Promoting Social and Economic Justice in Black Communities in the Current Anti-DEI Climate

Abstract

Hostility toward diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs threaten to widen long-term racial economic gaps in the U.S. As the demographic makeup of the country continues to shift, a failure to address these gaps will have growing negative impacts on overall national prosperity. In this paper, three issues are discussed in order to achieve the broad goal of greater social and economic justice: (1) rebranding DEI and encouraging equity and fairness principles (EFP) for all, (2) using organizational and social science theories to illustrate and explain the ongoing sources of inequity and unfairness within Black and other minority communities, and (3) changing the focus of the argument for social justice away from a moral argument to the economic argument. This paper provides conceptual and theory-based arguments to illustrate how superior organizational performance is achieved through diversity and to make the case for the proposed EFP framework. Practical and theoretical implications are explored to reduce misunderstanding of the goals of DEI and return focus toward the continued and ongoing need to address social and economic inequality.

1. Introduction

Since the founding of the country, the Black population in the U.S. has struggled to achieve economic and social justice. While no one can argue that progress has not been made over the past century and a half since Emancipation, through Reconstruction and the decades leading up to and after the Civil Rights battles of the 1960s, much work remains. Racial social and economic inequality continues as a persistent issue in need of solution.

Understanding the issue of economic inequality is required before any discussion of how it can be addressed. Toward this end, the September 2025 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics monthly employment report reported Black unemployment at 8.0 percent, compared to the White unemployment rate at 3.9 percent [1]. This continues the long-term gap that has seen Black unemployment at about twice the rate of White unemployment for decades [2,3,4], whether the U.S. enjoyed boom economic times or suffered through economic slowdowns. Further, this gap in unemployment has directly contributed to the enormous racial wealth gap between the Black and White population [3,5,6,7].

The widening racial wealth gap poses a major risk to individual Black households [3] as well as to the long-term health of the U.S. economy given the growth of the Black population as a percentage of the overall national population [8]. Income from employment allows households to pay for daily and monthly expenses (e.g., food, energy, housing); however, wealth is what allows households to remain secure during economic downturns, and to advance from one generation to the next. Based on U.S. Census data, median household wealth is $14,100 for Black households compared to $187,300 for White households [9]. These data show that Black households in the U.S. rely on just 10 percent of the wealth enjoyed by White households.

Unfortunately, the current U.S. government does not appear to care to address the racial wealth gap. Worse, it is actively undoing public policies meant to close the gap and establishing new policies hostile to achieving economic justice. Most notably, the efforts to dismantle all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs within the federal government and withhold federal funding and threaten legal and regulatory action against state and private organizations who do not follow suit represents a clear and present danger toward achieving racial economic fairness.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss and argue the continued policy need for closing the economic and social gaps that serve as a drag on the broader health and well-being of the nation. Rather than fighting to save the DEI name, it is suggested that a rebrand be used to overcome the negative perceptions held by the public because of political rhetoric. By more simply focusing on equity and fairness principles (EFP) for all people, the goals of DEI can more easily be achieved. It is far more difficult for politicians and corporate leaders to attack the broader concept of EFP for all than join the chorus of critics that have already tainted DEI initiatives. Then, by highlighting research on such issues such as negative stereotypes, in group/out group dynamics, and systemic racism/discrimination, which illustrate some of the primary reasons, both intended and unintended, Black and minority individuals struggle to achieve equity in labor and economic markets, it may be possible to better frame the discussion around the need to ensure EFP for all. Finally, by shifting focus away from the moral imperative for ensuring DEI toward the significant economic benefits to organizations that can be derived as a result of EFP, it may be possible to build a broader consensus for needed public policies to address the social and economic gaps facing society.

Ultimately, as the demographic makeup of the country shifts and labor markets change, embracing diversity and working to close racial economic gaps will become increasingly more important. A failure to ensure economic and social equity across all racial subgroups will put the country’s economy and social stability at risk over the longer term.

2. The Case for Rebranding DEI

The goal of DEI programs is not to fill quotas or require organizations to hire unqualified applicants, but rather to ensure fair labor market access to minorities and women who have been traditionally overlooked and left out of recruiting efforts. Naturally, this promotes diversity and reduces racial and gender discrimination in the workforce and contrary to what some argue, it does not diminish the quality and capabilities of the workforce. In fact, research has shown that diversity improves the quality of work and productivity in the workplace [10,11,12]. Thus, the pursuit of DEI is not only the right thing to do morally and legally, it makes sense economically [13]. As [13] points out, excluding candidates from certain groups limits the quality of the labor pool and results in missing out on the best human capital talent. More discussion of the economic benefits of diversity initiatives will be discussed later in the paper.

