Diversity Drama in the US after Trump’s Reelection
Published in Die Tageszeitung
(Germany) on 16 December 2024
by Michaela Dudley (link to original)
(Germany) on 16 December 2024
by Michaela Dudley (link to original)
Translated from
by Fiona Garratt.
Edited by Michelle Bisson.
Diversity programs in the U.S. have been upended since Donald Trump's reelection. What appears horrifying at first is actually an opportunity.
Although Donald Trump's move to the White House is still four weeks away, he is already casting a shadow on what lies ahead. Last Wednesday, the conservative Fifth Circuit struck down Nasdaq’s plan to push for diversity on its U.S. exchange. Nasdaq can no longer require that the 3,300 companies listed on its exchange must have at least one woman or one member of a minority on their boards of directors.
Project 2025, the Republicans’ mega-MAGA plan, looks like it's already in motion. Other U.S. companies are already participating in Project 2025 on their own rather than out of a sense of preemptive obedience.
War is being waged between the proponents of meritocracy – a performance-driven society, abbreviated as MEI for merit, excellence and intelligence – and the advocates of inclusion or DEI for diversity, equity and inclusion. The appeal court’s ruling has secured a victory for the proponents of MEI. And that's a good thing.
Regardless of the actual motives, this shift in direction presents an opportunity rather than a crisis. This is because sustainable promotion of diversity can only exist if we remove the support structures and strive for increased performance.
Back to the 1950s?
The fact that an increasing number of companies are dropping DEI initiatives is further demonstrated by Walmart, the world's largest private employer with 2 million workers. Only four years ago, the big-box retailer was considered a leading light for progressives. After the death of George Floyd, Walmart pledged $100 million to establish the Center for Racial Equity, with the clear intent of combating structural discrimination.
Back then, Walmart said they wanted to create “a culture of belonging: where all our associates feel seen, supported, and able to achieve their full potential.” Since the end of November, the program, once celebrated as forward thinking, is history. Other major players, such as Ford, Boeing and Harley-Davidson, are following suit. Even without a court ruling, they interpret the election results to mean that an increasing number of Americans wish to end the DEI experiment for good.
Progressives fear that rejecting DEI policies will mean reverting to the 1950s, a decade of boom and bigotry. Patriarchal structures led to the systematic preference for white men, and even average performance from white men was used as the yardstick of success.
White Male Mediocrity
Institutional discrimination of other social groups meant that male mediocrity became the social norm, that no one fully realized the potential for true excellence in the life experiences and talents of ethnic minorities, women, queer people, and that no one recognized those that were socially marginalized.
It was precisely those resilient groups that were excluded, groups that had to achieve and endure twice as much under adverse conditions as white men. Similar circumstances exist today, and DEI policies were supposed to mitigate this.
The last few years, however, have shown that the DEI movement is not capable of implementing its goals effectively. Many approaches are mired in unrealistic debate over decolonization. In providing support for marginalized individuals, the focus leans too heavily on victim status while neglecting the development of marketable skills.
More Than Just a Badge of Honor
Consequently, minority groups often serve as tokens of diversity and hollow symbolism. Inclusion is valued on campus and yet Jewish students are exposed to antisemitic hostility. DEI can also mean regression.
The challenge lies in forging unity, not denial. The ultimate question, therefore, is not whether performance outweighs diversity, but how both components can work harmoniously together.
A society must work toward ensuring that all members have an equal opportunity to achieve their individual potential without holding top performers back or casting them as the enemy. Ultimately, it’s not about badges of honor but rather noble goals.
Although Donald Trump's move to the White House is still four weeks away, he is already casting a shadow on what lies ahead. Last Wednesday, the conservative Fifth Circuit struck down Nasdaq’s plan to push for diversity on its U.S. exchange. Nasdaq can no longer require that the 3,300 companies listed on its exchange must have at least one woman or one member of a minority on their boards of directors.
Project 2025, the Republicans’ mega-MAGA plan, looks like it's already in motion. Other U.S. companies are already participating in Project 2025 on their own rather than out of a sense of preemptive obedience.
War is being waged between the proponents of meritocracy – a performance-driven society, abbreviated as MEI for merit, excellence and intelligence – and the advocates of inclusion or DEI for diversity, equity and inclusion. The appeal court’s ruling has secured a victory for the proponents of MEI. And that's a good thing.
Regardless of the actual motives, this shift in direction presents an opportunity rather than a crisis. This is because sustainable promotion of diversity can only exist if we remove the support structures and strive for increased performance.
Back to the 1950s?
The fact that an increasing number of companies are dropping DEI initiatives is further demonstrated by Walmart, the world's largest private employer with 2 million workers. Only four years ago, the big-box retailer was considered a leading light for progressives. After the death of George Floyd, Walmart pledged $100 million to establish the Center for Racial Equity, with the clear intent of combating structural discrimination.
Back then, Walmart said they wanted to create “a culture of belonging: where all our associates feel seen, supported, and able to achieve their full potential.” Since the end of November, the program, once celebrated as forward thinking, is history. Other major players, such as Ford, Boeing and Harley-Davidson, are following suit. Even without a court ruling, they interpret the election results to mean that an increasing number of Americans wish to end the DEI experiment for good.
Progressives fear that rejecting DEI policies will mean reverting to the 1950s, a decade of boom and bigotry. Patriarchal structures led to the systematic preference for white men, and even average performance from white men was used as the yardstick of success.
White Male Mediocrity
Institutional discrimination of other social groups meant that male mediocrity became the social norm, that no one fully realized the potential for true excellence in the life experiences and talents of ethnic minorities, women, queer people, and that no one recognized those that were socially marginalized.
It was precisely those resilient groups that were excluded, groups that had to achieve and endure twice as much under adverse conditions as white men. Similar circumstances exist today, and DEI policies were supposed to mitigate this.
The last few years, however, have shown that the DEI movement is not capable of implementing its goals effectively. Many approaches are mired in unrealistic debate over decolonization. In providing support for marginalized individuals, the focus leans too heavily on victim status while neglecting the development of marketable skills.
More Than Just a Badge of Honor
Consequently, minority groups often serve as tokens of diversity and hollow symbolism. Inclusion is valued on campus and yet Jewish students are exposed to antisemitic hostility. DEI can also mean regression.
The challenge lies in forging unity, not denial. The ultimate question, therefore, is not whether performance outweighs diversity, but how both components can work harmoniously together.
A society must work toward ensuring that all members have an equal opportunity to achieve their individual potential without holding top performers back or casting them as the enemy. Ultimately, it’s not about badges of honor but rather noble goals.
Previous article![]( "A Return to ‘Hard Power’?")
Next article![]( "Drone Panic in the United States: Aliens or Chinese Enemy?")