DEI May Not Be Dead Yet

It has been common to relabel intentions when necessary.

A torrent of executive orders by President Trump upon taking office had many of his supporters joyous. Even some that were skeptical of him tended to take a fairly positive take on the initial appearances of his second term. In some respects this should have been an easy part for almost anyone. Trump dealt with a number of the issues that had been the most unpopular with Joe Biden.

You can start with immigration which arguably was competing with inflation as the most potent election issue. The border specifically had some easy wins for Trump. But it was too specific within the federal government culture policy that it probably had more widespread support.

Removing Federal protocols surrounding gender identity and the elimination of DEI bureaucracy within government departments also received very positive reviews. Even most Independents or those that might be called moderate Democrats tended to see these issues as being the hardest ones to swallow from the more progressive wing of the former administration. And while the executive order may have given Trump some easy wins, they need to remain vigilant as it's unlikely they're going to be as easy to enforce as one might think.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion was not the first label given to the academic or human resources protocol that effectively tries to manage personnel in a company or organization. The purpose above all which promotes certain orientations for policy thinking that would skew towards a social democratic field. People were always to be on the lookout for sources of inequality or oppression; this was right out of the Marxist playbook. Of course labeling it with a Marxist term wouldn't just give away what it was trying to do but also likely make it radioactive. The earliest proponents knew this and were always looking for ways to use language to mask the intent.

Well critical theory, the cultural Marxist ideas of the 1960s, sought to try and reorient the language that was being used as well as what it was trying to accomplish. One of the specific goals was to make sure that any language that was used was frequently loaded. A word like inclusion was intentional because it makes somebody who tries to oppose it feel awkward. It's more emotional than rational. You found a feel good term to stick on an objective to make it harder to attack.

What came to be DEI started to come into fruition through the 1990s. The label was intentional, making it sound like the next stage in the civil rights movement. Its goal however more than anything else was to ensure that political thinking consistently shifted towards the left. Those that exhibited what a Marxist would refer to as critical consciousness, an ability to always look for parts of society that need to be deconstructed and remodeled, were given preference. This was the general model that came out of the universities at the time.

One result is that most of those that have advanced within any structure that uses DEI aren't just more leftist, but also remarkably uniform in how they think. One of the side effects is there's not too much in the way of diverse opinions that end up being promoted. Everyone believes that DEI was great in itself.

This means as an extension: most of those who've been promoting this for the last 25 years aren't just true believers, but the definition of religious zealots. It's not simply a case that they're not going to accept somebody telling them that they can't continue pursuing DEI; they are going to actively try and find ways to skirt efforts to stop them. This is where remembering how the terminology came into being is important. It was meant to be a mask. They are likely to do it again.

Like everything else that came out of cultural Marxism the term that is used at any given time can be changed whenever it becomes toxic. Trying to obfuscate has become part of the basic method. It's very easy to see that those within the federal bureaucracy that wish to continue simply adopt different terms that pursue the same goals.

In order to try and attack many of these programs one doesn't need to just look at the term being used or the presentation that is used for trying to sell it. The key point is looking at what they're trying to accomplish at the end. Looking for anything that seems to promote reimagining society or other objectives that have been common have to be part of the strategy.

It isn't simply an executive order that uses the label. If a concerted effort to try and eliminate DEI programs is the objective then there has to be constant oversight of program intentions and what the stated outcomes are. Anything that carries the same point of trying to produce more socially equal or reimagine how society should function likely has the same purpose under a different title.