On Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2025, a plane carrying 64 people collided with a Black Hawk helicopter over the Potomac River in Washington, D.C. All passengers in both aircraft died. In press conferences over the following days, President Donald Trump drew shocking connections between the event and the implementation of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. He attacked the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in particular, saying that the FAA wanted “people with severe disabilities ... (to be) air traffic controllers.” There are no known people with severe intellectual disabilities currently employed as air traffic controllers in the United States. Trump is not the only one: over the past few years, the far right has unleashed constant attacks on DEI programs, using them as a scapegoat. In 2023, Georgia Representative Mike Collins stood on the House floor and blamed DEI for the hazardous train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, asking if “(The train company’s) DEI policies (were) directing resources away from important things like greasing wheel bearings.” These criticisms reflect a broader attack on DEI initiatives, leading to calls for the abolition of such programs. However, this is not an appropriate solution. Policymakers should focus on reforming, not abolishing, DEI programs.
Recently, “DEI” has become somewhat of a buzzword, so it’s important to understand what it really means. DEI is an umbrella term that refers to practices in workplaces and schools that emphasize giving fair chances and representation to people from all backgrounds. At Berkeley High School, it might look like designing curricula that includes non-White histories, hiring a diverse pool of teachers, or supporting minority students through programs like B.R.I.D.G.E., R.I.S.E., and Puente, which are found at BHS. Such programs are directly threatened by a Feb. 14th mandate from the Department of Education (DOE), which called upon schools and universities to eliminate what it dubs “pervasive and repugnant race-based preferences” or risk losing federal funding.
Despite what Donald Trump and the DOE claim, DEI is generally a good thing. For one, it allows employers to tap into a pool of qualified candidates that might otherwise be overlooked. Additionally, multiple studies suggest that in the workplace, diverse teams are generally more productive and profitable. In 2022, Gartner reported that companies with “gender-diverse” employees outperformed those that were more homogenous by “50 percent on average,” a significant margin. This is not to say DEI is without its flaws. For one, it can be hugely expensive. In the wake of George Floyd’s murder in May 2020, Walmart spent a $100 million on a new center for racial diversity. Despite their cost, however, DEI initiatives are often less than thorough. Companies frequently go through the motions of putting on events like “unconscious bias” training and measuring their effectiveness by attendance or employee satisfaction rather than anything long-term or tangible. This is partly because DEI as a concept lacks a concrete end goal. How does a DEI practitioner know they’ve succeeded? Who holds them accountable for reaching that target? How is it ensured that these practices don’t fall by the wayside once “completed?” From schools to offices, answers to these questions are muddy at best.
Even so, the complete cessation of DEI is not any kind of solution. Schools and businesses should set clear, data-driven benchmarks, like tracking retention or graduation rates and the number of complaints successfully resolved. Oversight committees to ensure accountability and effectiveness should also be established. This only works if organizations shift from one-off initiatives to permanent policies that have the ability to create lasting change. By improving initiatives in these specific ways, institutions will become more inclusive, efficient, and effective.