Despite the moral and economic reasons DEI should be pursued, the Trump administration has demonstrated clear hostility toward DEI programs viewing them as discriminatory against White men. On his first day in his return to the Oval Office, President Trump issued Executive Order #14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” The Order dismantled all federal DEI programs, called for the firing of all DEI staff at federal agencies, and required agencies to report all private contractors doing business with the government who had DEI programs [14]. The Order and the President’s rhetoric immediately and unambiguously put pressure on federal contractors to end their DEI programs or risk losing federal contracts and being investigated for “illegal” discrimination.

In an effort to further erode and eliminate DEI programs, the new administration’s Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued a “Dear Colleague” letter on February 14 to schools and universities purporting to summarize legal requirements of Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964 [15] given the June 2023 landmark Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v Harvard University Supreme Court ruling. The letter incorrectly labeled DEI programs as being discriminatory and illegal. Within days there were swift rebuttals from universities across the country and in its response letter—co-signed by dozens of educational coalitions and organizations—the American Council of Education (ACE) pointed out that DEI programs are not illegal and that “efforts to build inclusive and diverse campus communities are neither discriminatory nor illegal” [16].

While there has been push back and lawsuits by colleges and universities and many private companies have refused to comply with the wishes of President Trump with respect to DEI, the fact is that there has been a chilling effect on diversity efforts, and many universities and private companies have backed away from their diversity efforts. (A search of the internet will show numerous stories detailing efforts on both sides of the DEI issue.) Final court decisions and the determination of the “Court of Public Opinion” remains to be seen, but whatever the outcomes, President Trump has successfully forced organizations across the country to discuss and reconsider their commitment to DEI.

All of this has left many Americans divided and unsure of whether DEI efforts should be pursued. A recent NBC News poll showed that 49 percent of registered voters say DEI programs should be eliminated “because they create divisions and inefficiencies in the workplace by putting too much emphasis on race and other social factors over merit, skills and experience.” The same poll shows that 48 percent say DEI programs in the workplace should continue “because diverse perspectives reflect our country, create innovative ideas and solutions, encourage unity and make our workplaces fair and inclusive” [17]. This is not surprising given how DEI has been mischaracterized, misunderstood, and cynically used as a political wedge issue by the Republican Party in recent years. The acronym, “DEI,” has been demonized through the spread of misinformation and deliberate efforts to pit different factions of Americans against each other for political gain.

Just as the term “affirmative action” has become a political flashpoint, critics have expanded their attacks on DEI, especially since the 2023 SFFA v Harvard Supreme Court ruling. Much of the backlash against affirmative action is framed as supporting racial preferences over merit [18]. However, those who criticize affirmative action and DEI are often selective in their arguments and remain silent on such things as donor preferences and legacy admissions at selective colleges that disproportionately benefit privileged groups [19]. They also fail to acknowledge and/or offer any solution to historical and systemic inequalities that continue to exist [19].

Eminent scholars such as Derrick Bell [20], Kimberlé Crenshaw [18], Wendy Leo Moore [21], Claude Steele [22], and William Julius Wilson [23,24] explain why race-conscious policies and affirmative action are needed to ensure a more just and fair society. Their social and legal arguments support the ongoing need for such programs and for DEI efforts. With this in mind, some may argue that more effort should be made to explain what DEI is and to defend it and that it is worth digging in and fighting the good fight. However, it is argued here that the term itself should be abandoned. From a marketing perspective, when a term or concept is so misunderstood and elicits such a wide range of differing emotions, rather than fight to make people agree on what the term/concept means, it makes much more sense to rename and rebrand the term/concept. The underlying principles and benefits of ensuring equal access to the workforce are lost if one must spend time explaining the term, debating what it means, and correcting those who have mischaracterized it. There is no need to try to change minds or spend time and energy trying to change minds about a misunderstood concept—just start over with a new name.

It is proposed that supporters of DEI who wish to promote the goal of ensuring equal access for all in the workplace embrace a new name. Recognizing that DEI critics primarily focus on the term “diversity” and suggest that it comes at the expense of merit—that unqualified minorities and women are somehow being favored over White men—the use of “diversity” should be eliminated. Organizations and institutions can choose to eliminate DEI programs in favor of a commitment to more broad and inclusive equity and fairness principles (EFP). Simply put, the goal of EFP is to ensure that all individuals, regardless of race and gender, be treated equitably and fairly. While some may still try to criticize EFP just as they would DEI, without “diversity” in the name it is much more difficult to associate racial and gender quotas to the term or argue that EFP does not support meritocracy. Frankly, who really wants to make a case that they are against equity and fairness principles for all?

