Diversity, equity, and inclusion

An extended version of the DEI concept, known as "diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility" (DEIA, IDEA, or DEAI), explicitly names accessibility as one of the aspects to be paid attention to in frameworks and policies that aim at the fair treatment and full participation of all. The concepts of DEI predate the terminology, and variations sometimes include terms such as "belonging", "justice", and "accessibility". As such, frameworks such as "inclusion and diversity" (I&D); "diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging" (DEIB); and "justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion" (JEDI or EDIJ) exist. In the United Kingdom, the term "equality, diversity, and inclusion" (EDI) is used in a similar way. ==History in the United States==

Early history Early DEI efforts included preferential hiring and treatment of veterans of the US Civil War, their widows, and orphans, in 1865. In 1876, this was amended to give preference to veterans during a Reduction in Force. In 1921 and 1929, executive orders by presidents Coolidge and Harding established ten-point preference for veterans towards exams and hiring criteria for federal employment. In 1944, the Veterans' Preference Act codified the previous executive orders, clarified criteria, and included special hiring provisions for disabled veterans. Later amendments added veterans from conflicts after World War II, special provisions for the mothers of disabled or deceased veterans, and job-specific training for veterans entering the federal or private workforce. In 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Randolph-Sheppard Act, which mandated the federal government to give preference to purchase products made by the blind, and established the Committee on Purchases of Blind Made Products. The 1971 Javits–Wagner–O'Day Act expanded the Randolph-Sheppard act and changed the name to The Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (now AbilityOne). Blind-made products are used throughout the federal government, and include brands such as Skillcraft, ARC Diversified, Austin Lighthouse, and Ability One. Other DEI policies include Affirmative Action. The legal term "affirmative action" was first used in "Executive Order No. 10925", signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961, which included a provision that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated [fairly] during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin". It was used to promote actions that achieve non-discrimination. In September 1965, President Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to "hire without regard to race, religion and national origin" and "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin". The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Neither executive order nor The Civil Rights Act authorized group preferences. The Senate floor manager of the bill, Senator Hubert Humphrey, declared that the bill "would prohibit preferential treatment for any particular group" adding "I will eat my hat if this leads to racial quotas". More recently, concepts have moved beyond discrimination to include diversity, equity, and inclusion as motives for preferring historically underrepresented groups. In the famous Bakke decision of 1978, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, diversity became a constitutional law factor. The Supreme Court ruled that racial quotas were illegal, but it was allowable to consider race as a plus factor when trying to foster "diversity" in their classes. 1980s Diversity themes gained momentum in the mid-1980s. At a time when President Ronald Reagan discussed dismantling equality and affirmative action laws in the 1980s, equality and affirmative action professionals employed by American firms along with equality consultants engaged in establishing the argument that a diverse workforce should be seen as a competitive advantage rather than just as a legal constraint. Their message was not to promote diversity because it is a legal mandate but because it is good for business. From then on, researchers started to test a number of hypotheses on the business benefits of diversity and diversity management, known as the business case of diversity. 1990s In 1990, President George H. W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, and imposes accessibility requirements on public accommodations. President Bill Clinton signed the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act in 1998. It helps eligible veterans access federal job opportunities by allowing them to compete for positions typically open only to current federal employees and by reinforcing veterans' preference in hiring. It also protects veterans from discrimination in federal employment and provides a process for addressing violations of their rights. Since 2000 By 2003, corporations spent $8 billion annually on diversity. In 2009, in response to calls for the US government to do more for disabled veterans returning from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Barack Obama signed executive order 13518, which established the Veterans Employment Initiative to enhance recruitment and retention of veterans in the federal workforce by creating a comprehensive framework to support their transition into civilian employment. It directed federal agencies to increase veteran hiring (especially disabled veterans), set goals for improvement, and establish the Veterans Employment Program Office to provide assistance and resources for veterans in civilian employment. In 2011, Obama signed Executive Order 13583 concerning diversity and inclusion. Within academia, a 2019 survey found that spending on DEI efforts had increased 27 percent over the five preceding academic years. In support of DEI hiring during the first term of Donald Trump, the Office of Civil Rights of the Federal Aviation Authority FAA on Thursday, April 11, 2019, announced a pilot program to help prepare people with disabilities for careers in air traffic operations, which identifies specific opportunities