top of page
Search

The Threat to DEI Initiatives

Writer's picture: Amber Lea KincaidAmber Lea Kincaid



As someone who has built a business around increasing diversity, equity and inclusion in wildlife conservation, I would be remiss if I didn't address the Trump administration's attack on DEI. On January 21, President Trump signed an executive order entitled "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity," which claims that DEI initiatives are discriminatory and violate civil rights laws. This action revokes five executive orders that were intended to combat discrimination, and it sets forth new directives intended to demolish existing DEI programs in government and the private sector. Among the most concerning of these directives is the requirement that federal grant recipients must certify that they do not operate any DEI programs that "violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws." While it is unclear exactly how a DEI program would violate anti-discrimination laws, the message seems to be that promoting DEI discriminates against individuals from majority communities. For non-profits like the Wildlife Research Alliance, as well as larger institutions like public universities, this means that we are potentially ineligible for any federal funding.


Why is this bad?


I was on a panel to review federal grant proposals this week. The panel was open to all applicants of this specific grant, and the purpose was to provide feedback on the 60+ proposals that had been submitted to assist in determining which proposals to fund. Each applicant was required to include a statement detailing how their project seeking funding would promote DEI (proposals were submitted in October 2024, well before this executive order). Some applicants had thoughtful, detailed statements including trainings their staff had taken, paid positions being offered to individuals from minority backgrounds, and free education opportunities they provide for underserved communities. Others simply copied and pasted their institution's DEI statement and put no additional effort into describing a plan for how their project would combat systemic discrimination. I couldn't help but feel that, in a white-dominated field (this particular federal grant aids marine mammal research), not all players can be relied upon to advance DEI on their own.


Here's the thing: if people could be trusted to do the right thing, DEI initiatives wouldn't be necessary. Throughout history, we have seen that people, unfortunately, cannot always be trusted to do the right thing. This is why we have things like the Civil Rights Act, on which this executive order relies to combat discrimination. However, according to this article by Dr. Russ Wigginton for the Civil Rights Museum, the Civil Rights Act was merely a stepping stone toward further anti-discrimination action. Dr. Wigginton writes:

"[The Civil Rights Act] shrouded the criminal acts of subconscious racism and emboldened race-neutral policies that resulted in racial prejudice and exclusion."

The Civil Rights Act alone is just not enough to combat institutional racism and unconscious bias. Here is a very basic example of how anti-discrimination policies still enable racism:

Two people apply for the same job. One is Black and one is white. The hiring manager is white. Both applicants are equally qualified and both interview very well, but the hiring manager just feels more comfortable with the white applicant, so that is who gets hired. The workplace has an anti-discrimination policy in place, but without a DEI initiative to combat the hiring manager's unconscious bias, the Black applicant is left without a job. This is an incredibly simplified scenario, but the point is that, given the choice, it is more likely that people from a majority will hire people from that majority, essentially ensuring that other populations do not get equitable access to the same opportunities.


The fear that DEI initiatives violate civil rights laws is based in racism and ableism. I can't find any evidence that majority communities have been harmed by these programs; on the contrary, DEI benefits everyone. Rolling back these programs mainly serves white, male, able-bodied populations, none of whom have historically experienced discrimination or underrepresentation. I can only imagine how disheartening this is for young people from populations DEI programs were designed to help as they prepare to enter the workforce. It is important to remember that systemic racism and ableism, along with generational trauma, are present throughout a person's life; by the time someone affected by one or more of these factors starts their career, they have likely experienced several instances of being devalued. Experiencing inequitable employment opportunities adds to the cumulative stress that research has shown can prematurely age people.


It is easy to get discouraged by presidential actions such as this one. I think the goal is to make it harder and harder to do the right thing so we eventually stop trying. I am so proud of the work we do here at the Wildlife Research Alliance, and I am excited to be on the right side of history. Will must keep making our voices heard and pushing for equity. There truly is no down side when we diversify the workforce, whether in science or any other field.

0 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


Subscribe to our newsletter and learn with us!

Thanks for subscribing!

  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Bluesky

CONTACT >

T: 727-339-0987

E: info@wildliferesearchalliance.org

© 2023 by Wildlife Research Alliance, Inc.
Powered and secured by Wix

bottom of page