Assignment B: DEI and Fairness

Readings:

• White House Executive Order: Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity
• U.S. Department of Education: Takes Action to Eliminate DEI
• The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights: Trump’s Executive Orders on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Explained

Outside Sources:

• DEI Is Under Attack. What's The Plan? | ForbesBLK Summit 2024
• Firing Line with Margaret Hoover | Coleman Hughes Interview

Reading The White House Executive Order was a bit of a struggle for me. I found it to be wordy and use "runaround" language. I had to look up some words and finally use ChatGPT to explain it to me in "laymen" terms to really understand this mumbo jumbo...🤣

In his 2025 Executive Order, President Trump argues the need to end DEI. His administration described Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) as "illegal" practices that does not protect fairness and merit-based systems needs to be restored. According to the Executive Order, some DEI programs create unfair biases based on race and sex which violates civil rights laws. However, organizations like The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Human Rights and Parents for Public Schools argue that DE
I initiatives were established to remove barriers and create equal opportunities for people who have been historically excluded. These opposing viewpoints show why DEI has become one of the most debated issues in education today.

To me, the real debate is the way America defines fairness. The Executive Order argues that fairness means treating everyone the same regardless of race or identity. This perspective connects with arguments made by political commentator Coleman Hughes during his interview on Firing Line with Margaret Hoover. Hughes explains:

“We should be trying our best to treat people without regard to race, even though we do notice it.”

 Hughes argues that colorblindness doesn't mean pretending race doesn't exist. Instead, he believes the government should never treat individuals differently because of their race. He argues that public policies should focus on just the disadvantages itself, such as socioeconomic inequality, rather than using race as a factor when determining who receives support.

I can see Hughes’ point that people should not be judged or limited because of their racial identity. However, race can’t be removed from the conversation. In my opinion, the conversation actually becomes more complicated when we acknowledge that race has historically shaped access to education, employment, housing, healthcare, and wealth in America. Ignoring race doesn’t automatically erase the effects of historical discrimination.

DEI supporters would argue that equality and equity are two different things. As we stated in our classroom discussion, equality means giving everyone the same resources, while equity recognizes that people may need different supports because they don’t all start from the same place. From this viewpoint, DEI programs are not about lowering standards or giving people unfair advantages. Instead, they were put in place to identify barriers and create pathways so that more people have the opportunity to succeed. Stacey Abrams explains, in a Forbes Black Summit panel, a broader understanding of DEI by stating:

“DEI describes 240-plus years of movement building... Reconstruction, civil rights, LGBTQIA rights, women's rights, [and] labor rights.”

Her statement connects DEI to a larger history of movements that fought for groups who were excluded from full participation in American society.

One part of the Executive Order that stood out to me was the strong language used to describe DEI. The order states that DEI represents:

“dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’...”

My immediate reaction was: Wow, what a choice of words! The use of “dangerous,” “demeaning,” and “immoral” creates an immediate negative image of DEI before the document fully explains its argument. The language itself is designed to influence how the reader views.

Another statement from the Executive Order argues that DEI programs:

“undermine our national unity... and traditional American values of hard work, excellence, and individual achievement.”

I strongly disagree with this interpretation. In my opinion, the purpose of DEI is not to reject hard work or achievement, but to make sure that people who have historically been excluded and overlooked have access to opportunities. DEI is not saying that qualifications don't matter; it's asking whether everyone has had a fair opportunity to demonstrate those qualifications.

The Executive Order also states that it wants to:

“protect the civil rights of all Americans.”

While protecting civil rights is an important goal, I question whose definition of “all Americans” are we talking about here. America has a long history of protecting those who fit what has been describe as the dominant social norm, or SCWAAMP (Straight, Christian, White, Able-bodied, American, Male, and Property-owning) category. Historically marginalized groups have often had to fight for recognition and protection under the law. This history is the main reason why DEI supporters argue that intentional efforts still need to be made.

The section of the Executive Order that revokes previous policies also raised concerns for me. Many of the programs being eliminated were created to address inequality and expand access. I started thinking, did President Trump think only "others" would be affected? He probably didn’t consider that removing these programs may unintentionally harm the very people his administration claims to protect.

For example, imagine a mostly white low-income community facing air pollution or inadequate resources. Because that low income community would fall under disparities and barriers, those residents wouldn't be considered and lose access to support. DEI doesn’t only cover race; poverty, disability, geography, and other factors can create barriers that affect many different communities.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights presents the opposite argument from the White House. While the Executive Order argues that DEI creates unfair preferences, the civil rights organization argues that DEI exists to remove barriers and expand opportunity. Both documents discuss fairness, but they define fairness differently.

The main differences between the two perspectives are:

    Supporters of the Executive Order argue:

• Hiring and admissions should focus only on individual qualifications.
• Government should not encourage decisions based on race or sex.
• Some DEI programs may unintentionally create discrimination.

    Critics of the Executive Order argue:

• Many DEI programs are designed to reduce barriers, not create unfair advantages.
• Eliminating DEI efforts may weaken protections for historically marginalized communities.
• The broad definition of “illegal DEI” may create confusion for schools, employers, and organizations because legal interpretations vary.

The U.S. Department of Education eliminating DEI also raised concerns for me, especially regarding schools. The department announced the cancellation of DEI-related training and service contracts totaling more than $2.6 million.

Well, what about the educators working in diverse communities? If teachers are not provided professional development on culture, bias, inclusion, and understanding different student experiences, how are they expected to effectively support students from backgrounds different from their own Representation matters, but preparation matters as well. I don’t think a teacher needs to share the same identity as their students to support them, but they do need the knowledge, skills, and tools to understand their students’ experiences.

Another issue that stood out to me was the connection between DEI and disability services. One statement from civil rights advocates warned:

“When DEI is attacked, every student loses... students with disabilities are already being swept up in this ideological crusade.”

 This made me stop and think: Are disability services considered part of DEI? Don’t disabilities have their own Acts and Titles set in place?

The answer is complicated. Disability rights are protected through laws such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which are separate from many DEI initiatives. However, disability is often included within broader conversations about diversity and inclusion because students with disabilities have historically experienced exclusion and barriers within education. Eliminating inclusion-focused practices could potentially affect how schools support students with disabilities, English language learners, and other groups who require additional resources (sources: IDEA, Disability Discrimination, and Civil Rights Law) 

After reading all documents and listening to Coleman Hughes’ perspective, I understand more clearly why this issue is so controversial. Both sides agree that discrimination is wrong, fairness matters, and every student deserves the opportunity to succeed. The disagreement is about how schools and governments should create that opportunity.

Hughes argues that fairness is best protected by treating people without regard to race and focusing support on individual circumstances, especially socioeconomic disadvantage. DEI supporters argue that ignoring race and other identities can overlook barriers that continue to affect students today.

Personally, I can understand the concern that government policies should not unfairly favor one group over another. At the same time, I worry that completely eliminating DEI programs could remove resources that help schools identify and address barriers faced by students.

As Dr. Moon warns:

“The elimination of not only diversity, equity, and inclusion... but criminalization of concepts... it will impact everyone.”

This statement made me think about the larger consequences these policy changes could have on education. Schools serve students from many different backgrounds, and educators need tools to understand and support those differences.

Overall, these two perspectives have shown me that the disagreement is not about whether diversity or fairness matters. Both sides value fairness and oppose discrimination. The real disagreement is about how fairness should be achieved. Should fairness mean treating everyone exactly the same, or should fairness include recognizing that people experience different barriers and may need different forms of support?

That is the question I continue to think about after completing these readings.