In light of the continuing attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) by the Trump administration, President Michael Elliott has affirmed Amherst’s commitment to DEI programs and initiatives. Last week, Jeb Allen ’27 wrote an opinion critiquing these initiatives and practices, citing them as “ineffective, performative gestures that … reinforce damaging stereotypes that minorities are incapable of doing as good a job.” I wholeheartedly disagree with Allen’s prognosis; however, I do not aim to uphold a liberal monolith in my disagreement. There is valuable discourse to be found within critical discussions of DEI. Here, I wish to outline the paramount importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion in its most abstract sense and simultaneously give a critical eye to many of its modern practical iterations.

When considering DEI, we must consider what it means to define human diversity. Attempts at this have been made across history, from Plato’s essences to scientific racism to theories of social construction. The two former attempts consider biological or metaphysical characteristics that are immutable, significant, and define a hierarchy of beings. The latter contends that although there may be contingent biological differences between humans, those differences are nonetheless used as the foundation upon which systems of oppression are built. Under this framework, the determinant of human diversity is not of essence but of experience. This is the framework of diversity in which DEI ought to be considered. The value of diversity in an institution comes not in people’s differing embodiments but in the patterns of experience those people carry in light of their individual embodiments. In the case of doctors or lawyers of privileged groups being charged with the well-being of a marginalized person, it is the lack of this shared experiential insight that heightens power imbalances between privileged professionals and minoritized clients. In this environment, moments of shared experience become all the rarer, and it is the marginalized patients who are left misunderstood, silenced, and mistreated.

Still, critics of DEI often describe it as racist or otherwise discriminatory. They argue that DEI, in its acknowledgment of difference, carries implications of hierarchy and paternalistic oppression. The “colorblind” ethic this view implies can be commendable. However, this ethic fails to fully recognize the historical and present realities of marginalized people. The fear of DEI perpetuating hierarchical categorization is not entirely unfounded; hollow corporate messaging and obsessive quantification can sour even the best of ideas. However, this concern results from poor implementation of DEI rather than from its root purpose. We must consider why marginalized groups often require unequal aid and protection relative to privileged groups.

It is anything but some sort of innate deficiency that tends to prevent certain groups from succeeding in academics or professional careers. Rather, it is the historical and self-perpetuating conditions of economic status and socio-cultural pressure that disproportionately affect people of color, immigrants, women, and queer people. These conditions force them to work harder to reach the same place as a more privileged person, even when legal barriers are lifted.

This dynamic is the basis of equity, that higher education admissions may account for the structural obstacles that some marginalized groups face when considering their academic records. But in contrast to the claim that this means a prioritization of “unqualified” minorities in admissions, by no means are there “unqualified” individuals who graduate from these institutions. In the case of doctors, research has shown that there are no significant differences in MCAT scores and GPA predicting future outcomes with respect to race for incoming med school students. Similarly, there is no difference in success on a licensing exam on the basis of race. In short, DEI does not make unqualified doctors. Far from equity initiatives reinforcing stereotypes of inferiority, lowering the barriers for disadvantaged people to succeed allows more kids to see success within their communities and successful people who know their experiences.

Inclusion is perhaps the most nebulous part of DEI to pin down, yet it is what makes diversity and equity have any meaning in practice. Moreover, it is the step most liable to fail in liberal, capitalist models of DEI. When someone is hired solely to fulfill diversity quotas, shunted into less relevant roles, and labeled the “diversity hire,” of course they are not going to feel benefitted by DEI. This is not the result of DEI policies being incapable of helping them. It is the failure of that company to actually include them. Many current DEI programs at large corporations fail because they are entirely uninterested in meaningfully disrupting the status quo. DEI, and especially inclusion, is a fundamentally disruptive project. When social justice projects and movements had some measure of favor in the 2010s and studies began to show the productivity benefits of a diverse workplace, corporations adopted DEI initiatives en masse, not because they are “woke,” but because they saw some material incentive. Whether it was better optics or increased productivity, DEI was a secondary objective to profit. Thus, when the tides of policy and optics shifted against DEI with the inauguration of Donald Trump, corporations just as quickly abandoned DEI. It is not some hypocrisy of woke corporations that belied this shift but capital interests that made this turn all too predictable.

To one who has always been the beneficiary of inequality, DEI may appear as an attack, a regression. But we do not measure progress by the privileged. We do not remember the white protesters of school integration or anti-suffragette men fondly. Similarly, history will not fondly remember the slashing and disparaging of DEI today. It is a band-aid, yes, but it is also a promise of progress. It will require a much greater change to undo the scars and still-forming wounds of oppression, but doing away with DEI will only serve to reopen those wounds.

Cici Bradley '27

DEI as a Framework, Not as a Buzzword