Despite the perceived backlash against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts, DEI does not appear to be going away. Organizations are either doubling down or others who were never serious to begin with might be abandoning it altogether, studies show.

• Ninety-seven percent of companies have at least one DEI initiative.
• Eighty-five percent have a dedicated DEI budget.
• Eighty-two percent of U.S. organizations are measuring the business impacts of DEI.
• Seventy-eight percent prioritized DEI more than the previous year, with 45% foreseeing increasing their DEI budget in the next financial year (up from 35% in 2023)

“Even with DEI backlash, the imperative has not changed. The U.S. is becoming more diverse, and businesses need to stay relevant globally,” said Craig Welsh, head of traditional and non-traditional distribution at Westfield Insurance.

Whether the DEI acronym stays or is replaced, or companies focus on inclusion and belonging to avoid backlash, the work does not change. It will take senior leaders supporting DEI and standing up to naysayers who are part of the backlash for DEI to be successful long-term. Welsh explains, “I’m often in rooms with other older white men and find opportunities to surface issues of inclusion. For instance, if someone says people are being oversensitive to diversity issues, I can use my voice to question them and present a different viewpoint. I realize I’m heard differently in those situations because I’m also a part of that dominant group. It’s one small step [toward] being a better ally.”

Encouraging allyship at the highest level of organizations, especially for those with privilege and power, is critical to the long-term success of DEI. Somewhat ironically, the backlash is occurring because DEI efforts are succeeding; with any positive social change, backlash is likely to occur. Rae Vann, head of labor and employment for Wayfair, spoke at the Society for Human Resource Management’s 2024 conference about the following DEI practices that may cause backlash:

• DEI programs that encourage hiring and promotion of underrepresented individuals
• Diversity training that portrays White individuals as the “bad guys”
• Individual suits by employees who lose their jobs or are denied a promotion and complain they were replaced by someone because of diversity goals
• Shareholder or activist lawsuits targeting corporate DEI policies or initiatives, or efforts by state government leaders to clamp down on DEI programs in public education and employment

Concern #1: Hiring Quotas

Although DEI quotas can help level the playing field for historically marginalized groups, and help to send a message that a company is committed to diversity and inclusion, they may also be seen as discriminatory. When a company sets aside a certain number of positions for members of a particular group, it can send the message that these groups are not qualified to compete on their own merits. Quotas can lead to resentment among employees who feel that they were not hired based on their qualifications, and they can be difficult to implement and enforce. It can be challenging to determine who is eligible for a quota position and how to measure the effectiveness of a quota program.

Concern #2: “Bad Guy” Training

Shaming people into feeling like the “bad guy” is not a helpful tactic in DEI training programs because it can lead to feelings of inadequacy, guilt and defensiveness, which can make it difficult for participants to learn and grow. Additionally, shame can create a hostile environment where people are afraid to speak up and share their experiences. This can hinder the goals of a DEI training program because when people feel ashamed, they may be less likely to take risks, ask questions, or challenge their own assumptions. This can make it difficult for them to learn new information and develop new skills.

Concern #3: Diversity Tokenism

Promoting people solely based on their diversity carries potential risks that organizations need to consider:

1. The Perception of Unqualified Candidates: When the focus is solely on diversity, there is a risk of promoting individuals who may not be the most qualified or experienced for the role. This can lead to inefficiencies, lower productivity and decreased employee morale.
2. Tokenism: Promoting people from diverse backgrounds solely to fulfill diversity quotas can lead to the perception of tokenism. This can undermine the credibility of the organization’s commitment to diversity and inclusion and devalue the achievements of those who have genuinely earned their positions.
3. Lack of Meritocracy: When promotions are not based on merit and qualifications, it can create a sense of unfairness and resentment among employees who have consistently demonstrated their capabilities. This can erode motivation, hinder employee engagement and contribute to a toxic work environment.
4. Lack of Long-Term Commitment: If promotions are driven primarily by diversity goals without considering the long-term implications, it can result in a lack of commitment from the promoted individuals. They may not genuinely identify with the organization’s values and goals, leading to higher turnover rates and a lack of sustained engagement.
5. Limited Opportunities for Growth: Promoting people based solely on diversity may limit their opportunities for growth and development. When individuals are promoted without the necessary skills and experience, they may struggle to perform effectively in their new roles, hindering their career progression in the long run.

Concern #4: Public Education Overstep

Due to 2023’s SCOTUS ruling against affirmative action, higher-education institutions face a complex and evolving legal landscape when it comes to supporting diversity. Colleges and universities must be careful not to discriminate against students or employees based on race, gender, religion and other protected characteristics, while also not basing admission decisions on these identities. This impacts organizations in higher education specifically and organizations that do business with the government in conservative states with anti-DEI legislation. While laws haven’t been written that limit organizations from doing DEI work, corporate attorneys are nervous with the legal precedent that’s been set at higher ed and in some state governments like Utah, Florida and Texas.

Hiring quotas, “bad guy” training, diversity tokenism and public-education overstep will continue to be issues for organizations navigating the tricky waters of DEI. To protect the work and stay legal, stay the course and mitigate these risks to weather the backlash successfully.