John McWhorter predicts that political pushback against DEI won't eliminate the practices. Instead, institutions will simply stop using the "DEI" label overtly. The underlying ideology and goals, such as racial preferences, will persist through new euphemisms and less visible methods, making the change superficial.
Related Insights
Pinterest's CEO reframes the DEI debate by stating it is not in conflict with meritocracy, but a requirement for it. A system that isn't inclusive inherently limits its talent pool, making it less meritorious. By focusing on inclusion, Pinterest gained an "unfair share of great talent" and outperformed competitors.
Faced with a politicized environment, Mercy Corps temporarily removed web pages with terms like 'climate.' The goal was not to abandon the mission, but to find new language to describe their work without triggering political opposition, allowing them to continue engaging stakeholders effectively.
Roy Ratneville vehemently opposes corporate DEI initiatives because they mirror the "standardization" policies in 1970s Sri Lanka. These policies used quotas to favor the majority Sinhalese over minority Tamils in university admissions, a system he views as discriminatory. This personal history frames his rejection of modern race-based preferences.
While President Biden's AI executive order explicitly pushed for DEI, states like Colorado are achieving the same goal using subtler language. By prohibiting 'algorithmic discrimination' and 'disparate impact,' they effectively force AI companies to build DEI-centric bias layers into their models.
DEI initiatives face resistance when historically privileged groups don't understand the systemic barriers ('the fence') others face. Proactively explaining why some need more support ('rocks') is crucial to show it's about fairness, not preferential treatment, ultimately benefiting everyone when the fence is removed.
In just five years, the corporate environment has swung from encouraging open discussion on social issues like race to fearing it. This "whipsaw" is driven by ideological extremes on both sides, making it difficult for leaders to find a rational middle ground for authentic engagement.
John McWhorter argues that while the "peak woke" moment in general society has passed, the ideology has become so deeply rooted in academia and the arts that it's likely "ruined for the duration." The core tenets are passed down through graduate programs and hiring practices, making them difficult to dislodge.
Activism isn't binary. A 'covert' approach involves expressing values through business decisions like partnerships, hiring, or amplified voices. This is a valid, often safer, alternative to direct 'overt' public statements, allowing for a spectrum of engagement based on comfort and capacity.
The new iteration of "woke" is less about confrontation and more about subtle integration into mainstream culture. It makes progressive ideas palatable to a wider audience, achieving cultural penetration without triggering a culture war, a trend dubbed the "evolution of woke."
When leaders resist DEI on moral grounds, reframe it as a business necessity. Connect a diverse workforce to understanding and capturing untapped, diverse customer markets. This shifts the conversation from a perceived cost (subtraction) to a clear business gain (expansion).