The national backlash to diversity, equity and inclusion practices is a strangely mixed bag for me and my colleagues in behavioral science who focus on developing and testing bias-reduction methods. On the one hand, we care about diversity-related issues. On the other hand, we are some of the biggest critics of nonscientific DEI efforts. For years my colleagues and I have published op-eds or been quoted in major media outlets saying, “Hey—at best, we do not know if run-of-the-mill DEI programs work, and at worst, we have some evidence that they piss people off and create more problems.”
Broadly speaking, the goals of DEI programs are admirable—but, practically, most DEI sucks. People talk a big game about “institutional and systemic change,” but in terms of practical, everyday progress, DEI programs frequently let down people of color, women, LGBTQ+ folks, people with disabilities or members of other historically disadvantaged groups.
I’ve delivered evidence-based bias habit–breaking trainings in dozens of departments in universities all across the U.S., and in the hundreds of discussions I’ve had with professors across the nation, I cannot think of a single time someone said to me, “Our DEI program does a really great job supporting [people like me].” I have lost count of how many people have said their university’s DEI program was a waste of time, or they had been to some diversity or bias training that fumbled its handling of important topics, instead providing slogans or trite statements to put on departmental websites or engaging in language policing. I will never forget the professor whose department’s diversity training told them not to use the word “fumble” because it was a sports term that would alienate women. Malarkey. (Did you even notice I said “fumbled” three sentences back? I bet you didn’t.)
Although both the data and the anecdata say that a lot of DEI sucks, that does not mean all of it is useless. And it certainly does not mean that disparities, biases and inequities are not serious problems we need to address. But we need to be real—much of the backlash against DEI was earned. And let me be clear: In saying that, I am largely arguing against my own self-interest. My career was built on testing bias-reduction methods in large-scale randomized controlled trials, research that was only possible because of millions of dollars in National Institutes of Health funding—funding that I cannot even apply for anymore. The current federal backlash against DEI has likely ended that whole scientific enterprise for the foreseeable future. So I am not in favor of utter DEI annihilation. But we cannot pretend that all DEI was fantastic and revolutionary and that this backlash came from nowhere.
There’s a lot of stuff we can’t do or say or fund anymore, thanks to this backlash against DEI. Fine. That is our reality. We should fight it everywhere we can, but you know what? It does not stop us from doing the real, practical, everyday work to make our classrooms, departments and workplaces more inclusive.
The “DEI efforts” that have the strongest evidence behind them, ones that are built on validated models of cognitive-behavioral change, are things that we as individuals can still do. Institutions are always going to let us down in the end, whether it is due to political and funding pressures like we are seeing now, or just due to institutional inertia and red tape. In the end, it always falls to us as individuals to do the work.
It is the sustained, daily efforts of individuals that create meaningful change. That is what the science says, and it’s what I’ve seen in my two decades as a scientist-practitioner experimentally testing bias-reduction methods and working with organizations across different professions to implement those evidence-based solutions. Let me share some advice from this work to help us answer the question of how to move forward from here.
Seek Evidence-Based, Data-Driven Solutions
Behavioral scientists like me pull our hair out over this one. We want people to look at the evidence, listen to expert advice and make data-informed decisions. People don’t put a medication in their bodies until it’s passed extensive clinical trials. So why would do we try to change behavior with DEI trainings that haven’t been experimentally tested?
“Evidence-based” does not just mean that you are sharing peer-reviewed information. I’ve lost count of how many times a professor has told me, “The students wanted a diversity program, so I pulled together the best information I could.” And it did not work. Many DEI trainings and programs share lots of true facts, reporting the results of properly conducted research studies. But an approach being “evidence-based” means that the way the information is given, and how you connect it to action and make it practically useful for people, has also been shown to be effective.
Even worse than untested efforts, many DEI initiatives feature approaches that have been tested and shown not to work. We know some things can backfire in DEI trainings: things like thought suppression (just don’t think about stereotypes!) or ignoring group statuses (try not to notice the race of your applicants!) lead to more bias and greater disparities. After I covered this content in a medical school training, one of the professors showed me a handout from their university’s faculty hiring training he’d completed the week before. The handout told them to do exactly those things the evidence says not to do. Untested and ineffective DEI approaches are rampant.
