What really comes after DEI?

"Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) has faced a lot of backlash recently. Once celebrated as a win-win solution that tackled systemic injustice and boosted business performance, DEI has become politicized and scrutinized within an inch of its life. As it was happening, those of us working to advance DEI didn't adjust as the ground shifted beneath our feet. DEI was recast as an anti-meritocratic overreach that prioritized identity over skills or qualifications."

"Then it became policy. Ever since executive orders promised to revoke federal funding from organizations committed to DEI, there's been a scramble to pivot, roll back, or rebrand DEI programs. My colleagues have been forced to figure out how they can still create space where diversity can flourish and avoid the ire of political actors with dubious motives. The replacement: Pluralism? In a recent The New Yorker piece titled " What Comes After D.E.I.?" writer Emma Green floated a new term as a possible successor: pluralism."

"I knew pluralism well from my days in seminary. Pluralism is, in the words of Harvard University's The Pluralism Project, "an ethic for living together in a diverse society: not mere tolerance or relativism, but the real encounter of commitments." It promotes the enthusiastic embrace and discussion of all viewpoints. When viewpoints clash, pluralism says you should seek to understand opposing perspectives and ways they are valid for those who hold them."

DEI initiatives have been politicized and reframed as anti-meritocratic, prompting policy moves and executive orders that threaten funding. Organizations have scrambled to pivot, roll back, or rebrand programs while trying to preserve spaces for diversity. Pluralism has been proposed as a neutral successor because of its academic pedigree and emphasis on engaging all viewpoints. Pluralism emphasizes understanding and valuing multiple commitments and encourages open debate among conflicting perspectives. That neutrality can be problematic in business contexts because it may dilute intentional measures designed to address systemic inequities and protect marginalized voices.

Read at Fast Company