don’t believe “for all” is possible: more dignity for you or me, in their minds, means less dignity for them.

I’ve written before about the Curb Cut Effect, how policies for people facing barriers result in improvements for all people. The folks resisting DEI initiatives don’t believe the Curb Cut Effect is real, even when we have example after example of how laws increasing access for one group result in all groups benefiting.

So if you’re in a place where DEI is at risk because of fear about anti-DEI laws or simply anti-DEI culture, I want to invite you to ground yourself in the truth of the Curb Cut Effect, and the fact that the work you are doing is for the thriving of everyone in your organization.

If you need a brainstorming partner, that’s something I’m up for, even though I’m doing very little official DEI work these days (so that I can pass “Applied Linear Modeling” and “Qualitative Research Methods for Social Policy Analysis”—remind me occasionally that I’m the one who signed up to do this degree).

In the mean time, I’ll keep dropping you the occasional line about this field of DEI and about what I’m learning in this program. I’m grateful for your support.

BTW, if you’re not already a paid subscriber, that’s a way you can support me. If you already do, thank you—it’s making a big difference in my humble student life.

With gratitude,
Sandhya