The use of “EFP” over “DEI” can help supporters of equal access take control of the narrative and focus on the underlying principle rather than trying to explain the acronym and debating what the term means. This makes it easier to achieve the goals of equal access and defend programs that do so.

3. Sources of Inequity and Unfairness

For EFP to be fully embraced, recognition of its need to be adopted and incorporated in employment recruiting is required. The sources of real or potential bias must be made clear to those involved in hiring processes. No doubt racism and blatant discrimination still exist, but there are many employers and individual managers who work in good faith and are turned off by accusations of racism. These individuals are likely to be open to discussions and convinced to embrace EFP with more neutral and nuanced arguments that address efforts to eliminate unintended biases. In this section, a number of sources of potential biases based on social science and management theories are discussed in an effort to explain the ongoing need for EFP in employee recruitment and hiring practices.

Systemic and structural racism are often caused by unconscious biases that infiltrate decision-making [25]. They are subtle and unintended and often go unrecognized [26,27]. Two sources for these biases may be found as a result of social identity theory [28,29,30] and stereotyping [21,30].

Social identity theory is built on the premise that human beings define themselves, derive their concept of self, and treat others based on the social groups they identify themselves with. There is a natural process of creating “in-groups” (people similar to oneself) and “out-groups” (people different from oneself) and viewing in-group individuals in a positive light as it allows one to view themselves positively [31,32]. These perceptions of self, based on in-group membership, can bias opinions about perceived out-group members. Research has found that individuals distribute rewards and make evaluations that favor in-group versus out-group members [31]. With respect to hiring and workforce development, firms tend toward attraction, selection, and attrition processes that promote homogeneity [33].

A related and relevant concept is stereotyping. Stereotypes are generalized beliefs about individuals based on the social group to which they belong [34]. They provide a mental short cut that facilitate judgements about others that are often unfair and/or wrong about individuals and unfortunately can lead to biased treatment of those dissimilar from oneself [29,30,34]. Because they are so outwardly visible, race [35,36,37] and gender [21,38,39,40] are central attributes that individuals use to perceive, categorize, and stereotype others.

It is easy to find examples of racial and gender bias that continue to impact society. Some are relatively benign—for example male pronouns are the default setting in Google Translate even while translating gender-neutral language [41]. But others, are much more serious, such as judicial sentencing for criminal acts [42]. For decades, cannabis use and distribution were criminal offenses that led to the disproportionate incarceration of Black individuals compared to White individuals [42]. They may even have life or death consequences as was the case with a widely used algorithm that guided healthcare decisions and misdiagnosed the health levels of Black patients [43]. The racial bias was a result of the algorithm being programmed to equate health costs with health needs while failing to incorporate racial differences in healthcare access. The faulty system training resulted in White patients being recommended treatments denied to equally sick Black patients because the system incorrectly assumed Black patients were inherently more healthy than White patients.

The last example illustrates a potentially growing issue with respect to artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Existing systemic biases are likely to be included in AI system training data [44,45]. Such was the case with the healthcare example above, but the growing use of facial recognition software represents another area of concern. A recent National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) study tested and found various facial recognition algorithms to be significantly more accurate for White male faces than for those of minorities, women, and infants [46,47]. Again, the systems were trained using primarily White male faces, and unsurprisingly, the NIST study found that the algorithms made the most errors with Black female faces [46]. As these systems are increasingly being used for security and law enforcement, there are growing risks of false arrest and detention of innocent individuals. This is not a theoretical risk, it has already happened to at least one Black man incorrectly identified as a suspected thief by faulty AI facial recognition software [48].

In the cases above, while they are inherently unfair and discriminatory, there is little evidence that they were the result of overt racism. More likely, they were the result of unconscious biases that created systemic and structural discrimination. Recognizing that AI is a tool that is only as good as its programming and the data used to train it, caution is warranted. As AI is implemented to automate processes within companies, industries, and over wider segments of the economy and society, there are significant risks that structural racism and discrimination may become more entrenched rather than reduced.

