Recently, the acronym “DEI” took over some debates and became the target of criticism from the far right and conservative groups in the United States. DEI is an abbreviation for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, and refers to a set of practices, strategies and objectives that seek to promote a more inclusive and equitable environment in different spheres of society.

In this sense, the diversity highlighted in the acronym is the representation of individuals from different origins, identities and experiences. This includes, but is not limited to, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, physical abilities, religion, and socioeconomic status. This concept is valued because it brings a variety of perspectives, ideas and experiences that can enrich the work environment and higher education.

Equity, on the other hand, refers to ensuring that everyone has access to the same opportunities. This means recognizing that not everyone has the same access to material and cultural goods and therefore may need different resources or support to achieve greater possibilities. Inclusion is the practice of ensuring that everyone feels valued, respected and supported. Involving the creation of an environment where people can fully participate and contribute to their maximum potential.

Some companies link DEI practices to their business strategies. This can be applied to hiring and promoting employees, in addition to adopting accessibility policies. It also includes creating diversity support groups and training to minimize unconscious bias.

According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, 61% of American adults confirm that their workplaces have implemented DEI policies when hiring, promoting, or paying salaries. In the university context, DEI can include admitting and supporting students from diverse backgrounds, incorporating diverse voices and perspectives into the curriculum, and establishing an inclusive and welcoming campus environment. In other words, this can manifest itself in offering scholarships to low-income people, hiring specialized teachers and creating support programs for first-generation students.

Although DEI is recognized as a valuable and necessary practice, it has been the subject of criticism and resistance by Republican politicians. Critics argue that diversity policies generate “reverse discrimination”, where members of historically privileged groups may be disadvantaged. Others claim that these practices would limit freedom of expression and force people to adhere to certain norms and ideals. Additionally, there is a wave of anti-DEI policies in some regions of the United States. These policies, often enacted at the state level, seek to limit or prohibit the implementation of DEI practices at various institutions.

Three states considered politically conservative, Florida, Texas and Utah, have already passed bans on DEI in higher education and public office. Following a ban on state spending on these programs, the University of Florida closed its Chief Diversity Officer office. Something similar occurred at the University of Texas at Austin, where the ban forced the campus to stop providing services to students.

The anti-DEI movements began with demonstrations by conservative institutes and personalities. Still in July 2023, a member of the Manhattan Institute and conservative activist wrote an article in The New York Times charging that DEI programs have hindered liberal education. Other conservative figures also shared similar views, such as Ryan P. Williams, president of the Claremont Institute, and billionaire investors Bill Ackman and Elon Musk.

Florida became the first state to ban diversity, equity and inclusion policies. Also in May 2023, Governor Ron DeSantis signed legislation prohibiting public universities and colleges from funding inclusion programs. Subsequently, Texas, North Carolina and North Dakota passed similar laws and, in 2024, other states joined the initiative, such as Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Alabama.

In Texas, in February 2023, Governor Greg Abbott sent a letter to institutions warning that DEI practices violated some state and federal laws. In June of the same year, the government sanctioned the law that prohibits educational institutions from maintaining inclusion practices and came into force on January 1, 2024.

According to information from NBC News, in addition to these three, twenty other states had anti-DEI policies presented at the legislative level and in 8 more states these laws were approved in at least one chamber.

The impact of these policies on the population

Anti-DEI policies, by eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs, directly affect marginalized communities, including black, LGBTQIA+ and Latinx populations. According to the Pew Research Center, black workers are more likely than those from other racial and ethnic groups saying their employer pays little attention to the rise in DEI. Resulting in less inclusive work environments and limited opportunities for advancement.

LGBTQIA+ communities may have limited access to resources at universities and private companies. With the implementation of anti-DEI laws, public universities in some states are closing and restructuring centers that previously explicitly supported LGBTQIA+ students, depriving these students of important resources and preventing the creation of a more welcoming environment.

However, it is in the Latino population that the consequences of these policies are felt most acutely. Although there is an increase in enrollment of Latinos in higher education institutions, the achievement of university degrees by this group still does not keep pace with white students.

In Texas, for example, UT Austin was only able to enroll enough Hispanic undergraduate students to qualify as a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) in 2021, 138 years after its founding. To be an HSI, at least 25% of the student population full-time must be Latin. However, more than 40% of Texans are Hispanic, slightly outnumbering non-Latino whites.

Programs and events have been eliminated, including the closure of the UT Austin Multicultural Engagement Center and Latinx Graduation. “These are politically and ideologically motivated actions,” said Antonio Flores, president of Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. These policies are eliminating tools that help Hispanic students enroll and graduate.

Thus, anti-DEI policies create barriers for Black, LGBTQIA+, and Latinx populations, limiting their access to opportunities and resources. However, despite constant attacks from political groups, many institutions remain committed to promoting DEI. They are seeking new ways to promote diversity, equity and inclusion despite ideological attacks.

The new Supreme Court ruling and its effect on DEI policies

Finally, it is worth highlighting the Supreme Court's decision on the Muldrow case, made in April 2024. In the event in question, Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, a police sergeant in Saint Louis, Missouri, filed a lawsuit against the city under civil rights law, alleging that she was discriminated against when she was reassigned in favor of a man.

The lower courts did not accept the action, arguing that, as she did not suffer a change in salary or significant damages, judicial compensation was not warranted. However, in the last decision of the Supreme Court, they understood that reparation would be necessary, as long as there was any damage.

This decision by the North American judiciary places DEI policies in an ambiguous situation. Some lawyers assess that, although the decision is correct, it could contribute to all those who feel disrespected or discriminated against by inclusion policies applied in the job market, or in universities. Thus putting at risk these practices that are already under strong attack.

Efforts to promote Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, aiming to provide more opportunities and fair access to minorities, are being questioned across the country, especially by Republican and conservative legislators. They argue that such programs are discriminatory and attempt to address racial discrimination to the detriment of other disadvantaged groups.