Dig deep into the data that matter. One university I worked with was very assertive in celebrating how 7 percent of its faculty were Black, which perfectly matched the demographics of the surrounding city. Such a lovely piece of data to highlight as a success! But in digging deeper into the organizational climate, it became clear that their Black faculty were miserable and felt utterly unsupported. And it turned out that the 7 percent was, in fact, a revolving door—most Black professors quit after one or two years, and the university just happened to be good at replacing them. “Achieving 7 percent” is a shallow, symbolic victory when your Black faculty are miserable and see your climate as actively hostile to them. This brings us to my next major piece of advice.
Focus on the Practical More Than the Symbolic
So, the funding for your department’s “diverse speaker series” has been cut. OK. That sucks! I wish it hadn’t happened. But what about your department’s “regular” speaker series? The “diverse” label being cut doesn’t stop you from advocating for bringing in speakers from underrepresented groups. The practical outcome is to bring in diverse speakers. Do it.
So, the university now says you can no longer include that diversity statement on your syllabus. OK. Well, did your university say, “Only include readings from straight White men on your syllabus”? Probably not. You can still highlight diverse voices in your field, through your choices and your efforts.
Symbolic battles have some value. I would love to have both the symbolic and the practical. But the practical matters more.
Focus on Improving Outcomes for Everyone
As we narrow our focus to evidence-based methods we can use to make practical progress toward reducing bias and increasing inclusion and belonging, it turns out that many of those skills and tools are things that are helpful to everyone.
Doing perspective-taking and seeking individuating information about others are two evidence-based tools that are effective at reducing bias. They are especially useful in relation to people from stigmatized groups, because they work against pre-existing tendencies to disregard the perspectives or individuating details of members of those groups. But they are just plain good things to do for everyone. If you are individuating your students, getting to know them all, you will be less likely to jump to conclusions about them, and they will be more likely to feel connected to and supported by you, leading to better performance. Prohibitions against “DEI” cannot stop you from getting to know your students and trying to see things their way.
When the going gets tough, our marginalized students and colleagues are often hit the hardest. For the only woman in a department full of men, her gender is an extra stressor on top of all the stressors everyone in the department has. A man might be worried colleagues will think less of him if he doesn’t get the grant he wanted. A woman has that same worry, plus the worry that her failure might reflect poorly on all women. Policies, programs and activities that improve general well-being and reduce stress for everyone can help members of stigmatized groups especially.
Another effective, evidence-based tool to reduce bias involves thinking ahead before making an important decision. For instance, if members of a hiring committee decide what qualities they are looking for in a new faculty hire, and commit to them before they look at the stack of applicants, it helps prevent bias from influencing the decision-making. This practice prevents “bias” of all kinds—not just race/gender bias, but also bias based on type of research (applied versus basic/theoretical) or scholarship/art/other outputs (watercolors versus oil paints) or whatever else is relevant.
Respect Autonomy
One of the biggest fumbles we see in nonscientific DEI efforts is a failure to respect people’s autonomy by trying to dictate how they should think, speak and act. Implicit in this is a presumption that how people thought before was fundamentally wrong, unfair, bigoted or wicked.
In contrast, a core feature of DEI approaches that work is that they respect people’s autonomy and presume they want to behave fairly. Effective approaches offer skills and tools that people can choose to apply as they see fit in their own contexts.
Inherent in this is the reality that people need tools they can customize for their specific circumstances, rather than one-size-fits-all approaches. This makes them partners in, rather than targets of, the change process.
Be Bold and Persevere
To a certain extent, it does not matter whether “DEI” is dead, in a coma or alive and thriving. No matter the status of the acronymic enterprise, it is the sustained, practical work of individuals that creates meaningful change. This is work, and we should all be doing it. Scientific models of cognitive-behavioral change can help us succeed, if we listen to the experts and follow the evidence.
Discussion about this post