Meritocracy or Myth? Why Eroding DEI is a Step Backwards
- Dr. Washington
- Apr 24
- 7 min read
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not emerge from thin air. It was born out of generations of racial terror, community resilience, and unimaginable sacrifice. To truly understand the weight of today’s coordinated efforts to dismantle Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives under the guise of "civil rights" and "merit-based," we must remember the relentless and often fatal fight that made those rights possible in the first place.
Today’s political rhetoric, exemplified in statements from Donald Trump’s administration that call DEI "mandating discrimination" and accuse it of "contradicting the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and treatment," is not just revisionist—it is a deliberate manipulation. It aims to pervert the very mechanisms designed to overcome historic exclusion and to erase the labor and leadership of civil rights activists whose blood, sweat, and tears led to landmark changes.
A Timeline of Oppression and Sacrifice Leading to the Civil Rights Act
1865-1877: Reconstruction and the Birth of Black Codes
After slavery was formally abolished, Southern states enacted "Black Codes" that criminalized everyday behavior among Black citizens to force labor through incarceration. These laws laid the foundation for mass incarceration and disproportionately targeted Black men.
1896: Plessy v. Ferguson
The Supreme Court legalizes segregation with the doctrine of "separate but equal," cementing systemic exclusion in schools, transportation, and public life.Learn about Plessy v. Ferguson
1900s-1930s: Destruction of Black Communities
Prosperous Black neighborhoods like Tulsa's Greenwood District (Black Wall Street) were destroyed in racially motivated attacks. White mobs decimated self-sufficient Black communities while the government turned a blind eye.Learn about the Tulsa Massacre
1954: Brown v. Board of Education
A hard-fought legal battle led to the desegregation of schools. Yet Black children entering white schools endured violence, intimidation, and public harassment.
1955: The Murder of Emmett Till
A 14-year-old boy from Chicago was lynched in Mississippi for allegedly whistling at a white woman. His open-casket funeral exposed the brutality of Jim Crow to the world
The Founders of Civil Rights
From Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to Fannie Lou Hamer, from Thurgood Marshall to Ella Baker, civil rights leaders coordinated national efforts that blended grassroots action, legal challenge, and public pressure. These leaders faced death threats, imprisonment, and assassination. The Civil Rights Act was their legacy—and it was intended as a corrective measure for centuries of systemic exclusion.
So when Trump’s 2025 administration frames DEI as undermining civil rights or meritocracy, we must ask: Meritocracy for whom? And at whose expense?
Recent Executive Actions: A Shift in Policy
On April 23, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled "Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy". This order eliminates the use of disparate-impact liability in various contexts, asserting that the United States should guarantee equality of opportunity, not equal outcomes. It emphasizes treating individuals as individuals, rather than as members of a particular race or group, and calls for a return to a “colorblind” and merit-based approach in government policy .
With the formation of the Constitution as a social contract, between the founding leaders of this nation, all those who have sworn to uphold it, and the citizens ourselves, the government has agreed to equal treatment, despite that not being the current (or historic) state of reality. That's not uncommon for contracts.
Emerging from the legacy of stolen land, forced labor through chattel slavery, forced migration of Indigenous people, genocide and cultural genocide, Jim Crow, lynch law, mandatory boarding schools for Indigenous children, segregation, and the Civil Rights era, Affirmative Action and DEI emerged as answers to the question of HOW do you ensure equal treatment, when it has never been the social or institutional standard?
To shape the answer, decades of empirical research was conducted to understand the inequities created through this country's formation rooted in social division and oppression. The differences were never hard to see, but they had to be measured. Marginalized communities had to wait for the answers to be evidence-based. Within two decades of generating an understanding of the measurable impacts of the history of internalized, interpersonal, institutional, and systemic violence on targeted groups, we're already witnessing the perversion, distortion, and erosion of the very definition of equality. Branding attempts toward achieving it illegal.
Misusing Civil Rights to Dismantle DEI
In the Trump administration's January 2025 fact sheet, DEI is painted as illegal, harmful, and even unconstitutional. Yet there is no substantial empirical evidence provided that DEI policies systematically exclude white people or men from opportunities.
Contrast this with overwhelming evidence of how marginalized groups have been historically denied access:
Redlining: The federal government endorsed maps that denied mortgage loans to Black families, preventing homeownership and generational wealth.Read about Redlining
School Segregation: Public schools today remain deeply segregated due to districting and funding based on property taxes.
Income Disparities: Black and Latino families continue to earn less and accumulate far less wealth than white families.Read more on income disparities
Health Inequities: BIPOC communities suffer higher rates of chronic disease, maternal mortality, and unequal access to care.Explore Health Inequities
DEI aims to repair these harms, not reverse them. Yet the Trump administration declares its intent to "reverse the progress made since the Civil Rights Act of 1964." That’s not a neutral statement. That is an admission of intent to undo decades of hard-won equity work.