The use of historical data to train AI systems has been problematic with respect to facial recognition and healthcare systems. Historical judicial data could easily bias future sentencing recommendations made by AI systems such that lower-level drug offenses may result in Black and minority individuals receiving harsher sentences than White offenders. More directly with respect to the racial wealth and economic gaps, given the evidence of systemic racial bias and discriminatory lending by financial institutions [26,49,50,51,52], should historical lending and loan decision data be used to train AI systems for loan applications it is very possible that Black borrowers would continue to struggle to acquire loans at equitable interest rates.

4. How EFP Can Further Improve Economic Outcomes

A firm or organization that is committed to EFP will have a more diverse workforce. There is no need to argue moral or ethical reasons diversity should be pursued. The reality is that diversity helps improve organizational performance [10,11,12,13]. By its very nature¸ it increases the size of the overall talent pool from which employees are recruited and hired. With this larger pool to draw from, there should be more talent hired to work within EFP-committed organizations.

As stated earlier, many of the attacks on DEI programs focus on the “diversity” part of the term. Politically and racially motivated attacks on DEI have little to do with the reality of what these programs do or the benefits the organizations that have incorporated them enjoy. The previous sections have argued for shifting away from the “DEI” moniker and explained some of the underlying reasons EFP are needed. While significant, simply having more talent to draw from is not the only benefit. In this section, three additional areas which offer specific economic, productivity, and efficiency benefits of incorporating EFP will be expanded upon. These are related to (1) the changing demographics of the U.S., (2) the potential for improved organizational decision-making, and (3) improved new venture opportunity recognition.

4.1. U.S. Population Demographics

The demographic makeup of the country is shifting rapidly. Most notably with respect to the issues discussed in this paper, the nation’s population is becoming less White. Data from the 2020 U.S. Census shows just how much and how rapidly the population changed from 2010 [8]. Overall, in 2020 the White alone (i.e., not including Hispanic White or mixed race individuals) population declined by 8.6 percent while the Black population (including mixed race individuals who identify as Black) grew 11.7 percent over the previous decade. According to the 2020 Census, the White population makes up 61.6 percent of the total U.S. population (204.3 million people) compared to the Black population at 14.2 percent (47.1 million people). From 2010 to 2020, the Latino population increased 23 percent and the Asian American population increased by 38.6 percent as a total of the U.S. population (204.3 million people) compared to the Black population at 14.2 percent (47.1 million people). It is expected that the White population will fall below 50 percent of the total population by 2045 [53].

Two other factors are worth mentioning with respect to the labor force. It is aging [54] and since the late 1970s, a majority of America’s workers have been women, now making up 57.5 percent of the labor force [55]. Given these trends and the fact that the 2020 Census is the first Census that showed less than half of U.S. children under age 18 are White [54], America’s workforce over the next several decades will be made up of increasingly more diverse individuals. Firms that recognize this fact and work toward adopting EFP in hiring are more likely to build workforces that reflect the demographic makeup of the country more broadly and better recognize market needs and trends.

This may be particularly important as AI-powered systems becomes more ubiquitous. The technology workforce (e.g., computer programmers, software developers, data scientists, etc.) in the U.S. is overwhelmingly male, and White or Asian. Just eight percent of technology workers is Black [56], and at leading technology companies it is even lower. For example, Google reports that just over four percent of their employees are Black [56]. These figures are inconsistent with the overall American population which is 14 percent Black. The technology workforce may be more susceptible to unintended biases. While a diverse development team does not ensure freedom from racial biases, teams made up of people from different ethnicities and backgrounds allow for a wider range of perspectives. These may help to identify possible biases and incorporate statistical controls to reduce/eliminate bias during AI development.

4.2. Improved Organizational Decision-Making

The demographic shifts are the reality that is happening whether anyone wants them to or not. As cited earlier, research shows that racial and gender diversity has positive effects on organizational performance. This is contrary to the talking points of those attacking DEI as somehow weakening the country and coming at the expense of merit. The fallacy of this position may largely stem from believing in an objective definition of merit.

As [57] has pointed out, due to differential perceptions of merit, objective meritocracy is a myth. Opportunities to advance are not equivalent for all people and how one determines merit is often biased and influenced by social capital resulting from personal background. A child born into a wealthy family has increased opportunity for success and does not face the same structural or systemic barriers such as access to higher quality education that a child born into a poor family may face. Is a wealthy child who could afford standardized test preparation courses and private tutors and scored 20 points higher on the SAT exam more deserving and meritorious of admittance to an Ivy League university than a child from a family that could not afford such luxuries? What would have happened had the child of more modest means had the same tutoring and test preparation opportunities? With similar opportunities they may very well have scored higher on the SAT. This example demonstrates a case where merit is not a function of ability or skills, but rather personal background and access to financial resources. A true meritocracy would work toward leveling opportunities and removing systemic barriers, which is the goal of existing DEI programs.