for people with targeted disabilities, to facilitate their entry into a more "diverse and inclusive" workforce in a standard public opening for air traffic controller jobs at the Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) with the potential to be appointed to a temporary ATCS position at the FAA Academy. A 2020 estimate by Global Industry Analysts placed the size of the global diversity and inclusion market at $7.5 billion, of which $3.4 billion was in the United States. Global Industry Analysts projected that the global market would reach $17.2 billion by 2027. In 2021, Joe Biden signed several executive orders concerning DEI, including Executive Order 13985 and Executive Order 14035. In 2021, New York magazine stated that "the business became astronomically larger than ever" after the murder of George Floyd in May 2020. The Economist has also stated that surveys of international companies indicate that the number of people hired for jobs with "diversity" or "inclusion" in the title more than quadrupled since 2010. In 2023, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected affirmative action regarding race in college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. The Court held that affirmative action programs "lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful endpoints. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today". As of 2024, affirmative action in the United States had been increasingly replaced by emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion, while nine states explicitly banned affirmative action use in the employment process. In 2024 and 2025, several large American companies scaled back or ended their DEI programs, owing to pressure from President Trump and his administration and, in some cases, related policies, such as participation in the Corporate Equality Index. These included Google, Boeing, Disney, Walmart, Meta, Amazon, McDonald's, Ford, Lowe's, Harley-Davidson, John Deere, Tractor Supply, Target, Toyota, and PBS. Generally, these companies said they will continue to foster a safe and inclusive workplace, while ending or reducing policies, initiatives, or programs that specifically take note of protected status. In this period, other companies reaffirmed their commitment to DEI, including Apple, Ben & Jerry's, Delta Air Lines, Deutsche Bank, Microsoft, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Costco and the National Football League. United States government purge In January 2025, President Donald Trump called DEI efforts "illegal and immoral discrimination programs" and "public waste" in his January 20 executive order, rescinded Executive Order 11246 on January 21, demanding that all governmental DEI programs be shut down by January 23, and placed employees on administrative leave and eventual layoff. In early February 2025, a lawsuit was filed against Trump's executive orders, arguing that they were unconstitutional. In March, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit paused the lower court's nationwide preliminary injunction and permitted the enforcement of the executive orders pending the outcome of the appeal. References to women, people of color, and LGBTQ individuals have been scrubbed from federal websites, image archives, and physical installations. U.S. government departments have ordered probes of organizations that practice DEI, including hospitals, universities, federal contractors, and media companies. They have also pressured foreign companies with U.S. government contracts to comply with the order, drawing ire from foreign officials. The Department of Justice has launched lawsuits against companies alleging they practice "illegal DEI", arguing they constitute a form of reverse racism. ==Rationale==

Affirmative action is intended to promote the opportunities of defined minority groups within a society to give them equal access to that of the majority population. The philosophical basis of the policy has various rationales, including, but not limited to, compensation for past discrimination, correction of current discrimination, and the diversification of society. It is often implemented in governmental and educational settings to ensure that designated groups within a society can participate in all promotional, educational, and training opportunities. The stated justification for affirmative action by its proponents is to help compensate for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling class of a culture, and to address existing discrimination. In a business environment, increased workforce diversity has been found to be associated with increased performance. ==Methods and arguments==

In a 2018 article, proponents of DEI argued that because businesses and corporations exist within a larger world, they cannot be completely separated from the issues that exist in society. Therefore, the authors argue the need for DEI to improve coworker relations and teamwork. As of 2022, many academic institutions in the US have also started making commitments to DEI in different ways, including creating documents, programs, and appointing dedicated staff members especially in the US. Many accreditation agencies now require supporting DEI. As of 2014, information on DEI for both students and professors was widespread in colleges and universities, with many schools requiring training and meetings on the topic. Many scholarships and opportunities at universities even have a secondary purpose of encouraging diversity. Critics argue diversity in higher education can be difficult, with diverse students often feeling reduced to fulfilling a "diversity quota", which can carry a high emotional tax. However, research has shown that discussing DEI in the classroom improves students' critical thinking skills, and leads to improved academic achievement in members of both majority and minority groups, among other benefits. Measures to increase the political diversity in higher education have been proposed to reduce political bias and conformity. Within healthcare, DEI reflective groups have been used to enhance the cultural