Sherry Peng

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI): three words that have pushed so many together and others far apart. An organizational structure that promotes the fair treatment of the underprivileged individuals who want to dream as big as the privileged ones. In the recent several years, this term has caused insane amounts of controversy, from the Trump administration being heavily vocal about their detest for any company or government organization using DEI to structure itself to the Biden administration being a strong proponent for the addition of DEI to all corporate and government structures. On the surface, it is weird to see such polarizing views around three words that seem so positive and uplifting. Diversity, a difference of opinion from individuals with different upbringings and backgrounds. Equity, providing a fair playing field for individuals throughout the entire income chain. Inclusion, a zero-tolerance policy for discrimination and outpouring of personal feelings of stereotypes onto others. DEI intended to increase the quantity and quality of opportunities underprivileged groups had access to across the whole economy and spanning into every industry.

The premise is simple: the quality of life and access to resources range so vastly among every individual in the United States, making it more difficult for some to succeed than others. There is just a struck of luck that hit some individuals who are born into wealthy families, compared to others born into deep poverty. The focus is inherently differently for both of these families; while Emily’s parents might be hounding her to prepare for her 1500 SAT goal from the age of 13, Lisa’s parents might be using their last tired breath to shamefully ask for her to knock door to door to bring home some bread and meat for their next meal. For dramatically different “initial” conditions one can be born into, it is with great reason that a systemic shift towards shifting the underprivileged closer to the privileged may be heavily considered and encouraged. Everyone deserves an opportunity to dream and to have the resources to achieve that dream. DEI sprouts from this very inspiring goal. Post-2020, DEI went from being a widely talked about structure to being widespread in corporate culture. Corporate culture refers generally to how companies, typically associated with large and prevalent ones, treat their employees and harbor different work environments. We started seeing billion-dollar companies like Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and many more start DEI-focused leadership teams on establishing this structure across all of their departments and teams. The goal for all of these companies was the same: promote differences and get rid of individual-driven and systemic discrimination all together. 

Historically, fair treatment and full participation of all individuals has been the goal in many civil rights movements of the mid-20th century. The most significant outcome, arguably, was the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a major turning point for America in stopping previously legal discrimination. This landmark law outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national religion in public establishment s and government agencies that receive federal funding, in addition to encouraging desegregation of public schools. Finally, the most relevant and referred to section today is the prohibition of employment discrimination, Title VII. In fact, Title VII makes up a big portion of the legal foundation for most corporate DEI programs. The impact of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was huge, as it legally ended cold and viscous racism and sexism. It showed Americans that the U.S. government was aware of the power of law; Title VII led to the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to enforce these federal workplace anti-discrimination laws. 

Now that we understand the basis and goals of DEI programs, what success have we witnessed in said underprivileged groups from DEI directly? Little to none. It depends on how you define success and progress. It is not doubt that we have seen dramatic increase in racial and gender diversity in previously male and white dominated fields. However, how much of this is due to DEI program implementations vs. tangible contributions and resources given to these communities from other organizations? In any large-scale operation, we always want to define two things: success and incentives. Success from DEI programs has always been to promote fair participation from different voices. The incentives from DEI programs has always been to do good for every individual, and thus for humanity’s growth and development. This is how initiatives started, but fast forward to post-2020, these definitions have dramatically shifted. “The DEI spending of 2020 and 2021 was a signal sent from executives to workers that the bosses are good people who value DEI, a signal executives sent because many workers valued it. Put another way, the outlays were symbolic. At best, they symbolized something like ‘We care and we’re willing to spend money to prove it.’ But don’t results matter more than intention?” (Friedersdorf). While DEI’s origin story is rooted in legal triumphs and notable goals, the reality of DEI in practice around modern corporate environments is a hollowed-out version of the original vision. Instead of dismantling structural barriers and learning about and navigating through individual and community struggles, the focus has shifted to protecting brand image, satisfying public expectations, and fitting in with compliances and other companies doing the same. Corporate DEI programs today focus more on appearance than real progress, failing to create lasting change for women and other underrepresented groups.

What once always stood as justice and a strive for rightful-doing now stands on the foundations of marketing and company longevity. Companies are never not in war with each other to takeover the market. These wars have conventionally been seen as stealing or hijacking competitors, lying to consumers, and evading authorities. Now, it’s more subtle, but arguably stronger and more impactful than the latter. As young people started fighting for more inclusion in society, companies quickly started implementing DEI leadership teams to align with their agendas. The politicized nature of DEI programs largely lead to this, as a huge divide came for the usefulness and morals of such system. Thus, the growth snowballed, as every company wanted to draw positive light and attract talented individuals and venture capitalists eager to invest in progressive brands. It was plain as day how generic every large company’s inclusion campaigns were, using emotional and “good samaritan” words and marketing to publicize their new efforts internally and externally. Companies work day and night to master the mind of a consumer in order to further target them to place an order with them. Now, they want us to believe that they care about the racial and gender makeup of their employees, and we are falling for their intricately planned campaigns. From running advertisements and social media marketing highlighting their new dedication to furthering diversity with many companies rolling these out at the same time is not a coincidence.

