Similarity and Disagreement on DEI Program DEI programs are designed to foster equal representation and break systemic barriers within different American institutions. Although these programs are crucial for mitigating systematic gaps that marginalized some individuals and privileged others, they are the subject of skepticism and debate in America (Mak et al., 2022). The guidelines and policies designed for implementing DEI programs have complex implications, leading to unanticipated results and rejecting individuals' presuppositions and expectations.
However, several understandings and misunderstandings lead to DEI skepticism according to different groups. It is worrying that DEI programs have achieved a negligible impact on the underprivileged and favored individuals. Deconstructing these misunderstandings will dramatically mitigate the negative views of the DEI programs. Despite the individualistic American culture, underpinning organizational behavior theories and studies cannot be dismissed. This paper discusses the reasoning for skepticism of DEI programs in America. Although DEI has progressively become crucial for firms across different industries to address unfairness and achieve equity, racial justice uprisings in the U.S.A amplify employment discrimination concerns in the country. Millennials and Black Lives Matter activists increasingly conveyed their conviction that all lives could not matter until Black lives started to uptick. In addition, the media focused on profiling police shootings of African Americans and varying communities' protests to condemn the systemic racial and economic disparity in the region, resulting in a racial reckoning that amplified notions about DEI skepticism (Mak et al., 2022).
These predetermined racial constructs resulted in workplace discrimination and incentivized employers to seek DEI education. However, performing such activities led to skepticism from different people that contributed to the inadvertent negative side effects of performing DEI. DEI skepticism emanates from different understandings regarding its effectiveness, meritocracy, and the kind of affirmative actions incorporated in its practice. Such skepticism includes if DEI programs represent an equivalent and fair response that does not undervalue or penalize other necessitated qualities; if historical wrongs should have no direct impact on what we do today; and whether everybody can effectively negotiate discriminatory treatment (Gifford et al., 2022).
The disparities in organizations are based on the historical discrimination against groups, cultural identification, and racial/ethnic backgrounds' prejudices. Therefore, the DEI programs and practices are an appropriate intervention for the unintended results emanating from the systemic injustices. Such skepticism is fueled by the fear of unplanned unfavorable outcomes or actions to accomplish private interests. There is still a long way to ensure that the rhetorical commitment to DEI is underpinned by actual behavior and subsequently addresses discrimination and inequities. Thus, cultural transformation has to happen to disentangle the rationale for DEI skepticism and incentives not to expect them to backfire (Gifford et al., 2022). Thus, understanding and questioning such misunderstandings could propel discourse and actions by propelling strategies to achieve equity and justice. References Gifford, R. P., Lee, J., & Blader, S. L. (2022).
DEI is designed to only discriminate - inconsistent with equaltection and fair treatment. Industry has largely rejected the intrinsically racist DEI policy as unproductive and devise, burdening organizations with less if not unproductive employees and policies.
We should cheer those who rejected this unAmerican hateful policy.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/04/11/ibm-reportedly-walks-back-diversity-policies-citing-inherent-tensions-here-are-all-the-companies-rolling-back-dei-programs/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/human-resources/dei-boycott-list-all-companies-that-ended-dei-policies-confirmed/ar-AA1zVTTf
https://www.advocate.com/news/companies-abandoning-dei#rebelltitem1
@ Phil Geis, I beg to disagree with you on this topic. DEI was not founded to discriminate against any class or greed. DEI was founded to create equal opportunity for all races. History has it that people of color are often discriminated against or marginalized due to the color of their skin not due to their intellectual ability. DEI in all ramifications creates that opportunity for many people even for those who are now against it. If you recall back in the early 90s when Clarence Thomas was nominated to the supreme court. . Professor Annita Hill lodged an allegation against Clarence Thomas of sexual harrassment. What did Clarence Thomas called it then? In his own word, “This is high tech Lyching” Now the same man is against DEI he got his education because of the policies of DEI. What do you called such? Hypocracy. You cannot close your eyes and says to me there is no discrimination against people of color even in the work places as we dialogue. Even as I write, because of the color of some one's skin discrimination still exist. If you claimed that such does not exist then, you are not of this world. May be you are allien from another plannet. DEI was not created to water down the educational system or to place unqualified person in a position that he or she does not merit. DEI was created for equitable representation for qualified candidates with the same ceritifications period!
