White Fragility and the DEI Backlash: Understanding Resistance to Racial Equity
- Dr. Sharon Washington
- Jul 29
- 7 min read
Updated: Aug 20
Rather Listen? Hear the full audio version of this Blog
July 28th, 2025 Dr. Sharon Washington
Over the past few years, we’ve watched the tide turn. What once felt like a national reckoning—calls to name racism, reckon with inequity, and transform our institutions—has now given way to executive orders, book bans, and the dismantling of diversity programs. But what’s really fueling this backlash? Beyond political talking points and budget lines, there’s a deeper emotional current running beneath the resistance. It’s not just policy. It’s fragility. Specifically: white fragility.
Table of Contents
Defining White Fragility: How Emotional Defensiveness Disrupts Racial Equity
Coined by Dr. Robin DiAngelo, white fragility describes the defensive responses white people often exhibit when their racial worldview is challenged—reactions like anger, guilt, silence, or denial. These aren’t simply emotional outbursts; they are predictable patterns of behavior that arise in multiracial interactions, especially when white norms, power, or dominance are named.
It’s important to note, however, that some Black scholars and racial justice advocates have critiqued the term. They argue that “fragility” can infantilize white people or frame them as permanently stuck in defensiveness. What I find useful in DiAngelo’s definition is not the assumption that white people are incapable of growth, but rather that these behaviors—when unexamined—stall or block the possibility of deeper racial learning and accountability. In that sense, white fragility is not a fixed identity—it’s a pattern, and like any pattern, it can be named, interrupted, and changed.
The Connection Between White Fragility and Structural White Supremacy
It’s important to understand that white fragility doesn’t exist in isolation. It operates within—and in service of—white supremacy.
When many people hear the term white supremacy, they think of extremist groups, hate crimes, or overt declarations of racial superiority. But the truth is, white supremacy is not just a belief system—it’s a structure. It refers to the social, political, and institutional arrangements that normalize whiteness as the standard and position it at the top of our racial hierarchy.
Here’s where white fragility comes in.
Most white people do not consciously believe they are superior to people of color. They would likely reject the label of “white supremacist” outright. But white supremacy doesn’t require everyone to believe in it—it just needs enough people to be unwilling to challenge it. And that’s exactly what white fragility makes possible.
When white people respond to racial discomfort with defensiveness, withdrawal, or silence, they create an environment where white supremacy can operate unchallenged.
When fragility prevents honest conversations about race, white supremacy is shielded from critique.
When fragility derails DEI efforts, white supremacy is protected from reform.
When fragility resists institutional change, white supremacy is allowed to remain the default.
In this way, white fragility becomes the social lubricant that allows white supremacy to move freely—without disruption, without interruption.
So while only a small group of individuals may be consciously working to maintain white dominance, they don’t need mass alignment to succeed. They just need a majority of white people to remain fragile—to avoid discomfort, to resist reflection, and to retreat when challenged.
That’s why naming and interrupting white fragility is not a side conversation—it’s a core strategy in dismantling structural racism. It’s how we stop shielding white supremacy with politeness. And it’s how we start building the courage and capacity to do something different.
How White Fragility Fuels DEI Retrenchment and Policy Rollbacks
The current backlash against DEI, antiracism, and critical race theory (CRT) is being deliberately shaped by leaders and campaigns that know how to weaponize white discomfort for political gain. Here’s how the pattern plays out:
1. Discomfort is framed as harm.
Antiracism work asks individuals—and institutions—to name and address racism. But for many, especially those socialized in predominantly white environments, being asked to reflect on privilege or history feels threatening. That discomfort is then labeled as divisive or even discriminatory.
Conservative politicians and commentators have latched onto this framing. President Donald Trump stated that “illegal DEI and DEIA policies not only violate the text and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil-rights laws, they also undermine our national unity.” And yet—unlike the measurable psychological damage caused by segregation, which was demonstrated through the Clark doll studies and referenced in Brown v. Board of Education—there is no empirical evidence that DEI programs generally harm or disadvantage white people. What they often do is unsettle people, which is not the same as harm. Discomfort is not danger. Growth rarely comes without it.
2. Fear and grievance become political currency.
The backlash is not just personal—it’s strategic. Political actors tap into discomfort and convert it into grievance. “Wokeness” becomes the scapegoat. “Reverse racism” becomes the rallying cry. Suddenly, conversations about fairness and repair are replaced with defensive narratives about censorship, victimhood, and erasure.
The emotional narrative wins out over the empirical one. And in that shift, the real issues—inequitable outcomes in healthcare, education, housing, or policing—are drowned out by imagined offenses.
3. Structural racism gets erased.
White fragility resists complexity. It prefers tidy narratives over inconvenient truths. So instead of grappling with the pervasive, generational effects of racism embedded in our institutions—schools, hospitals, legal systems, workplaces—resistance movements argue that racism is a thing of the past. Or worse, that talking about race is the real problem.
This is a dangerous reversal. The narrative shifts from “racism is harmful” to “naming racism is harmful.” And that shift is no accident—it’s part of a deliberate strategy to erase structural racism from public consciousness and public policy.