A great question to ask is: Why do the intentions of companies or individuals matter if they are still promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion? The premise of this question is only that they are promoting DEI values, but does not refer to the execution, longevity, or effectiveness to their methodology. In fact, neglecting the actual impact of your DEI programs and instead focusing on the marketing and appearance to investors and customers undermines the very heart and purpose of the core values DEI aimed to fulfill and the organizations and regulation that are genuinely focused on strategies to provide equal opportunities to underserved groups for long-term success. Because of these generic and bland repeats of the same media uploads, people have become numb to the actual problems that are still prevalent and some believe that these companies are at the forefront of a solution. Yes, these companies are increasing outreach of positive messaging, but are damaging the reputation of compassion and action-oriented solutions. Women and underprivileged groups are let down by the grand vision companies portray and claim they have and in turn, are more disappointed and frustrated than pre-DEI. The power that these large companies hold is major, and their influence on people of all ages, especially kids, older adults, and vulnerable populations is undeniable. Therefore, the glitter on top of the empty gaping hole in the ground is a trap for real change in the system. 

But, there are numbers to show that corporate DEI programs DO work!

This is one of the major tools companies use to display “success.” Numbers show what someone wants you to see. For example, if I am running an organization and want to showcase the Asian-heritage inclusion in my team, which may or may not be real, I can go out and quickly recruit a couple of Asian people. My report can now accurately read, “50% of Sherry’s Mango Company comes from an Asian background. Our team has had a 30% increase in Asian team members in the last month.” This is the problem with numbers. They show quantity, but not quality. Quantity and huge numbers on a screen is what we are all used to seeing in breaking news and important research. We associate numbers and percentages with honesty and integrity. However, diversity, inclusion, and equity is not a “yes” or “no” statement nor a “check this box” requirement. It’s holistic, time-dependent, and exponentially increasing in value over time. In fact, mandatory diversity trainings or other restructures actually may lead to more animosity toward other groups afterward. In a research study from the University of Toronto, they found when people felt pressure to agree with a brochure critiquing prejudice toward Blacks, the reading strengthened their bias against Blacks; when the read and their opinion was voluntary, the reading reduced bias (Dobbin, Kalev). Displaying impact in DEI programs requires long-term follow ups and a combination of qualitative and quantitative data. Currently, the data companies show the public usually are on the percentage and/or percentage increase of a certain racial ethnicity or gender within their team. What they neglect to show is how these people they are using for their publicity are actually being provided the proper resources to be promoted and climb the steps in the company. 

Do people whose life mission is to keep funds in the bank truly care about the impact of their DEI programs? Intersectionality is a term coined in 1989 by Kimberly Crenshaw, a legal scholar and feminist. It establishes that an individual’s race, gender, class, cultural upbringing, and other unique experiences and traits intersect and overlap, establishing unique experiences of discrimination and privilege in different aspects of society. For example, a company may promote a Women for STEM program, but may be attracting white women 95% of the time. This is indirectly excluding minority women, while seemingly complying with DEI stances. Intersectionality describes how mistreatment can be more subtle, like setting the workplace up for male or white success and not including the many other “intersections” of people.

These exclusions within inclusion makes it incredibly difficult to build a DEI program that attempts to give underprivileged people more opportunities. This is extremely documented in the success earned by Asian Americans. According to Pew Research Center, half of all Asians 25 or older have a bachelor’s degree. Additionally, Asians earn a higher household median income, $85,500, $20,000 higher than all U.S. households (Song). In fact, despite making up 10% of the workforce, Asians make up 17% of all S.T.E.M. workers and have a higher representation in all high-paying S.T.E.M. clusters (Song). Specifically, at UC Santa Barbara, over 40% of students majoring in microbiology, computer science, computer engineering, and more are Asian American (Song). Despite this crazy and inspiring success that started in the late 1900’s and early 2000’s with larger numbers of Asian immigration, companies have seemed to ignore this feat and continue pushing DEI values excluding Asians. This is extremely disheartening because these figures represent the very goals that DEI originally set out to achieve: an increase in representation in academia, science, and valuable opportunities. Yet, instead of celebrating this progress as sa blueprint to address the deeper, overlapping barriers faced by other marginalized groups, companies stop here and head back to square one with superficial advertisements featuring amazing sounding dreams they never have a plan for achieving.

It is crystal clear what someone’s true agenda is based on their actions, not their words. Even McKinsey & Company, one of the largest consulting firms in the world, says that “at the current pace, it would take 22 years for White women to reach parity—and more than twice as long for women of color” (Krivkovich). At its core, DEI was never the enemy or problem. Its emergence was the result of decades of mistreatment and discrimination towards minorities in every aspect of life. However, we’ve seen again and again that this specific structure in corporate America has diluted the aspirations of the origins of DEI with careless generalizations and a primary focus on image gain. The lack of thought and focus on impact companies have shown with their DEI programs in the past decade do not just miss the point of diversity and inclusion, but they fail everyone who believed in the ambitious and essential mission to include all from different backgrounds. We don’t need another last-minute diversity panel, another lazy Linkedin post, or buzzwords on the company website. We need companies to use their power and influence to build systems and solutions that target the source of the racial disparity. Whether that is in investing in specific tech education at the elementary or middle school level or setting up resources for specific teams that enforce and overlook the perks (mentorship, long-term career planning, etc) that specific underrepresented employees get access to. Corporate DEI doesn’t work because it treats checking a box as the end goal. Instead, companies need to focus on the holistic problem, see each person as a unique individual, and tackle the current disparities as an ongoing and strategic commitment. You can’t solve systemic issues with symbolic gestures. Corporate DEI was flawed from the start because it prioritized perception over the actual development of skill and talent over time.