DEI DOES discriminate. Motivation of its founders is irrelevant. Equity as equality of outcome demands marxist dictatorial enforcement as people are not equal in talent, effort, commitment.
Equity is the antithesis of merit and capability. DEI is the latest lever of race hustlers.
Joseph Ozigis Akomodi You posted on RG a few low effort post praising DEI (no genuine attempt to actually discuss specific objections). What are you trying to achieve? Get information why there is such a strong push back? That's very simple - people of European and East Asian ancestry don't like being discriminated in education or hiring. (plus anti-meritocratic bent starts looking dangerous in general, like in case of US air traffic control) Or maybe you are curious why there is push back is right now? Looks as if number of scandals was sufficient to reach critical mass, though there may be also underlying issue of some luxurious believes of elites loosing their attractiveness in general so limited number of people even bothers to opportunistically pay lip service to this particular ideology.
Marcin Piotr Walkowiak It is hypocritical of you to think that my response to the question about the recent idea that Donald Trump began to trash DEI and those who were privilege to benefit from it were also trashing it. Let me tell you straight to your face that in the United States there was a time blacks, Jews and people of color were not allowed to enter Universities at all, such as Harvard, Yale and other higher academic schools despite their intellectual capabilities is equal to none. Some of those people were the most qualified to get into Ivy league institution in the United States. What do you called that? Pure discrimination.
Recently Baron Trump who just graduated from High School last year did not met the criteria for Harvard University and he was rejected. Out of anger, Donald Trump turned against Harvard and slashing the Federal funds that was supposed to go into research from Harvard University. What do you called that? His actions were pure racists towards people of color and academic institutions. Visit MIT and Havard Universities those who are making it stand out, are people of color. Right now as I write, MIT is rated one of the best University in the world followed by Imperial College London. I am working on a research right now about it. Or the idea that foreign students who came to this Country on a students visa, if they speak ill of Government, they should loose the right of competitive Education in the United States.
If we continue this path the idea that America would be able to attract the best of the best would be history. No one would want to go to an institution where by, their fundamental human rights are violated each moment you open your mouth to speak. My research outline is posted here on ResearchGate as soon as I complete the research, you can come back to tell me that my research was inappropriate. There has been a lot of research conducted about DEI in support and in opposed of DEI depending from what lens you are looking at it. However, when my research is fully published carefully read through the limitations and implications of my manuscript or research article and the data analysis that makes the research standout.
Joseph Ozigis Akomodi "Let me tell you straight to your face that in the United States there was a time blacks, Jews and people of color were not allowed to enter Universities at all, such as Harvard, Yale and other higher academic schools despite their intellectual capabilities is equal to none."
So? Are you certain it's a good argument to continue discrimination just target this time people of European and East Asian ancestry? (Keep in mind if you demand discrimination right now, you are loosing any chance to pretend having moral high ground to complain about past discrimination and look simply as a hypocrite)
Harvard had been a few years ago embroiled in a scandal that they had been rating all East Asian applicants as having "bad character" (intriguingly conclusion which they have often reached without seeing those people in question, they supposedly detected bad character based on their documents) Do you support this kind of race-based discrimination to make more place for less talented ones but having proper ancestry? (Or maybe you think that Harvard had been fair here and all applying East Asians have bad character, which is moreover even blatant from their CVs? :D ) Keep in mind that's exactly DEI in action and the reason why people find it repugnant.
"No one would want to go to an institution where by, their fundamental human rights are violated each moment you open your mouth to speak." Why? For years those institutions had vibrant cancel culture while forcing people to pay lip service to DEI and other woke ideas or getting them fired, while clearly had no issue in finding new applicants. The only major new thing is an update of ideology which they have to pay lip service to. (the real risk is slashing funds, as top universities are simply those which have highest amount of cash for research and picking researchers)
"Recently Baron Trump who just graduated from High School last year did not met the criteria for Harvard University and he was rejected. Out of anger, Donald Trump turned against Harvard and slashing the Federal funds that was supposed to go into research from Harvard University. What do you called that? His actions were pure racists towards people of color and academic institutions. " Try building a bit more internally consistent arguments. If you claim that's Trump decision is motivated by personal revenge on university for not admitting his son, then you are contradicting yourself by claiming that his decision was due to racist reason.
"Or the idea that foreign students who came to this Country on a students visa, if they speak ill of Government, they should loose the right of competitive Education in the United States."