4. Policy retrenchment follows.
Under the Trump administration, this erasure was codified through executive and legislative action. In 2020, Executive Order 13950 banned federal agencies and contractors from offering diversity trainings that addressed topics like systemic racism, white privilege, or implicit bias. The language of the order reframed equity education as “divisive” and “anti-American,” positioning truth-telling as a threat to national unity.
While EO 13950 was rescinded by the Biden administration, its ideological impact lingers—and has been reignited with greater intensity during Trump’s current campaign and second term. Several states have since passed or introduced legislation to ban “critical race theory,” broadly (and often inaccurately) defining it as any mention of race, gender, oppression, or history that might make white people “feel bad.”
At the federal level, recent measures have gone further:
Book bans have removed texts by authors like Toni Morrison, Maya Angelou, and Isabel Wilkerson from school and public libraries.
The Library of Congress removed over 400 works related to the Black freedom struggle, Indigenous sovereignty, and immigrant experience from its public education collection in early 2025.
The EDUCATE Act, championed by conservative lawmakers, seeks to criminalize race-conscious pedagogy in federally funded institutions—including medical and public health schools—under the guise of protecting “objective instruction.”
These actions send a clear message: it’s not racism that’s dangerous—it’s the awareness of it.
How Anti-DEI Policies Threaten Health Equity and Racial Justice in Medicine
When leaders deny the existence of structural racism, they make it impossible to address the inequities it creates. Health disparities are reframed as personal failings, “cultural differences,” or statistical anomalies rather than the logical outcome of disinvestment, discrimination, and systemic neglect.
Providers are discouraged from naming racial bias for fear of being labeled “political” or “divisive.”
Medical researchers lose funding or face institutional pressure when investigating race-based disparities in outcomes like maternal mortality, chronic disease prevalence, or pain management.
Medical schools water down or remove antiracism content from curricula, sometimes under pressure from donors or political appointees.
Even public health departments—once a refuge for health equity work—are being targeted by legislation that limits their ability to address racial health gaps or collect disaggregated race and ethnicity data.
The result? An entire generation of healthcare professionals may graduate without the tools—or the permission—to name racism as a factor in care. Meanwhile, the communities most affected—Black, Indigenous, Latinx, immigrant, and LGBTQ+ patients—face continued disparities in access, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes.
This isn’t theoretical. It’s a question of life and death.
Black mothers in the U.S. are still 3–4 times more likely to die during childbirth than white mothers—regardless of income or education. CDC
Indigenous patients face disproportionately high rates of diabetes, suicide, and preventable illness—often due to lack of access and underfunded care systems.IHS
LGBTQ+ and trans individuals increasingly face legislative barriers to care, coupled with rising clinical hostility.
These are not accidental outcomes—they are structural. And when we strip our institutions of the language to name structural harm, we cannot hope to repair it.
The psychological toll is heavy. The professional risk is high. And yet, the work remains urgent.
Strategies for Interrupting White Fragility and Protecting Equity Work
We cannot address backlash without addressing fragility. Not to center it—but to understand how it functions. And to interrupt the way it gets weaponized against equity.
Here are a few steps forward:
Name the dynamic: Make white fragility visible. Call it what it is: a pattern of deflection and defense that disrupts equity work. Naming it isn’t about blame—it’s about accountability.
Build racial stamina: Create intentional spaces where white colleagues and leaders can explore discomfort without collapsing into defensiveness. This is the work of building racial maturity—learning to sit with feedback, resist re-centering, and remain engaged.
White People Must Name White Fragility, Too: This is critical - the labor of naming and interrupting white fragility cannot continue to fall on BIPOC professionals—especially in this climate, where many are already under attack, underprotected, and carrying the compounded weight of institutional harm. White people must claim it when they see it, in themselves and others. Make it visible in meetings, call it in during conversations, and commit to disrupting it without waiting for someone else to do it first.
Protect equity work structurally: Don’t rely on DEI being housed in a single role, title, or office. Embed equity into mission statements, evaluation criteria, funding decisions, hiring practices, and leadership development. Make it part of the infrastructure—so that when backlash comes, the work doesn’t crumble.
Center those most impacted: In every strategy conversation and decision-making room, ask: Who is most impacted? How are they being protected—not just represented? And how can we move from symbolic inclusion to shared power?
White fragility is not the only reason we’re facing retrenchment—but it’s a powerful accelerant. Left unchecked, it fuels political narratives that erode equity, defund life-saving work, and punish those doing the hard labor of transformation.
But when we name it—clearly, honestly, and collectively—it loses its power to derail us.
Discomfort can become dialogue. Resistance can become reckoning. And even in this moment of backlash, the door to real change remains open—if we have the courage to keep walking through it.
If this conversation resonates with you, we invite you to stay connected. Through our free membership, you’ll receive access to thought pieces like this one, along with practical tools, resources, and invitations to reflect and lead differently—together. [Join the SWC Community]
Comments