Organizations are capable of defining merit on their own terms and many have embraced diversity in recent years. By opening the recruiting processes to new pools of more diverse talent, firms may be able to gain valuable insights and improve customer orientation toward broader market bases. The wider range of perspectives that result from diversity may also reduce common biases that result from stereotyping and prevent issues related to groupthink that may result in poor decision-making.

Not surprising, and consistent with these potential benefits, those firms that have embraced DEI have found that diversity makes organizational teams smarter [58,59]. Firms in the top quartile for racial diversity and gender diversity are 35 percent and 15 percent more likely to achieve financial returns above their industry medians. Those in the bottom quartile are less likely to achieve these results [58]. These results are consistent with the thesis that diversity is a source of competitive advantage.

4.3. Improved Opportunity Recognition

Building on the previous subsection, based on research on the importance of social networks to entrepreneurial opportunities [60,61], we can again see the benefits of diversity. More specifically, when an individual interacts with a more diverse group of contacts within their social network, they will be exposed to a wider range of perspectives, information, and knowledge that has the potential to reveal unique business opportunities.

In his classic paper on the strength of weak ties (i.e., people one does not know well personally), ref. [62] argues that weak ties act as “bridges” to information sources not as likely to be tapped through one’s strong ties (i.e., people one knows well personally). Our strong ties are more likely to be demographically similar and think like us due to having similar backgrounds and information. Ref. [62] points out that weak ties often provide more unique information than strong ties because they are greater in number and more likely to differ from us.

Ref. [63] work on “structural holes” follows a rationale similar to the weak ties argument. When one contact does not know another contact within our network, ref. [63] defines that space or non-linkage as a “structural hole” within the network. He argues that it is not the strength of the relationship between network ties that predicts access to unique information, but rather the prevalence of structural holes within the network. While a large network can offer more information, if the network is dense (everyone knows everyone else) the entrepreneur will be exposed to redundant information. However, when an individual has a hole-rich network, it is more likely that he/she will be interacting with a wider range of individuals and have access to a much more expansive and diverse amount of knowledge which can lead to greater numbers of new venture opportunities. Further, ref. [63] stresses that hole effects are more pronounced between actors on a social frontier. The frontier is “any place where two social worlds meet, where people of one kind meet people of a different kind” [62], p. 132. Thus, the more heterogeneous and demographically diverse individuals within a social network are, the better with respect to accessing unique information.

To summarize, an individual’s social network is a critical source of new venture ideas and opportunities. The characteristics of one’s social networks can facilitate the exchange of information, which can directly lead to entrepreneurial ideas and opportunities. From the two major perspectives discussed above—strength of weak ties and structural holes—it is expected that individuals with more diverse social networks will be rich in weak ties and structural holes which span wider social frontiers. This is more likely to allow access to unique information that can lead to new and more potentially lucrative opportunities [61].

From a purely moral perspective, ensuring equity and fairness for all is the right thing to do. However, as discussed in this section, embracing diversity has significant implications and benefits for a company’s economic bottom line.

5. Discussion

The changing demographics of the country make it more likely that the workforce will continue to become more demographically diverse, which supports the broad importance of ensuring DEI. It should be noted that the issues and discussion in this paper are not just problems to be dealt with by the Black community or by minority communities. They are an American issue that will play an ever increasing role in the success of the country as a whole as the demographic shifts toward a majority-minority country continue.

Unfortunately, the political rhetoric surrounding DEI has created confusion, and even worse, the President and other critics of DEI mistakenly argue that DEI comes at the expense of merit and is somehow discriminatory against White men. In fact, DEI’s critics all but explicitly say that straight White men are always more qualified than LGBTQ, minority, and female individuals. Aside from being morally dubious, empirical research clearly shows this belief to be wrong. In fact, as has been discussed in this paper, the literature on the subject demonstrates that firms that do not embrace and incorporate diversity within their organization recruiting and hiring practices do so at their own peril.