The Myth of Colorblindness and False Meritocracy
"Colorblindness" is often presented as a goal of equity. But in reality, it ignores the lived realities of those who have been—and continue to be—marginalized. It assumes a level playing field where none exists.
The Clark doll study of the 1940s showed that even young Black children internalized messages of inferiority due to systemic racism. This psychological harm has long-term implications on self-worth, education, and health. Where is the evidence that DEI causes similar harm to white children?
Furthermore, white women have been the largest beneficiaries of affirmative action and civil rights protections. Many DEI programs have created pathways for women in leadership, STEM, law, and medicine—benefits that extend to the white nuclear family.
In fact, research shows that up to 70% of DEI roles are held by white professionals. These roles educate organizations, implement compliance, and help manage inclusive policies that ultimately benefit everyone.
DEI Isn't Broken: How Closely Do We Look at the Critique?
Let’s be honest: a lot of DEI programming to date has been shallow, rushed, and transactional. Many institutions launched DEI initiatives in response to social or political pressure—often without the leadership buy-in, cultural readiness, or resources needed to do it well.
Programs were understaffed and led by one or two people expected to change entire institutions from the margins.
Training sessions were often one-and-done, reduced to compliance checklists with no follow-up.
Most critically, the work was not afforded the time or support needed for relationship-building, collective learning, or the emotional and psychological safety required for meaningful change.
In short: we’ve asked DEI to deliver transformation without giving it roots. This calls for a closer look at claims of DEI failure:
Behavior Change Is Relational—Not Transactional
Real equity work requires attitudinal and behavioral change, and both are deeply human processes that unfold over time. Trust, vulnerability, and self-awareness don’t emerge from a 90-minute training. They’re cultivated through sustained reflection, dialogue, and practice, supported by leaders who are willing to embody the work themselves.
When white employees fail to grasp DEI principles or resist feedback on harm, it’s not necessarily because the principles are flawed—it’s often because:
They haven’t had enough time or space to grapple with their socialization.
The training skipped over relationship building in favor of policy.
The approach focused on shame instead of skill.
Change doesn’t happen by making people afraid of getting it wrong. It happens by creating environments where people feel equipped, supported, and invested in doing better.
The Socialization of White Supremacy Culture Runs Deep
One of the biggest oversights in how DEI work is implemented is the assumption that exposure = transformation. But the norms, values, and behaviors associated with white supremacy culture—perfectionism, defensiveness, either/or thinking, individualism, and fear of open conflict—are baked into institutional life.
These norms are reinforced every day through policies, communication styles, leadership behaviors, and even well-meaning cultural practices. You can’t dismantle 400 years of structural conditioning with a lunchtime learning series.
This isn’t a deficit model—it’s a reality check. We must stop treating DEI as a box to check and start treating it as a long-term leadership commitment, one that addresses not only what we say but how we think, relate, and lead.
Retaliation and Resistance Are Symptoms of Deeper Problems
A significant number of marginalized employees report retaliation after filing bias or harassment complaints—not because grievance procedures are inherently wrong, but because institutions often:
Treat grievances as legal risks instead of invitations to repair trust.
Fail to hold retaliators accountable, especially when they’re in positions of power.
Reward silence, conformity, and “team player” behavior over transparency.
When DEI initiatives don’t address these systemic realities, it’s no wonder employees lose trust.
But again, this is not a failure of DEI—it’s a failure of institutions to align their values with their practices.
We Don’t Quit Public Health Because Handwashing Isn’t Enough
If a public health campaign fails to change behavior, we don’t declare public health a failure—we re-evaluate the messaging, methods, and access points. We adapt the strategy, not the goal. The same should apply to equity.
In education, if reading scores drop, we don’t abandon literacy—we reassess curriculum, teacher training, and student support. In business, if a product launch flops, leaders don’t give up on innovation—they revise the rollout or pivot to meet market needs.
Equity is no different. When DEI efforts stall, it’s not proof the work is invalid—it’s a sign we need better leadership, clearer goals, and deeper accountability. We don’t quit on equity. We refine the approach.
Conclusion: The Cost of Forgetting
Erasing DEI is not a return to neutrality. It is a return to exclusion. It is a betrayal of the Civil Rights Act’s spirit and of every person who fought to make equity real.
To claim civil rights as a reason to undo DEI is both manipulative and ahistorical. Civil rights were fought for by people who understood that justice requires intentional correction. DEI is the how of civil rights in modern practice.
We must resist attempts to co-opt the language of fairness to justify inequity. And we must remember: this progress was not handed to us. It was earned. Let us not squander it.
Call to Action:
Don’t let the momentum of civil rights progress stall. Stay informed, engage in the fight for equity, and support DEI initiatives in your organization.
Subscribe to Explore our free resources, or get in touch with us to discuss how SWC can support your leadership journey. Book a consultation.
Comments