Let me start by offering transparency so you have a clear idea of the position from which I draft this blog entry. I am a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion professional. I have been doing this work in some form or capacity for over 25 years. I have worked for private and public institutions of learning both as an early childhood educator as well as a higher education administrator. I have worked closely with students, staff and faculty from all walks of life both domestically and abroad. I am the daughter of a military veteran and I have always been involved in service to my community, the nation and those who have established careers in public service. My lens is unique but also grounded in those areas that often are lifted up for creating opportunity and demonstrating a greater calling and allegiance.

In the past few years, there’s been a coordinated push across statehouses and federal agencies to roll back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives — often under the banner of “color-blind fairness” or “merit-based opportunity.” But beneath that rhetoric lies a profound misunderstanding of what equity actually requires, and a set of policy decisions that will deepen inequities, not remove them.

DEI programs emerged over the last several decades as an intentional response to systemic barriers that have historically shut out millions of Americans from full access to education, jobs, and civic life. These initiatives weren’t about giving handouts — they were about leveling a playing field that was already tilted by centuries of exclusion and discrimination. 

Yet today, anti-DEI laws and executive actions — from state bans on equity offices and mandatory training to federal efforts targeting DEI interpretation under Title VI — are not neutral. They erase the very tools we use to spot and address disparities, in hiring practices, curriculum design, workplace culture, and student support.  By insisting on a “one size fits all” notion of fairness, these policies treat unequal starting points as if they were equal, overlooking how historic and structural inequities continue to constrain opportunity for Black, Indigenous, Latino, disabled, LGBTQ+, and other marginalized communities.

The consequences are not abstract. Research shows that restricting DEI correlates with measurable declines in representation and support for underrepresented students in schools and universities, and with environments where bias goes unchecked.  In healthcare, for example, scaling back equity-focused initiatives threatens not only workforce diversity but also patient outcomes — because a workforce that reflects the population it serves is better equipped to understand and meet community needs. 

Worse, these anti-DEI efforts often ripple outward. States that weaken equity commitments also tend to hamper teachers’ unions and other worker protections — widening wage gaps and limiting collective power that could push back against exclusionary policies.  At its core, this is not simply a policy debate about training or offices. It’s a debate about whose experiences and voices are acknowledged — and whose are dismissed.

Calling for “merit” without context ignores that merit itself has been historically defined by systems that advantaged a few at the expense of many. True equity doesn’t erase difference — it addresses it thoughtfully, making sure policies work for everyone, not just those already closest to the center of power.