The purpose of this paper is not to provide a comprehensive discussion of diversity and its benefits. Rather it is an effort to address misconceptions about DEI and to re-focus attention on the ongoing need to address racial economic gaps. Failing to do this could potentially lead to dire economic conditions for a growing segment of the population and the national economy more broadly. This is first done by proposing a broader term—EFP—to use in place DEI which is so misunderstood and even toxic for many Americans. Second, while racism no doubt still exists in some corners of society, unfairness and systemic discrimination is often unintended. By discussing how and why systemic bias continues to be an issue and the fact that overt racism or gender discrimination due to hatred is rarely the cause, we can move away from racial recriminations that lead to more productive discussions. If we look through the lens of social identity theory and stereotyping, it is easier to see how unintended bias often infiltrates decision-making within organizations. Recognizing these as issues to remain cognizant of and to work to reduce is particularly important as firms develop and adopt AI systems. Finally, the economic and performance benefits of diversity are becoming clearer and more convincing as literature on the subject grows. Diversity and merit are not mutually exclusive and should not be pitted against one another.

It is up to good faith political leaders, public policy experts, management scholars, news media, and others in position to influence opinion to try to set the record straight on the benefits of diversity, equity, and inclusion. However, the term “DEI” itself has become toxic for many Americans, with nearly half the population believing DEI programs should be dismantled because they consider such programs to be divisive and discriminatory. With that in mind, this paper has argued for the DEI term to be abandoned and for organizations to simply commit to EFP. Ensuring EFP in recruitment and hiring practices simply require that organizations remain committed and work toward ensuring that all people—White, Black, Brown, young, old, male, female, gay, straight, etc.—have equal opportunity to apply and work within those organizations.

Shifting the focus toward EFP can help change the narrative away from the incorrect definitions, meanings, and perceptions that now surround DEI and allow for organizations to ensure that their recruitment and hiring should be equitable and fair for all people. Again, while one can make a case for the moral imperative of such efforts, it is important for Americans to better understand how and why inclusionary practices are needed and help improve firm productivity and performance. This is particularly important given the changing demographics of the country. As Census data detailing demographic trends show, Black and minority populations will have an increasing impact on the nation’s economy and competitiveness in coming decades as the population continues to shift. With respect to the Black population, a failure to address the racial wealth gap threatens the long-term health of the U.S. economy and social stability. McKinsey & Company estimate the racial wealth gap will cost the U.S. economy as $1.5 trillion over the 10 years ending in 2028. They further estimate that closing the gap could increase GDP by four to six percent in 2028 [64].

As stated earlier, this paper is not meant to be comprehensive with respect to the importance of diversity or all the challenges to ensuring successful DEI programs. There are many areas to consider and worth exploration with respect to diversity, including, for example, continued gender discrimination and glass ceiling effects, issues facing LGBTQ individuals, specific challenges Hispanic and other racial groups face, and what legal and undocumented immigrants must endure. These are all worthy of further study. Even within Black communities, there are a range of different issues to consider. The Black population is not monolithic. Differences between rural and urban, immigrant vs. native-born, educated vs. non- or less-educated, male and female, etc. Black individuals exist. As just one example, refs. [23,24] offers a nuanced perspective on affirmative action policies. He believes they must also be paired with universal structural reforms such as job creation programs, increased education investment, and other social support systems in order to truly uplift those remain at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder as a result of generations of poverty. While this was not an explicit part of the discussion in this paper, it fits with the overall need to advance policy solutions to long-term economic gaps within the U.S.

Hopefully, this paper has shed some needed light on the broader challenges and ongoing need for diversity programs. This can help to encourage more discussion and policy debate that can further the economic futures of both Black and minority communities as well as the country as a whole.

6. Conclusions

There is an ongoing need to address the racial wealth and other economic gaps that have plagued the nation for decades. As discussed in this paper, with the country so divided and Americans so misinformed about what DEI is, it is impossible to have productive debate on the merits of such initiatives. Efforts to simply open fair and equal access to all Americans get bogged down because some wrongfully believe that DEI requires racial or gender quotas to be met at the expense of merit. Progress cannot be made if we are debating the term “DEI” rather than ensuring that economic and social opportunities exist equally for all people.

By focusing on EFP for all and shifting the discussion away from potential accusations of racism toward the more subtle forms of unconscious bias that often influences decision making within organizations, a new more productive dialogue surrounding diversity can be achieved. This discussion does not need to be emotional and appeal to the moral imperative, rather, it can and should focus on the organizational and performance-related benefits that are derived from having a more diverse workforce. The changing demographics of the country will change the nature and makeup of both consumer markets and the labor force. Organizations are already realizing benefits through diversity and much more research will be needed in coming years to find ways to maximize benefits.