Not a new topic, I know, but one that that went to the front of the queue today when looking at proposed DoD appropriations. In addition to some other objectionable portions, House republicans zeroed in on DEI programs. Specifically, SEC. 8155. States:
None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to implement, administer, apply, enforce, or carry out the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Strategic Plan of the Department of Defense, or Executive Order 13985 of January 20, 2021 (86 Fed. Reg. 7009, relating to advancing racial equity and support for under-served communities through the Federal Government), Executive Order 14035 of June 25, 2021 (86 Fed. Reg. 34593, relating to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the Federal workforce), Executive Order 14091 of February 16, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 10825, relating to further advancing racial equity and support for underserved communities through the Federal government), or shall be used to execute activities that promote or perpetuate divisive concepts related to race or sex, such as the concepts that one race or sex is inherently superior to another, or that an individual’s moral character or worth is determined by their race or sex.
This is far from the only objectionable thing offered, but it’s the one that motivated me to write something. Let’s start with the last part, after the “or,” which implies that the DEI efforts described in the first portion serve the purpose of establishing “that one race or sex is inherently superior to another, or that an individual’s moral character or worth is determined by their race or sex.” This is patently false. The point of DEI programs is exactly the opposite, as evidenced by the words used (diversity, equity, and inclusion). Here’s some quick definitions (via for those who aren’t familiar with the terms:
Diversity (noun)
1: the condition of having or being composed of differing elements: VARIETY
especially: the inclusion of people of different races (see RACE entry 1 sense 1a), cultures, etc. in a group or organization
programs intended to promote diversity in schools
2: an instance of being composed of differing elements or qualities: an instance of being diverse
a diversity of opinion
Equity (noun)
1a: justice according to natural law or right
specifically: freedom from bias or favoritism
b: something that is equitable
2a: the money value of a property or of an interest in a property in excess of claims or liens against it
b: the common stock of a corporation
c: a risk interest or ownership right in property
d: a right, claim, or interest existing or valid in equity
3a: a system of law originating in the English chancery and comprising a settled and formal body of legal and procedural rules and doctrines that supplement, aid, or override common and statute law and are designed to protect rights and enforce duties fixed by substantive law
b: trial or remedial justice under or by the rules and doctrines of equity
c: a body of legal doctrines and rules developed to enlarge, supplement, or override a narrow rigid system of law
Inclusion (noun)
1: the act of including: the state of being included
2: something that is included: such as
a: a gaseous, liquid, or solid foreign body enclosed in a mass (as of a mineral)
b: a passive usually temporary product of cell activity (such as a starch grain) within the cytoplasm or nucleus
3: the act or practice of including students with disabilities with the general student population
Inclusion refers to a variety of integration approaches, but the goal is to blend special education students into the traditional classroom.
—Suevon Lee
—sometimes used before a noun
an inclusion classroom/school
4: the act or practice of including and accommodating people who have historically been excluded (as because of their race, gender, sexuality, or ability)
… academic libraries have traditionally struggled to address problems of equity, diversity and inclusion. The low representation of people of color in library staff has been a particular shortcoming, despite many initiatives to attract minority staff to the field.
—Lindsay McKenzie
Tech workers say they are more interested in diversity and are more willing to work to promote inclusion in their workplace …
—Jessica Guynn
Meaningful civic inclusion even now eludes many of our fellow citizens who are recognizably of African descent.
—Glenn C. Loury
5 mathematics: a relation between two classes (see CLASS sense 3c) that exists when all members of the first class are also members of the second
(If anyone is wondering why I included definitions that obviously aren’t applicable, it’s because one of my more disingenuous colleagues once tried to argue that equity has so many meanings that it’s impossible to know what anyone means when they use the word. It’s clear what these words mean in context, and any attempt to claim confusion is indicative of either dishonesty or stupidity. But I digress.)
Diversity is being composed of different elements, equity is justice, and inclusion means accommodating those that have historically been excluded. It is not logically possible to derive from these words that DEI programs are designed to create division. To make that claim is patently dishonest. Anti-DEI efforts are founded in white supremacism, since it is the white (primarily male) demographic in this country that has historically (and still does presently) held disproportionate power and influence.
These budgetary attacks against DEI programs are openly bigoted, yet somehow claim to be anti-bigotry. How? In some twisted logic, opponents claim that fostering inclusive environments is anti-white, anti-male, and anti-cis. Support for these arguments normally comes in the form of demographic quotas that push otherwise qualified white/male/cis candidates to make room for unqualified minority demographics. (Women aren’t technically a minority in the population, but they are underrepresented in job fields.) A couple of problems here: 1) there isn’t evidence of widespread displacement of qualified candidates for unqualified minority candidates as claimed; 2) this position presumes that white/male/cis candidates are inherently more qualified than other candidates, which is demonstrably false and rooted in white supremacy.
This budget proposal is DOA, but the fact that republicans would even make such bizarro-world claims about DEI is beyond appalling. White supremacist republicans should stop being cowards and openly own their white supremacy. republicans, own your bigotry. Say you don’t want non-white/male/cis faces and voices in public. Announce proudly that you are against just treatment for all. Boldy proclaim that you want to continue to exclude those that have been excluded. It won’t make your position any less repugnant, but art least it will be honest.
The View from the Armchair 