In the US, DEI is under attack. But under a different name, it might live on

In Union County, South Carolina, the cotton mills that once provided livelihoods for many have long disappeared. Also known as a "food desert," Union County has many residents who live far from the nearest supermarket. So, in 2016, Elise Ashby, head of a local non-profit organization, began working with farmers to transport discounted fresh produce throughout the county, where 30% of the population is Black and about 25% live in poverty.

To fund this endeavor, Ms. Ashby initially relied on her own savings, followed by some small grants. But in 2023, the Walmart Foundation—the charitable arm of America's largest company—provided her with more than $100,000 (£80,000) in funding as part of its $1.5 million initiative to fund "community nonprofits led by people of color."

"I cried a little bit then," she said. "That was the moment that I felt like somebody really saw what you were doing."

Two years ago, projects like this attracted sponsorship from major American corporations, as the United States grappled with past and present racism in the wake of George Floyd's murder. Floyd, a Black man, was suffocated to death by a Minneapolis police officer kneeling on his neck during an arrest in 2020.

But now, these companies are retreating. Walmart announced in November that it would end some of its diversity initiatives, including plans to close its Center for Racial Equity, which had supported Ms. Ashby's funding. From Meta and Google to Goldman Sachs and McDonald's, major companies have announced similar changes, part of a broader corporate retreat from diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

This moment represents a massive cultural shift, due in part to fears of lawsuits, investigations, and social media backlash, as well as continued pressure from the new American president. Since taking office this January, Donald Trump has actively sought to "terminate DEI" and "restore merit-based opportunity in America." He has directed the federal government to end its DEI programs and investigate private companies and academic institutions suspected of engaging in "illegal DEI."

Early in his second term, the Department of Veterans Affairs closed its DEI office, the Environmental Protection Agency has placed nearly 200 employees working in its civil rights office on paid administrative leave, and Trump fired the highest-ranking military general, a Black man, whose defense secretary had previously said he should be fired for engaging in "woke" DEI.

At first glance, America's policy experiment aimed at improving outcomes for specific racial and identity groups appears to be over. But some experts argue that there is another possibility, that some such efforts will persist—but in a different form, more suited to the political climate of a country that has just elected a president who has vowed to wage war on "wokeness."

Programs similar to DEI first emerged in earnest in the United States in the 1960s, following the civil rights movement that fought to protect and expand the rights of Black Americans. Initially, under names like "affirmative action" and "equal opportunity," their goal was to reverse the harmful effects of centuries of enslavement of African Americans, as well as decades of discrimination under the segregationist "Jim Crow" laws.

As the movement grew, promoting the rights of women, LGBT groups, and other racial and ethnic groups, the use of terms like "diversity," "equity," and "inclusion" became more widespread. DEI programs in the corporate world and government agencies often focused on hiring practices and policies, emphasizing diversity as a business benefit. Their proponents said their goal was to address inequalities affecting people from all backgrounds, although an important focus was often race.

These programs saw enormous growth during the social upheaval of the 2020 "Black Lives Matter" movement. Walmart, for example, pledged $100 million to its Center for Racial Equity over five years. Wells Fargo appointed its first chief diversity officer; Google and Nike already had theirs. Bloomberg data showed that after adjusting their hiring practices, companies in the S&P 100 added more than 300,000 jobs—94% of which went to people of color.

But almost as quickly as the pendulum swung to the left, the conservative backlash began. For Stefan Padfield, executive director of the conservative think tank National Center for Public Policy Research, DEI programs are based on the premise of "dividing people based on race and gender."

Recently, the argument that these programs designed to combat discrimination are themselves discriminatory, particularly against white Americans, has gained traction. Training courses that emphasize concepts such as "white privilege" and racial bias have come under particular scrutiny.

The roots of this opposition lie in conservative opposition to critical race theory (CRT), an academic concept that views racism as inherent in American society. Over time, the movement to remove books from classrooms evolved into a campaign focused on "punishing woke corporations" that allegedly indoctrinate students with CRT ideas.

Social media accounts like End Wokeness and conservative activists like Robbie Starbuck seized the opportunity, targeting companies accused of being "woke." Mr. Starbuck claims that after he publicly revealed details of DEI initiatives at companies like Ford, John Deere, and Harley-Davidson to his social media followers, those companies' policies changed.

One of the clearest signs of the movement's strength came in the spring of 2023, when Bud Light's partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney sparked right-wing outrage and calls to boycott the beer and its parent company, Anheuser-Busch InBev. An analysis by Harvard Business Review found that Bud Light sales were 28% lower than usual following the campaign.

Another major victory for conservatives came in June 2023, when the Supreme Court ruled that race could no longer be considered a factor in college admissions, overturning decades of affirmative action-based policies.

The ruling also put the legal status of corporate DEI policies in doubt. When Meta internally announced the cancellation of DEI programs, the company told employees that the "legal and policy landscape" around DEI had changed.

The speed with which some large companies have abandoned their DEI policies raises the question of how sincere their commitment to a diverse workforce was in the first place. Martin Whittaker, CEO of JUST Capital, a non-profit organization that surveys Americans on workplace issues, said that many of the reversals came from companies that were "eager to look good" at the height of the "Black Lives Matter" movement.

