By Oscar Holmes IV & Julie Kratz
With the rapid uptick of people espousing anti-DEI rhetoric and leaders passing anti-DEI legislation and eliminating DEI programs across the United States, an abundance of articles, news segments, and interviews frame this backlash as being caused by DEI and labeling DEI as “divisive.”
Considering the many anti-DEI laws that have passed, such as Alabama’s Senate Bill 129 and Florida’s House Bill 999/Senate Bill 266, which prohibit spending money on programs that “espouse DEI rhetoric” or “divisive concepts,” it is no surprise that backlash to DEI occurs or that DEI is divisive. What is often missed, however, is nearly every concept can create backlash or be divisive. Take for example the backlash and divisiveness over holiday displays and celebrations, schools’ names and mascots, paper straws, daylight saving time, self-checkout lines, participation trophies, and pumpkin spice products to name a few. There are likely going to be people on at least two sides of every issue.
Nonetheless, in each of these cases, the framing of the issue is critically important. With respect to the high stakes of DEI, it is problematic to frame DEI as the cause of this backlash or that its divisiveness is indicative of malevolence. This framing infers that the problem lies within DEI, hence DEI opponents are justified in their anti-DEI rhetoric and actions.
Why Framing Matters
How a narrative is framed has incredible power in shaping what people believe and how they behave (Ibarra & Barbulescu, 2010; Kraus et al., 2022; LeBoeuf & Shafir, 2003; Levin et al., 1998). Therefore, constantly speaking about DEI backlash or divisiveness normalizes this framing and decreases the likelihood that people identify or discuss more proximal causes. As a result, DEI proponents expend an enormous amount of time and resources attempting to create or change DEI policies and practices to satiate the DEI critics when the reality is the critics will only temporarily be or never be satisfied until DEI policies and programs are completely eliminated. While this diversion is a goal of DEI opponents, DEI proponents who go along with this framing are also unwittingly supporting this goal and undercutting their own pro-DEI efforts.
How to Reframe the Narrative
Instead of talking about DEI backlash or divisiveness, leaders need to reframe conversations to some aspect of “prejudicial/biased attitudes are fueling the desire to strategically target and pass anti-DEI legislation and eliminate DEI policies and practices to hoard opportunities.” This framing not only more accurately identifies the cause of the anti-DEI rhetoric, actions, and legislation, it also changes the narrative of what people would see as “the problem.” In this framing, people would see that prejudicial/biased attitudes and opportunity hoarding should be challenged and addressed, not DEI policies and practices.
DEI policies and practices were created to rectify the government-sanctioned widespread discrimination that existed and systemic oppression that still persists in the United States. This government-sanctioned discrimination afforded extraordinary opportunities and advantages to some social identity group members while creating disadvantages and locking out opportunities for others. The most obvious and consequential advantages and disadvantages were based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and disability status. If the narrative is framed to address the prejudicial/biased attitudes and opportunity hoarding, the conversation would raise questions about how these attitudes can be changed and targeted actions be resisted rather than how DEI policies and practices can be changed or eliminated to acquiesce to these ignoble attitudes and actions.
This framing raises another obvious question as to why would some people not want to rectify historical discrimination and oppression? A large body of research points to the fact that prejudicial/biased attitudes are the real culprit of anti-DEI sentiments (Folberg et al., 2024; Ledgerwood et al., 2011; Son Hing et al., 2011). After the civil rights movement won the passage of significant civil rights legislation, executive orders, and new corporate and governmental DEI policies and practices, social norms shifted to institutionalize DEI policies and practices and make expressing overt prejudice taboo.
Yet, prejudicial/biased attitudes did not simply disappear with these newly won civil rights gains, rather scholars have identified ways in which people have updated their prejudicial attitudes and behaviors to act in a nuanced manner to evade social ostracism (Avery et al., 2018; Brief et al., 2000; Swim et al., 1995). Particularly, people who are high in social dominance orientation, authoritarianism, and who endorse system justifying beliefs are much more likely to oppose DEI efforts in favor of maintaining the status quo. Whereas people with the former two characteristics more readily agree with the legitimacy of status and power hierarchies between social identity groups, people who endorse system justifying beliefs often evade negative social consequences as their beliefs of a just and fair world and meritocratic society appear innocuous and even aspirational.