sensitivity within mental health professionals. Such reflective spaces help improve mental health professionals' reflexivity and awareness of DEI-related issues both within direct clinical work with clients, their families, and wider systems, as well as within professional supervision and teams. Corporate Diversity management as a concept appeared and gained momentum in the US in the mid-1980s. Equality and affirmative action professionals employed by US firms along with equality consultants, engaged in establishing the argument that a diverse workforce should be seen as a competitive advantage rather than just as a legal constraint. Their message was: do not promote diversity because it is a legal mandate, but because it is good for business. Following the murder of George Floyd in 2020, some companies made substantial commitments to racial equity by establishing dedicated diversity, equity, and inclusion teams. In early 2024, the Washington Post reported that there is a trend in corporate America to reduce DEI positions and delegate the work to external consultants. The scaling back of DEI initiatives has aligned with a rise in legal challenges and political opposition to systematic endeavors aimed at enhancing racial equity. Diversity management can be seen to "leverage organisational diversity to enhance organisational justice and achieve better business outcomes". Research into organizational behavior distinguishes between employees' attitudinal endorsement of DEI policies and their active behavioral participation. A 2024 study identified four distinct profiles of employee engagement: "Champions" (high support in both attitude and behavior), "Opponents" (low support in both), "Bystanders" (high attitudinal support but low behavioral engagement), and "Reluctants" (low attitudinal support but high behavioral compliance). The study found that a positive organizational "climate for inclusion" is a key factor in converting positive attitudes into supportive behaviors. Subsequent research published in 2026 analyzed the reasoning behind these profiles. It found that "Champions" typically justify their support using moral arguments regarding fairness, while "Opponents" frequently base their resistance on meritocratic beliefs or a lack of policy awareness. The study noted that "Bystanders", who offer "lip service" support, often attribute their inaction to role ambiguity or a lack of practical "mastery" rather than ideological disagreement. Conversely, "Reluctants" often comply with policies despite harboring skepticism regarding the specific implementation or effectiveness of the initiatives. Several reports and academic studies have found a correlation between financial benefits and DEI, while other studies dispute these claims. At an aggregate level, a 2013 study found that birth country diversity of the labor force positively impacts a nation's long term productivity and income. Firm-level research has provided conditional support to the proposal that workforce diversity per se brings business benefits with it. In short, whether diversity pays off or not depends on environmental factors, internal or external to the firm. In August 2021, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved Nasdaq's proposed rules requiring listed companies to ensure women and minority directors were on their boards or provide an explanation of why they were not. In December 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v. SEC that the SEC lacked the authority to approve these rules. A California judge held in 2022 that a similar board diversity law violated the California Constitution. ==Political and public reaction in the U.S.==

K-12 Schools On January 29, 2025, the elected President, Donald Trump, made a statement on the White House's website regarding DEI in K-12 schools as anti-American and disregarding parental oversight. In the article, Trump writes that federal funding shall be given to K-12 schools adhering to anti-discrimination policies such as Title IV of the Civil Rights Act, Title IX, FERPA, and PPRA. The Department of Education sent out certification letters on April 3, 2025 that schools across North America have 10 days to return in order to maintain federal financial assistance. U.S. District Judge Gallagher would join two other federal judges who blocked the initiatives behind the DEI ban on April 24, 2025, ruling it as unconstitutionally vague. While some believe DEI included in school curriculums are favoring one identity or community over another, there have been arguments that DEI in schools can be beneficial for student development, as shown by research, finding that student participation in DEI practices can improve overall achievement levels. There is also various other research that provides statistics based on the effectiveness and outcomes for DEI in K-12 schools. The Chronicle of Higher Education has tracked over 80 bills introduced in state legislatures since 2023. Of these eight have become law, 25 failed to pass, and the rest are pending. Two bills became law in Florida and Texas; and one each in North Carolina, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah. Florida now prohibits public colleges from requiring "political loyalty tests" as a condition of employment, admission, or promotion. The other Florida law prohibits public colleges from spending state or federal funds on DEI, unless required by federal law. One Texas law prohibits DEI practices or programs, including training, that are not in compliance with the state Constitution regarding equality. The other law bans DEI offices and staff, as well as mandatory diversity training. It also bans identity-based diversity statements that give preference regarding race or sex. Entertainment and media In 2020, several prominent actors and directors criticized diversity standards, such as at the Academy Awards. Beginning in 2024, to be eligible for a best-picture nomination at the Academy Awards, a film must meet two of four diversity standards in order to qualify. In 2023, Actor Richard Dreyfuss stated the Academy Award's diversity and