Just Sayin’: Has diversity, equity & inclusion strayed from its intent?

Annette HubbellPress ReviewsLeave a Comment

By Harvey Levine

PUBLISHED: December 17, 2024 at 1:10 PM PST

San Diego Union Tribune and Poway Chieftain

Might some efforts to institutionalize diversity and equity be a source of irritation and resentment? While the professed goals of DEI bear merit, some of the results of DEI efforts have actually worsened the problems that it intends to address.

Some of this can be attributed to the extreme political positioning of the public, creating a deep crevice too broad to bridge. Another common flaw ensues from excessive application of authority where DEI zealots have gotten carried away with their license to protect certain minorities.

As an example of the latter, you should read an essay by my fellow journalist and political debating colleague, Jan Goldsmith, recently published in the Union-Tribune (12/5/24). The subject is a misguided decision by administrators of the San Diego County Library in March 2023 to deny permission to a local professional white actress to portray the renowned escaped slave and Underground Railroad activist, Harriet Tubman, in a brief solo presentation.

This action, endorsed by the County’s Diversity & Inclusion Executive Council, posited that the Black community might have an issue with a White person portraying someone of color. Goldsmith quotes a library spokesperson as fearing that “the performance’s potential impact may not be culturally sensitive to some customers.”

Apparently, the county disregarded the long history of theatrical presentations where characters were played by persons of different races and genders than the persons that they portray. This is still being done. Look at the success of “Hamilton.” In addition, attending such a performance is optional, so no one is forcibly or intentionally offended.

What is offensive is this kind of narrow-minded thinking. It injects prejudices into the application of the various Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) initiatives that are commonplace in our schools, other government operations, and several businesses.t

DEI programs were created to assure that minority groups were not denied fair treatment by these organizations. Diversity embraces different races, genders, sexual orientation, religions and people with disabilities. The Diversity concept, as promoted, is to champion Inclusion

Diversity, when we weaponize Identity, can be divisive. At the extreme, it is likely to actually prevent Inclusion of anyone who might be identified as a person outside the protected group. These efforts, whether deliberate or not, essentially divide us into oppressors and those who are oppressed. How does that help to bring us together as a cohesive society?

Equity provides assurances that opportunities are not denied to any groups, and, when reasonable, builds an environment where programs aimed at building opportunities for disadvantaged people are available.

Within this concept, there would be no reason to object to DEI implementations. Yet, in both the public and private sectors, DEI is coming under attack. In the name of fighting racism and gender identity, particularly, many DEI implementations have created a “them against us” atmosphere where identity has become a cause for reverse discrimination. 

Why is it necessary to illuminate identity and use it as a factor for pre-judging an individual’s character and culture? Why are we using race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion to separate individuals by class, rather than mute the supposed differences? 

Is it proper for a San Diego City councilmember to declare that the council president must be a person of color so that lingering racial issues can be adequately addressed? This did happen. Or does the County Board of Supervisors need to be led by a Latino, for similar reasons? Should any positions be earmarked for BIPOC, non-white, non-male, etc.?

During the past decade, government, school, and commercial institutions have installed DEI departments, supposedly as a means of confronting underlying biases that could favor so-called people of privilege. However, excesses and misguided decisions such as by the San Diego County Library, have worked against this objective.

Furthermore, many DEI efforts may be viewed as affirmative action, which is prohibited by California State law (Prop. 209, 1996).

In the name of Diversity, is identity being used as a means to divide us, rather than to remove the factors of differentiation? If we want to see real diversity and inclusion, we should be embracing the erasure of artificial lines. In such a world, we will not raise an eyebrow when we see a blended family or some kids with two moms or dads. In such a world, there is no “chosen” religion, or attributing lesser righteousness and values to anyone who chooses to be secular. 

We cannot ignore the vivid fact that there are massive inequities in our communities, and that special efforts are needed to advance opportunities for underserved people. This can be done without creating an environment in which everyone is defined by their “identity factors.” 

DEI programs are intended to open doors, not to close them.

A Rancho Bernardo resident, Levine is a retired project management consultant and the author of three books on the subject.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *