It has been another long, (literally) hot summer of regressive Supreme Court decisions, unprecedented climate change, and now aliens!
With tumultuous times come tumultuous feelings, and frankly, being in the DEI space, especially for the last few months, has been filled with tension, uncertainty, and resistance. I am not writing this to remind you of what seems like endless articles and media pieces on DEI. In fact, my goal is just the opposite.
I don’t think all that negativity comes from the opposers, the political skeptics, the detractors. It is overdue that we interrogate how our own perceptions, doubts, and uncertainties of the current state of DEI may be fueling the opposition.
DEI proponents, current CDOs, practitioners, ERG leaders, supporters: Have we paused to think, How am I perpetuating the exact agenda of injustice that I am trying to disrupt? How am I supporting a narrative of skepticism or uncertainty around DEI, because I haven’t taken the time to process or interrogate where these narratives come from? How is my own stress and disappointment in our sociopolitical systems further fueling doubt and polarization?
Case in point: Over the past few months, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has been a prominent news source posting pieces in the Management, Risk and Compliance, and Opinion columns about DEI. We as readers may fail to pause and recognize that The Wall Street Journal, like many other news sources these days, has a bias and a target audience. The bias being moderate- to right-leaning, and the audience being highly wealthy people in for-profit business and management. This has been validated by bias-detecting algorithms such as The Factual blog’s Media Ecosystem Chart, which assigns WSJ a “moderate right” bias, with opinion pieces “leaning right.” Media Bias/Fact Check also shares that WSJ has an overall “center-right” bias, with overall factual reporting with some exceptions and misses regarding health and climate. Another example of a source with biased DEI headlines is the New York Post, which, according to Factual’s algorithm, also has a “moderate right” bias. However, their bias can be seen as more explicit and well-known than sources like WSJ, as they have a below-average grade on factual reporting due to low-quality sourcing and misleading headlines.
Thus, it is no surprise that slights and skepticism to DEI have been embedded across not just opinion articles, but articles throughout. For example, a WSJ op-ed about the fall of Silicon Valley bank began circulating in the DEI space because it questioned whether the bank’s diversity efforts may have distracted the bank from its business priorities. Followed by that, here are some other choice headlines run by WSJ over the past few months.
- “DEI at Law Schools Could Bring Down America”
- “No One is Happy About Diversity Efforts at Work”
- “Is your company’s DEI program Lawful?”
- “The Rise and Fall of the Chief Diversity Officer.”
Now, it is no coincidence that these narratives are being forwarded by a conservative news source with a history of harm owned by a corporate magnate. Nevertheless, it does not help that most DEI practitioners I know are reposting these biased articles, and falling into the trap of unintentionally validating skepticism of “is DEI necessary for business?”
I am a small sample size, but in my 1k+ connections and followers on LinkedIn, the only people I see reposting or sharing their thoughts on WSJ’s latest take on the DEI industry are similar to our readers here on The Inclusion Solution. Most of these posts by DEI practitioners include some expression of sadness and frustration, and sometimes an offer for hope, or “we need to do better.” However, I am seeing very little interrogation of the content of these posts itself — and the narratives that are perpetuated within them. We often forget what biased media is trying to do: make us frustrated, affirm doubt, and ultimately, to question our work and worth.
As we continue to repost and share our two cents on articles, and navigate the ebbs and flows of our political reality, I urge us to reflect: How is our sharing about resistance perpetuating resistance? How are we centering (unintentionally or not) a wealthy, mostly white, mostly male gaze? Who are we actually benefiting from spreading negative rhetoric? And most importantly, how are we perpetuating our own internalized white dominant cultural patterns? Particularly, are we leaning into excess worship of the written word, and overly confident that the WSJ (and other news sources) are purely objective and neutral?
Here are some ways we can better use our voices, skills, and expertise to live up to our own values of diversity, equity, and inclusion during tumultuous times:
- Pause and interrogate your interpretation: I am not saying to stop posting about DEI or to stop using social media as a platform for DEI advocacy, if that is your preferred platform. I am saying, we can take a pause and think about our own intent and the impact of our share. First off, assess the biases and position of your news source. Like my example above, is it common for the source to take one specific stance or offer attention-grabbing headlines to elicit clicks? Does it offer research- or evidence-based stances, or is it serving as fear-mongering to create controversy? For example, if most of your followers are other DEI practitioners, are you resharing a biased post to solicit reaction from others? Are you doing it to self-affirm that you aren’t being complicit in silence? On the other side, who may be in your followers that could possibly weaponize your reshare and thoughts?
- Offer an antidote on a larger platform: Frame your voice as not just a comment or interpretation, but a louder, stronger stance. Consider reaching out to reporters from headline-grabbing articles or finding another platform to share your stance for the value and worth of DEI efforts. Be the strong source that can be shared across our networks, instead of just the voice of dissent. A great example of this is Global DEI Executive Shane Lloyd’s article “A Call for Criticality and Celebration,” which offered an alternate, positive, evidence-based perspective on the departures of several chief diversity executives at Disney, Netflix, and Warner Brothers.
- Highlight your own evidence-based successes: If you are a DEI practitioner, this is an indispensable time to use your platform to communicate your successes. We cannot ignore the real, effective, authentic change people are creating at their organizations just because people may not feel comfortable sharing these wins publicly, or that these wins don’t look numerical, or create a punchy press release. Did you improve the well-being of BIPOC employees at your organization? Did you have a best practice that has improved equity in pay and increased retention? Did you instill a new policy that has gotten positive employee feedback? Has your organization prospered with more DEI efforts? These are all forms of DEI data that should be louder in the media than the current resistance.
- Be mindful of algorithmic bias: Do you ever feel that once you started clicking through a long slew of comments on one of those DEI resistance articles I mentioned above that all you see is the same thing over and over again? This is not a coincidence, but an intentional product of our web algorithms. Thus, the more you share a post of skepticism, the more you, and your networks, will continuously get fed that rhetoric. With the rise of artificial intelligence, it is essential that we do not feed machine learning software harmful rhetoric about DEI. If you want to learn more ways to combat this, Megan Ellinghausen’s chapter in Racial Justice at Work, “How Algorithms Automate Bias,” details how we can disrupt systemic discrimination through our technology use.
- Think long-term wellness and the legacy of DEI: Last but not least, as a millennial DEI practitioner and thought leader in this space, I encourage us as a community to think about our community wellness when posting, dialoguing, or even reinforcing voices of resistance, whether intentionally or not. It is one thing to be realistic and vigilant about very real business implications of the current changes in policies that are working against what many of us have been working for many years. Right now, we run the risk of being so fixated on the opposition, that we forget who and why we are working to create equitable and just workplaces and systems. It begs us to ask: How may continuing to share one-sided content ultimately demotivate the next generation of rising DEI leaders? What kind of message are we sending if we are putting so much time and energy in catering to resistant voices that we forget to affirm, empower, and validate the work that we are already doing?
To leaders, advocates, allies, and practitioners: Before your next post, conversation with colleagues, or presentation with clients, I urge you to pause and decenter the resistance, the negativity, the hate. Be loud and proud in a way that centers our communities and our lived experiences. Do it for not just the sake of being right, or to prove a point. Do it for the health and wellness of your friends, family, and colleagues.