inclusion standards "make me vomit", arguing that art should not be morally legislated. Several major film directors, who are voting members of the Academy Awards, anonymously expressed their opposition to the new diversity standards to The New York Post, with one describing them as "contrived". Film critic Armond White attacked the new standards as "progressive fascism", comparing them to the Hays Code. In 2021, Conservative media sources, such as National Review, have been frequent critics of DEI, with contributor George Leff arguing it is authoritarian and anti-meritocratic. Politics In the 2020s, DEI came into the spotlight in American politics, especially in state legislatures in Texas and other Republican-controlled states. Several states are considering or have passed legislation targeting DEI in public institutions. In March 2023, the Texas House of Representatives passed a bill with a rider banning the use of state funds for DEI programs in universities and colleges. In May 2023, Texas passed legislation banning offices and programs promoting DEI at publicly funded colleges and universities. In Iowa, a bill to ban spending on DEI in public universities was also advanced in March 2023. Several prominent Republicans positioned themselves as critics, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Texas Governor Greg Abbott, In January 2024, the Florida Board of Education banned federal or state money being used toward DEI programs in universities. After the 2024 election, DEI has also produced a growing divide inside the Democratic Party. Rep. Adam Smith, ranking Democrat on the U.S. House Committee on Armed Services, for instance, stated that DEI efforts go "off the beam, to my mind, when they imply that racism, bigotry and settler colonialism is the unique purview of white people. ... You don't need to imply that all white people are racists, and that all white people are oppressors". Military Another significant point of political controversy has been the implementation of DEI frameworks in the military, with Republican politicians frequently criticizing the efforts as "divisive", and as harming military efficiency and recruiting, while Democrats have defended it as beneficial and strengthening. In July 2023, the House of Representatives voted to ban all DEI offices and initiatives within the Pentagon and military along partisan lines, with all Democrats and four Republican members also opposing. The Senate, under Democratic control, has not acted as of 2023. Students for Fair Admissions, which successfully challenged race-based admissions in public universities in a 2023 Supreme Court case, sued the military academies after the Court excluded those institutions from its ruling. In January 2025, Donald Trump signed an executive order requiring U.S. military academies to end affirmative action in admissions; the order was implemented the next month. Public boycotts Political opposition to corporate DEI efforts in the United States, particularly marketing criticized as "woke", have led to calls for boycotts of certain companies by activists and politicians; with notable examples being Disney, Target, Anheuser-Busch, and Chick-fil-A. Commentator Jonathan Turley of The Hill described such boycotts as resulting "some success". Some of these companies' responses to the controversies have, in turn, sparked criticism from progressives of walking back or failing DEI commitments. Public opinion A June 2024 poll by The Washington Post and Ipsos found that 6 in 10 Americans believed that diversity, equity, and inclusion programs are "a good thing". A September 2024 poll by the Human Rights Campaign found that 80% of LGBTQ Americans would boycott a company that repealed its DEI programs and 19% would quit their job if their place of employment did. A 2025 poll by Axios found that more than 50% of Americans across all demographics surveyed said that DEI initiatives had made "no impact" on their jobs. Of those who said it did have an impact, a majority in almost all demographics said DEI had "benefited" their job rather than "hindered" it. Research into the psychology of pushback against DEI indicates that subjective perceptions of social status (and threats to it) significantly influence opposition among White Americans. A 2026 longitudinal study of White Americans identified a specific "last place " profile, comprising 15% of the sample, characterized by individuals who perceived their status as tied with Black Americans and nearly tied with Hispanic Americans within a tight economic hierarchy. Even when controlling for objective income and education, individuals fitting this profile were the most likely to support bans on DEI initiatives. ==Criticism and controversy in the United States==

criticizing DEI in the NSF According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, institutions are making defensive adjustments to the criticism. Some schools are removing the word "diversity" from titles of offices and jobs; some are closing campus spaces set up for students according to identity; some are ending diversity training; and some have stopped asking all faculty and staff members for written affirmations of their commitment to diversity. Diversity training Diversity training, a common tool used in DEI efforts, has repeatedly come under criticism as being ineffective or even counterproductive. The Economist has stated that "the consensus now emerging among academics is that many anti-discrimination policies have no effect. What is worse, they often backfire." A 2007 study of 829 companies over 31 years showed "no positive effects in the average workplace" from diversity training, while the effect was negative where it was mandatory. Mandatory diversity statements within academia The use of mandatory "diversity statements" within academia, wherein an applicant or faculty member outlines their "past contributions", and plans "for advancing diversity, equity and inclusion" if hired, has become controversial and sparked criticism. Diversity statements have been a part of some academic hiring processes since at least 2001.