Wasn't it about trying to prevent attacks on Jews on campuses? I though that you just had been complaining that in the past they had not been given a chance to study there... Video recordings from a few US universities recently had been bringing flashbacks from '30s in Europe.
By occasion, foreigners don't have any "right to education" in the US, in the same way as neither me nor you have any right to demand study in ex. Peking University. It's all decision of host country who to let in, and while I consider Trump decision to chase away such cash cows as poor business, nevertheless it's not violation of anyone right.
"However, when my research is fully published carefully read through the limitations and implications of my manuscript or research article and the data analysis that makes the research standout."
Maybe remember to control for IQ to make the study stringent.
Marcin Piotr Walkowiak I will set the record straight that Baron Trump did not get into Harvard because he did not meet the criteria but Trump, is his convoluted mind thinks it was because of DEI which is absolutely wrong analogy! President Trump has always been discriminatory all his entire life.
Joseph Ozigis Akomodi
I'd say "please spare us your TDS", but let me correct your hateful ignorance (or dishonesty) - Baron was not rejected by Harvard and of course Trump offered no relevant comment. Remarkable that you claim to have read Trump's mind, when the relevant event never took place
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/02/barron-trump-harvard-not-rejected/83988057007/
However the subject is DEI. Apparently you have no defense regarding the serious concerns raised. DEI is clearly discriminatory and the enemy of merit, intelligence and fairness.
Phil Geis, I apologize for being headstrong and stubborn in this matter. In what way are the people opposing Directed Energy Inclusive being unfair or discriminatory? I did not realize that the U.S. did not experienced racial discrimination. DEI was intended to make amends and grant college admissions to anyone fit for college. It is unfortunate that you believe DEI is designed to undermine minority standards. Considering that DEI allows people of color to take law, engineering, and medical certification exams at the same time, it was not for the same level. Instead of regressing to supremacist times when black people were lynched and burned unjustly, we continue to request fairness under the law.
Being educated does not mean that I am privileged. Your assumption that DEI is conceived to lower minority standards is offensive to those who struggled to be successful. The assumption that the previously admitted students of African descent are unqualified for college is unsubstantiated. Suggesting such a nonsensical move is senseless. Just because you disagree with the DEI does not mean it should be eliminated. You should visit MIT and other colleges to see who dominates the science and medical studies. I refuse to engage with your nonsense.
Joseph Ozigis Akomodi To be honest, I’m not entirely familiar with what DEI stands for or what its intended purpose is. Initially, I assumed it might be a new agency or initiative of some kind.
@Joseph Ozigis Akomodi
You refuse to engage - after offering a profoundly false claim regarding President Trump and his son (without apology) and racist statements and ad hominem. Of course you refuse - you have no honest response.
Your alleged, contrived purpose of DEI is irrelevant. It is a discriminatory and unfair policy that elevates the less/unqualified.
DEI clearly lowers standards. You brought up race - and your racist assumption that African Americans can not be qualified and require DEI is disgusting. Merit should be the basis and everyone has the opportunity to earn and show merit.
Note - the institutions you identified do not perform well because of DEI - Science and medicine are merit based. These institutions and others are abandoning the corrupt DEI practice.
Eliminate DEI !!
MIT - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mit-closes-dei-office-amid-trump-dispute-harvard/
Stanford - https://stanforddaily.com/2025/02/13/dei-removal-from-web-pages/
Harvard - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard
Businesses -
https://finance.alot.com/business/10-us-companies-committed-to-dei-and-10-who-dropped-their-dei-policies--22210
https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/04/11/ibm-reportedly-walks-back-diversity-policies-citing-inherent-tensions-here-are-all-the-companies-rolling-back-dei-programs/
Everyone - DEI falls - https://www.deseret.com/magazine/2025/06/17/the-rise-and-fall-of-dei/
Phil Geis It would have been clearer if you had used the "@" symbol to specify the intended recipient of the message.
Phil Geis My apology was purely sarcastic apology, that proves how unrealistic you are. I have clearly stated in my argument of the pros and cons of DEI. Do, Donald Trump offer replacement of anything to ensure that those who are marginalize have access to the same quality of education? The answer of cause is NO. The same people who are against DEI including you Phil Geis were the same people who wanted slavery to continue in America, the same people who wanted to end civil right movement, the same people who wanted to end affirmative action, the same people, against DEI. It is no surprising the same people are now raising their ugly head to end DEI. The same people who do not want Africa America History to exist in institutions.
