In recent years, the term “DEI hire” has increasingly been used as an insult. The abbreviation, which stands for “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion,” typically refers to efforts aimed at fostering a more diverse professional environment by creating equal opportunities for people from all backgrounds in educational and workplace settings. Despite these programs’ proven success, the term has become distorted to imply that candidates are hired solely based on their identity rather than their qualifications.
The issue escalated when the Trump administration issued an executive order to halt all government DEI programs. This decision created a ripple effect, with many companies following suit and defunding their own DEI efforts.
By removing these initiatives, we disregard the value of diverse perspectives for effective innovation and collaboration, while undoing years of progress made in creating more inclusive environments.
The origins of DEI programs can be linked back to the Civil Rights Movement, which brought national attention to racial injustices in America. The movement achieved significant milestones in dismantling systemic racism, including bringing about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aimed to end discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.
These protections can aid in preventing situations like a 2015 Google incident where the media company’s photo application mislabeled a picture of Black people as “Gorillas.” This mistake could have been avoided if more Black engineers were included in the testing process of these algorithms, or if more protections were in place to prevent the clearly offensive message.
This situation is especially concerning as facial recognition technology is used by law enforcement to identify suspects, which suffers from similar biased algorithms. Law enforcement’s overreliance on these flawed systems has resulted in multiple Americans being wrongfully convicted of crimes. While it is important that police forces are careful with their use of these technologies, DEI initiatives allow for these problems to be addressed quickly by ensuring representation of all groups.
Current facial recognition technology relies on skewed datasets that lack equal representation.
Dr. Gideon Christian of the University of Calgary sheds light on this problem, noting that some facial recognition technology have 99% accuracy rates in identifying white males, but could have error rates as high as 35% when recognizing people of color and women. Including more diverse perspectives could improve the accuracy of these technologies for everyone, but the removal of DEI programs will only exacerbate this problem.
Similarly, the historical oversight of gender differences in car safety testing, where most test dummies were modeled after male bodies, has led to higher rates of injury and death for women in car accidents.
Not only does utilizing diverse teams improve products and potentially save lives, it also leads to better team performance. A 2023 study from McKinsey & Company found that there is a “39 percent increased likelihood of [financial] outperformance for those in the top quartile of ethnic representation versus the bottom quartile.”
Corporations with DEI programs are now better equipped to handle the challenges posed by non-inclusive products, by promoting inclusivity within their workforce. However, the reach of DEI initiatives goes beyond race or gender. DEI programs ensure that individuals with disabilities are provided accessible workplaces. They create pathways for individuals from low-income backgrounds who don’t have access to exclusive networking opportunities and break down barriers for veterans to get jobs when they return to civilian life.
In short, diversity isn’t just about meeting a quota; it’s about creating environments where people from all backgrounds can thrive.
Unfortunately, the protections that were gained during the Civil Rights Movement, allowing for DEI initiatives to spark, are now at risk. President Donald Trump has struck another blow against DEI by revoking an executive order enacted by former President Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson’s executive order ensured that federal contractors upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for all government candidates and employees, claiming it “tainted many of our critical businesses.” This year, the Supreme Court is set to rule on Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, which could further restrict DEI efforts in work settings. As a result, large corporations like Meta and Walmart are scaling back their diversity and inclusivity initiatives.
The CEO of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, recently mentioned that more “masculine energy” is needed in the corporate world during his appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. Despite his lack of explanation, this outlook is confusing, considering only 8.2% of CEOs at S&P 500 companies are women. This recent trend, which undermines the importance of unique perspectives in the workplace, seems to be a part of a cultural shift that threatens to undermine diversity initiatives.
Removing these programs because they’ve become politically unpopular undermines the success of promoting inclusivity, especially in leadership roles. A report from Catalyst highlights that prioritizing diverse teams in the workplace results in a “59.1% increase in creativity, innovation, and openness.” Diversity is needed to ensure that innovation continues to thrive and benefits everyone in society.
Many argue that DEI initiatives unfairly disadvantage majority groups, but this perspective ignores the systemic inequities that minority groups have faced for generations. A true DEI program does not lower standards. Instead, it ensures the recruitment process is free from any bias, especially affinity bias, and that every candidate is fairly evaluated on their merits and they are welcomed to an inclusive work environment.
The misconception that DEI programs don’t consider qualifications and only value diversity hinders the initiatives’ growth. These programs are essential to creating equitable, innovative and successful organizations — and they are at risk due to our current presidential administration’s policies.
Nicole Iftekhar is an Opinion Intern for the winter 2025 quarter. She can be reached at iftekhan@uci.edu.
Edited by Zahira Vasquez and Logan Heine