But not everyone is succumbing to political and legal pressure. A November report by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation noted that while DEI programs appear to be on the decline, "almost all" Fortune 500 companies still list DEI commitments somewhere on their websites. Apple shareholders recently voted to continue the company's diversity programs.

Polls measuring Americans' support for DEI have yielded mixed results. JUST Capital's surveys suggest that support for DEI has declined, but support for issues closely related to it—such as fair pay—has not. A 2023 Pew Research Center survey showed that most working adults (56%) believe that "focusing on increasing DEI in the workplace is a good thing."

Much depends on the question of whether DEI itself is effective.

Some research suggests that DEI programs like diversity training may actually be harmful. A study by researchers at Harvard and Tel Aviv University showed that trainers often report employee hostility and resistance, with employees feeling forced to undergo training and threatened by what they perceive as reverse discrimination; it also said that these programs often leave trainees feeling more hostile toward other groups.

Opponents of DEI have seized on this research as evidence that "the best way to improve the lives of all our citizens and all our neighbors is to allow the free market to lift all boats," as Mr. Padfield put it.

Sirry Alang, of Harvard University, who focuses on gender equality, believes that the problem with this idea is that there is no historical precedent to suggest that racial and gender imbalances will correct themselves. Ms. Alang says that racial and gender barriers persist and argues that DEI solutions that focus on "creating a level playing field for all" are needed.

She cited several experiments showing that white men receive disproportionately more responses to job applications than women or people of color. A recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research sent identical resumes to approximately 100 of America's largest companies and found that applicants perceived as white were contacted by employers 9.5% more often than those perceived as Black—with one company contacting applicants perceived as white 43% more often.

But Ms. Alang also said that many DEI programs have real problems, adding that the most common programs—including diversity and unconscious bias training and employee resource or affinity groups—tend to be the least effective. A recent study highlighting the ineffectiveness of certain DEI practices said that a common problem is treating them as an end goal in themselves, without measurable outcomes.

When large companies make donations to DEI initiatives—like Walmart's Center for Equity—Ms. Alang says the problem is that there isn't much data showing how effective it is. "This is an area where we don't actually have good research," she said.

Research shows that DEI is effective when it makes "small systemic changes," she said. There is evidence that replacing open-ended questions in performance reviews with more specific questions, such as "What was this person's biggest accomplishment this past year?", has significantly reduced gender and racial assessment gaps that can affect compensation, according to Ms. Alang.

Supporters of DEI say that the practical effects of the shift away from DEI can be seen at Harvard University, the target of the Supreme Court's landmark case.

Last fall, Harvard Law School reported that of the more than 500 new students enrolled, there were only 19 Black first-year students, according to the American Bar Association. That's less than half the number from the previous year (43) and the lowest level since the 1960s. The law school's Hispanic student enrollment also fell sharply, from 63 in 2023 to 39 in 2024.

Colleges and schools have begun to adjust to the new environment. At one university, Lunar New Year celebrations were canceled; another university ended a decades-long race forum. Elsewhere, social clubs for Black and Asian students have been disbanded.

But the impact of the ruling does not appear to be straightforward. Enrollment of Black and Hispanic students has actually increased at some other top American universities since the Supreme Court ruling.

For incoming freshmen this fall, Northwestern University saw an 11% increase in Black student enrollment and a 13% increase in Hispanic student enrollment.

Because of results like this, some DEI opponents have accused universities of defying the court's ruling.

But another explanation for the increased diversity at some universities is a shift to "socioeconomic inclusion" rather than race and ethnicity—but which appears to have achieved the same goal.

Dartmouth College said in a press release that after adjustments were made to make the school "more attractive to low- and middle-income families," Hispanic student enrollment jumped from 9.7% to 12.7% last year.

It is clear that the anti-DEI movement is having a significant practical impact. "I think we're in the middle of a major shift," Ms. Alang said.

Michelle Jolivet, author of the book "Is DEI Dead?: Rebranding the Inclusive Organization," says she worries that the anti-DEI movement will lead to stagnation in progress for historically disadvantaged groups.

She said, "Important things get measured, and when you stop measuring them, they don't happen. Then you stop progressing."

But to the core question of her book—is DEI dead?—Jolivet says the answer is no.

She says that companies that appear to have eliminated DEI programs have not actually eliminated them. Instead, they are simply rebranding and restructuring to evade potential lawsuits.

She cited the example of Walmart renaming its chief diversity officer to chief belonging officer. Similarly, McDonald's has rebranded one of its programs, renaming its Global DEI Center of Excellence to the Global Inclusion Team.

"DEI has become a more controversial word," she said. "If I just take that word away, I can still do the same thing."

But not everyone is reassured.

Back in the fields of Union County, Elise Ashby is uncertain about the future. Walmart's grant enabled her to access capital, which she believes Black-owned businesses often struggle to obtain.

She fears returning to a situation where she is "up all night" wondering where the next check will come from and facing the kind of obstacles that "white men don't" face.

She said, "Am I worried about the future? Of course I'm worried."