Just by it's name alone where does Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) show any iota of discrimination? A logical educator would love to embrace it. However because Donald Trump vowed to defund most of these colleges, just for the fear of loosing federal funding many of those colleges are kissing up to Donald Trump. You can try to take us back into 16 and 17 centuries we are not going back. It is your actions against DEI that clearly indicates who you really are.
Jairo Diaz DEI is the struggles many African Americans & Hispanics have stood for, fighting for equality in the United States. Where the pundits wanted to take us back to 16 and 17 centuries during era slavery. We are not going back. It is the struggles Martin Luther King, Rosa Park and many others died for. These ridiculous men do not want to acknowledge the fact. DEI stood for diversity, equity and inclusion where discrimination is things of past. Those who are venting here wants us to go back to slavery which would not happened period! They would tell you that DEI is discriminatory that is all the argument they could make. What is bad to say do not discriminate against me because of the color of skin. Hold me to the level you held other white candidates in terms of admission and work force. You judge yourself. Is that too much to ask? No The White Supremacist wants us to still be working in their cotton farms.
I will need you to provide direct sources to support all these claims. Primarily, because in academia we rely on sources as the basis for assessing the strength of arguments and drawing conclusions without emotion or bias. If you can share the sources, I can review them to understand how you arrived at these conclusions and engage meaningfully with the topic.
Jairo Diaz In my first submission enough sources are provided about the importance of DEI and sources are also provided for those who are against it you may want to take your time to read through. Responding to the idiotic comments of others you do not expect me to be repeating the same source that I have earlier mentioned.
I'm not here to scroll through 15+ biased comments just to maybe find a source. If your amygdala has hijacked your prefrontal cortex, I suggest you recalibrate. Emotional rants aren't evidence. If you're making bold claims, back them up with verifiable sources—otherwise, it’s just noise
Jairo Diaz If you are not ready to do that then you are not qualified to be a researcher period. Good bye!
My friend, you are a Board of Education employee making outrageous claims without a single citation. On what grounds are you judging anyone—researcher or not—without evidence? This is precisely the issue. This is an academic research platform, not Twitter or Reddit. Emotional outbursts have no place here. Regulate your nervous system and respond with reason, not reaction. It's attitudes and behavior like this that fuel backlash against DEI—not the principles themselves, but how they're being represented
Jairo Diaz I have conducted series of scholarly research than you have. Look at who is talking without any singular research publication! I am a department of Education employee and I have worked over 35 years also a University Professor
You’re making bold claims without a single citation and speaking in circles, yet you reference “scholarly research” as if that alone carries weight. Let’s be honest—you’re entirely out of your depth here. I recommend a few deep breaths and a return to the fundamentals: evidence, clarity, and composure. This is a research platform, not a stage for emotional performance. Present your case properly—or reconsider the forum.
For now, I’m heading to bed. With any luck, I’ll wake to a response grounded in scholarship—not another burst of rhetorical fireworks. Let’s aim higher.
Jairo Diaz As I stated earlier, go back to my first submission in this very question if my claimed where not supported by citation. You do not expect me to be citing the same source over and over. Point of correction, I am not speaking I am writing. As young student at Lehman College you are suppose to engage in research so that you can brightened your horizon. Good bye!
Joseph Ozigis Akomodi You went in some tangential discussion (Trump, random quibble with Diaz), but haven't explained your position on DEI like whether you support for example Harvard discrimination primarily against East Asians in the name of DEI.
"The assumption that the previously admitted students of African descent are unqualified for college is unsubstantiated."
If you claim to believe so, why do you insist on DEI instead of race-blind, merit-based admission?
"What is bad to say do not discriminate against me because of the color of skin."
That's exactly what I'd hope for, thus I'm against discrimination in either way, including due to DEI.
"Instead of regressing to supremacist times when black people were lynched and burned unjustly, we continue to request fairness under the law."
Reminder: maybe using this rhetoric still works on US coastal elites, but here you're in international setting, talking to people who notice that becoming second class citizen in the US would have been a great improvement over living under Nazi or Soviet occupation. Really, when I was kid, commies had been still shooting anyone trying to flee the country...
"I am a department of Education employee and I have worked over 35 years also a University Professor"
Your works have received... 5 citations according to RG. How did you get professorship in quite competitive US environment? Or are your key works missing here?
"Being educated does not mean that I am privileged."