Nevertheless, system justifying research highlights how endorsing these beliefs play a significant role in maintaining unfair systems of oppression (Eliezer et al., 2011; Jost et al., 2005; Ledgerwood et al., 2011; Son Hing et al., 2011). Since Former President Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign, attacking DEI or “woke” policies and practices has become a more socially acceptable way to maintain systemic advantages, opportunities, and inequities. As we saw with Obama’s first presidential election, ironically, the social norms are shifting again such that overt expressions of prejudice and bias are becoming socially acceptable again. This fact makes the efforts of DEI proponents ever more important and costly when DEI is misframed.
Reframe The “Why” for DEI
To meet the demands of this moment, it is essential that we correct those who frame DEI as the culprit for the backlash, divisiveness, or problem. This narrative helps to erode the social norms whereby prejudicial attitudes and opportunity hoarding are unacceptable behaviors and DEI policies and practices are perceived as vital mechanisms to create our more perfect union and competitive and innovative organizations. As we argue above, reframing the narrative to focus on the prejudicial attitudes and opportunity hoarding will lead us to respond to this moment differently and ask different questions. An additional central question leaders must ask and answer is their “why” for DEI. Though many leaders focus on a business case, many scholars have already argued why this framing falls short and we should move beyond the business case (Ely & Thomas, 2020; Georgeac & Rattan, 2022). Instead, the why should be rooted in some values that the leaders and organizations espouse and the context in which they are situated. The why for DEI could be answers to some of the following questions:
Why was our organization founded and what was the context of that founding?
Why is DEI important to our organization’s mission and who we aspire to be?
Why are certain groups underrepresented in our leadership or workforce?
Why do some employees feel included, and others excluded in our organization and what does that say about us as an organization?
Why does our organization appeal or does not appeal to certain clientele?
Why do some employees resist or feel uncomfortable with DEI policies and practices?
Why do some of our employees adopt a zero-sum mentality with respect to DEI?
Why are we successful in the current system and how, if at all, have we benefited from any system of oppression?
The current framing of the divisiveness and backlash against DEI that positions DEI as the problem is deceptive and counterproductive. This framing ignores the underlying prejudicial attitudes and opportunity hoarding that fuel anti-DEI rhetoric, actions, and legislation. If leaders are serious about creating diverse, equitable, and inclusive environments, then it is past time that we reframe the DEI narrative and focus attention and solutions on the real culprit.
**An abridged version of this article can be read on Psychology Today.
References
Avery, D. R., Volpone, S. D., & Holmes IV, O. (2018). Racial discrimination in organizations. In A. J. Colella & E. B. King (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Workplace Discrimination (pp. 89–109). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199363643.013.8
Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., Cohen, R. R., Pugh, S. D., & Vaslow, J. B. (2000). Just doing business: Modern racism and obedience to authority as explanations for employment discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81(1), 72–97.
Eliezer, D., Townsend, S. S. M., Sawyer, P. J., Major, B., & Mendes, W. B. (2011). System-justifying beliefs moderate the relationship between perceived discrimination and resting blood pressure. Social Cognition, 29(3), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2011.29.3.303
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2020). Getting serious about diversity: Enough already with the business case. Harvard Business Review, 98(6), 114–122.
Georgeac, O. A. M., & Rattan, A. (2022). The Business Case for Diversity Backfires: Detrimental Effects of Organizations’ Instrumental Diversity Rhetoric for Underrepresented Group Members’ Sense of Belonging. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(1), 69–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000394
Jost, J. T., Kivetz, Y., Rubini, M., Guermandi, G., & Mosso, C. (2005). System-justifying functions of complementary regional and ethnic stereotypes: Cross-national evidence. Social Justice Research, 18(3), 305–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-005-6827-z
Ledgerwood, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Jost, J. T., & Pohl, M. J. (2011). Working for the system: Motivated defense of meritocratic beliefs. Social Cognition, 29(2), 322–340.
Son Hing, L. S., Bobocel, D. R., Zanna, M. P., Garcia, D. M., Gee, S. S., & Orazietti, K. (2011). The merit of meritocracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 433–450.
Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 199–214.
Bios
Oscar Holmes IV, PhD, SHRM-SCP is an associate professor of management at Rutgers University-Camden, founder of WHConsulting Firm, and the creator and host of the podcast Diversity Matters. In his research he examines how leaders can maximize productivity and well-being by fostering more inclusive workplaces. His research has been published in several top-tier management journals and books and featured in various media outlets.
Comments