“Imagine, instead of seeing headlines about Republicans and conservatives eviscerating diversity initiatives, we read ‘Ron DeSantis Guts Integration Efforts.’”
When a politician is justifiably accused of theft, adultery, racism, or other reprehensible behavior, it’s common for strategists to attack the name for their crime rather than defend the behavior. In other words, if a lawmaker is called “racist,” they respond as though that word is a slur. They focus their attention on the use of the word “racism,” repeating again and again that the word has been weaponized to hurt them, instead of addressing the actual behavior that inspired the use of the word.
This tactic has also been deployed proactively, not just to undermine the credibility of allegations, but to disempower progressive actions.
How can one interfere with affirmative action if most Americans support its goals? Redefine the term and associate it with things that Americans don’t like, such as discrimination. Thus, affirmative action is no longer about leveling the playing field, something US citizens support, but about discriminating against white students, which Americans do not support.
Political strategists and pundits use this strategy because it works; voters across the spectrum fall for this con. We have seen it utilized to redefine Critical Race Theory; no longer a term describing the academic study of the intersection between the law, media, society, and race, but falsely characterized as a racist curriculum used in public schools to make white children believe their race is bad.
It has been used to great effect to mar the positive meaning of words like “diversity” and “equity.” Equity simply means a state of being just and fair. People generally support “fairness;” they believe everyone should have to play by the rules and all should have the same chance at success. Yet, when you call that “equity,” conservatives in particular (erroneously) believe your intention is taking power from white people and giving it to Black and brown people.
While fewer than one in five white Americans claim they have experienced discrimination personally, more than half believe whites are discriminated against in the US. This is particularly odd since, as researchers have pointed out, “by nearly any metric—from employment to police treatment, loan rates to education—statistics continue to indicate drastically poorer outcomes for Black than White Americans.” A recent study found that lawmakers whose ancestors enslaved at least 16 people have a net worth of nearly $4 million more than their peers. So, how could any rational person believe that the descendants of enslavers are the victims, while descendants of the enslaved are the oppressors?
It makes sense if the meaning of “racism,” “oppression,” “equity,” and “victimhood” are altered to fit a particular political ideology. That’s why the Headway team suggests that we not insist on using specific terms if those terms have been undermined or corrupted.
If half of the country hears the word “equity” and doesn’t associate that word with “fairness,” then we’ll talk about being fair. I’m happy to change my vocabulary so quickly, the pundits and pols don’t have time to mount a propaganda campaign. In the end, it doesn’t matter what terms you use. The underlying principles remain the same.
Lily Zheng, author of DEI Deconstructed, advocates for a FAIR approach, focusing on Fairness, Access, Inclusion and Representation. Headway has always taught these principles, backed by solid research on the effectiveness of programs that encourage them. Scientific study also supports an approach that emphasizes belonging, connection, compassion, and feedback.
If any of those words become problematic because of political talking points, we will continue to teach evidence-based, effective methods regardless of the terms we use.
The principles that form the foundation of our work are stronger and more moral than those that undergird the anti-DEI movement. Right-wing extremists accuse diversity advocates of sowing division and distrust. This accusation is a flagrant lie and, using whatever terms necessary, we should push back with force.
Among those who work toward inclusivity, community, connection, and belonging, we get the messaging wrong. We should own any discussion about division because inclusivity is quite literally the opposite of division. Belonging is antithetical to polarization. I fight for inclusivity and fairness every day of my life, and I include even those who hate me and my work.
If you are being harassed or discriminated against in your workplace because of your political views, I don’t want that for you. I’ll note that I don’t mean being held accountable for your behavior and actions; if you target a colleague because of their sexual identity and consequently lose a promotion, that’s accountability. If you simply voted for Donald Trump, you shouldn’t lose your promotion. That wouldn’t be fair.
Fairness means that everyone plays by the same rules. Inclusivity means that if you don’t feel comfortable at work, it should not be because of your identity. It doesn’t matter if people like you or not, but you deserve to have the same chance everybody else has. The odds shouldn’t be stacked against you because of unconscious bias or implicit bias.
As humans, we make judgments about each other based on many things that are not related to ability or behavior. American society tends to be biased against people who are overweight. We tend to be biased against people who are shorter, against people who are not neuro-typical, people over the age of 60. There are many different biases.
Inclusivity means creating a welcoming environment, an inclusive environment, for everybody, regardless of socioeconomic background, politics, ancestry, or any other personal characteristic. DEI is the inverse of division because frankly, even if I don’t like you, I want you to have a fair shot. I want you to feel included.
Everybody knows what it’s like to feel excluded. Maybe we’ve gone to a party where we didn’t know anybody, maybe we’ve taken a new job where people just weren’t kind. Perhaps your in-laws hate you, or you were bullied in high school. We’ve all been in a situation in which we have felt unfairly excluded and targeted and made to feel as though we were outsiders. I don’t want that for you, and I don’t care if you agree with me politically or you don’t.
I want a world in which we don’t make people feel excluded because of who they are. I’d much prefer a world in which we exclude people based on their behavior and a society in which people who bully or harass others are shunned. I support intolerance if it refers to not accepting cruelty.
That’s what our message should be. If you are on the other side of the political spectrum and you truly feel as though you are being excluded and targeted because of your identity– not your decisions, your behavior, your treatment of others–but because of your personal identity, I’m fighting for you, too. That’s what this work is all about.