Well, to be honest combination of your professorship with your scientific portfolio looks a bit... unusual, or would look highly unusual for a White. I looked up your paper on linear regression... uhm... if the paper is about statistics, shouldn't the statistics be a bit more ambitious (not much less) that methodology that I routinely use in my papers to calculate something?
Joseph Ozigis Akomodi It appears you may still be missing the central point. In academic and research settings, we are trained to evaluate claims from an objective standpoint and to substantiate any position with credible sources. Whether or not citations were included in your initial message is secondary; The tone and content of your reply to my initial post gave the clear impression of being emotionally charged and lacking the evidentiary support required in serious scholarly discourse.
With nearly four decades of academic experience, you are no doubt aware that intellectual credibility is earned through rigor, not assertion. In that spirit, I’ve shared a well-regarded article for your review—perhaps then you can accurately identify the author and reflect on the standards of argumentation we are meant to uphold. What you have offered thus far does not meet those standards and has, regrettably, contributed to confusion rather than clarity.
I have no intention of continuing this unproductive exchange online. However, since we are both based in New York City, you’re welcome to visit Lehman College and request to speak with me in the History Department if you wish to have a direct and constructive discussion.
https://yris.yira.org/column/orthodoxy-autocracy-nationality-rebooted-putins-authoritarian-playbook/
@Joseph
Perhaps you should get out in the real world. "Scholarly research" and citations of others sharing your discriminatory bias are no substitute.
Let me explain - most real world endeavors have performance standards, goals/objectives. Employers identify criteria they think will help them identify the best potential employees to meet these standards and reach these goals/objective.
DEI deprioritizes if not eliminates these criteria - demanding that these employers use racial/gender and other social criteria as hiring standards. This results in less qualified persons who are very unlikely to meet standards and achieve goals as they do not meet the criteria the employer thinks important.
This may not be important in the field of soft science and its aplplication such as yours - these are largely self absorbed talk and citation sharing - with students who have no choice but to buy in or fail
@ Phil Geis
When Morons speak evil about people of color without any substantiation of evidence: Watch this video to see the true DEI hired. When MAGA has no evidence of their claim, they go on the attack. Attacking is part of their DNA. Among all the Supreme court Justices who is really a DEI hired? Statistical data analysis does not lie!
https://www.tiktok.com/@debunktionjunction/video/7521512768076352798
Joseph Ozigis Akomodi
I see no response but ad hominem, hateful racist politics and a tiktok video. Suppose this is more your "scholarly work"?
How did you cite a tiktok video??
I can imagine the frustration of students held hostage to your grading forced to listen to and parrot our racist ravings .
You clearly have no defense for DEI. I would like an apology for your comments regarding the President and his son - assuming you can find some degree of integrity.
Phil Geis I understood you completely, where your animosity is coming from. Every garbage you vomited here are all about politics. If unqualified person or persons is hired by MAGA it is real deal. If such person is hired by non MAGA is DEI hired. You do not have to further explained yourself you are right on point for defending MAGA establishment. Congratulations!! Make America Great Again by taking us backward. I now understood that all your research you have ever conducted are MAGA based research. I salute you!! Now that I knew what you stand for, I will never respond to any of your further comments. Have a nice day with your MAGA establishment. Good bye!!! and have fun!!!!
Joseph Ozigis Akomodi
I see, this racist ad hominem is more of your "scholarly work". We should assume you have no defense for DEI but this logical fallacy.
I generously shall attempt to educate you regarding this matter.
Ad hominem, is short for argumentum ad hominem that refers to several types of arguments where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself.
Do you have any questions?
Joseph Ozigis Akomodi May you go back to the subject? As you went in some another tangential ad persona attack, this time on Phil, while still have not addressed whether you suport that Harvard discrimination of East Asians in the name od DEI. You also haven't addressed why you insist on DEI instead of race-blind, merit-based admission. (assuming of course that some people are qualified and not simply promoted as a result of discrimination of others, that shouldn't be an issue...)
EDIT: And unless really necessary, please in case of trying to back up argumentation, use sources a bit more serious than TikTok videos...
Marcin Piotr Walkowiak
I found the following personal objective posted on Linkedin by Joseph.
" I am committed to making a positive impact in the world through my work in education and entrepreneurship."
However I'm not sure this is reflected in the (to my perspective) angry comments posted here under his name. Wonder if these are the same person - or perhaps Joseph here is an imposter.
- Badges
- Science topic