How do Anthropologists Continue to Work in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) in Today’s Fraught Political Environment?
By Dr. Lucy Arciniega and Dr. Melissa Maceyko
Originally published online at the World of Work Blog for the Anthropology Career Readiness Network and can be found here.
There is a targeted uptick in public and legal attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the United States today. So, how do anthropologists continue to work in the DEI space? These attacks are pervasive, built into a broad conservative political-legal strategy; a backlash against efforts to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion. This backlash is, unfortunately, not historically unique. Rather, we have seen that amidst such challenges, diversity professionals have and will continue to reimagine how to conduct DEI endeavors. We continue to argue that anthropologists are particularly well-equipped to engage in DEI work, through their study of culture, systems, and interactions; holism, structures, and structural biases; and historical and existing inequities. Thus, anthropologists can conduct this work thoughtfully and dynamically in a way that centers the needs of those most marginalized in our society.
While the current backlash against DEI feels daunting, past efforts to diversify the U.S. workplace have almost always met with great resistance. For example, in response to legal challenges to affirmative action in the 1980s–1990s, business scholars and consultants replaced the managerial discourse on affirmative action with that of diversity. Management scholars advocating for diversity claimed that affirmative action was a matter of compliance, but diversity was a business imperative—a prevalent discourse that persists today. In effect, in the face of anti-affirmative action backlash, the work of attempting to diversify historically white cismen’s organizations and spaces did not go away. Instead, the central framing and focus of this work began to shift, and in other ways, expand.
Historically and in the present, in the face of changing needs, expectations, and legal, organizational, and social demands, DEI work has required a dynamic field of professionals who can rise to the occasion every day to meet these challenges. This entails strategizing how to achieve institutional diversity, equity, and inclusion goals at the intersection of organizational, economic, and social needs, while simultaneously working towards challenging historic systems of discrimination. This means challenging our assumptions about the ways that things have been done in order to identify solutions for doing things in new, but familiar ways.
For example, in 1996, Proposition 209 prohibited the University of California and other state institutions from using race, ethnicity, or sex in employment or higher education. Rather than eliminate the process altogether, the University of California led in the development of using the short “diversity statement” in faculty hiring decisions. This describes an applicant’s knowledge, commitment, and plans to enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion. Such statements continue to be permissible within the law; they are required of all individuals and do not suggest that there would be a priority to hire individuals by race.
In 2024, the science behind the value of diversity—for businesses, educational institutions, and non-profits—is irrefutable. Teams that are diverse in terms of race, gender, and other demographic dimensions result in better and more objective decision-making, more creative problem-solving, and higher-impact ideas and innovation. It does not make business sense to eliminate diversity work in toto. Instead, while facing an anti-DEI backlash, many rework their strategies; for example, by focusing on creating outreach that will increase diversity in the applicant pool itself.
Also, in a move noteworthy for anthropologists, some organizations today are silently rebranding DEI departments and programming, overall, with an eye to culture; they are transforming DEI surveys into “culture” surveys that address the same questions and concerns. This rebranding tactic is being well received in many spaces, including by corporate leaders who have spoken out in support of their efforts. We have seen many of our consulting peers also rebrand their companies to de-emphasize diversity, such as the DiversityInc firm rebranding to Fair360.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion work is an aggregate of practices, policies, programs, initiatives that are all multifaceted, unique, and tailored to address specific goals. The truth of the matter is that, like anti-affirmative action movements of the past, current anti-DEI legislative efforts are forcing us to rethink how we undertake hiring, admissions processes, and training with diversity and inclusion in mind. Given, however, the well-understood business value of diversity, anti-DEI movements will have a difficult time stopping the work in its entirety. Diversity professionals are experts at re-tooling and re-imagining their work, because there is demand for strategic solutions that address legal constraints, organizational needs, and employee and community expectations, in spite of headlines reporting a chilling effect on DEI efforts. To do this work, we believe there continues to be a unique seat at the table for anthropologists to help us usher the new era of diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplaces, and to join us in asking and re-imagining, what is next for DEI?
