The national pushback on diversity, equity and inclusion practices is an incredibly mixed bag for me and my colleagues in the behavioral sciences who focus on developing and testing methods to reduce bias. On the other hand, we care about diversity issues. On the other hand, we are some of the biggest critics of DEI’s unscientific efforts. For years, my colleagues and I have published op-eds or been quoted in major news outlets saying, “Hey—at best, we don’t know if DEI’s best-in-class programs work, and at worst, we have some evidence that they’re upsetting people and causing more problems.”
Simply put, the goals of DEI programs are appealing—but, in reality, most DEI are absorbing. People talk a big game about “institutional and systemic change,” but in terms of real, day-to-day progress, DEI programs often fail people of color, women, LGBTQ+ people, people with disabilities or members of other previously disadvantaged groups.
I’ve brought evidence-based bias-hacking training to many departments at universities across the US, and in the hundreds of conversations I’ve had with professors across the country, I can’t think of a single time someone has said to me, “Our DEI program does a great job of supporting. [people like me].” I’ve lost count of how many people say their university’s DEI program is a waste of time, or have attended various or biased trainings that mocked the way it handles important topics, instead offering slogans or definitive statements to be posted on department websites or engaging in language policing. I will never forget the professor in his department’s diversity training department who told them not to use the word “push” because it is a sports word that will alienate women. Malarkey. (Did you even notice I said “fumbled” three sentences back? I bet you didn’t.)
Although both data and anecdata say that most DEI are absorbed, that doesn’t mean it’s all useless. And it certainly doesn’t mean that inequality, bias and inequality aren’t big problems that we need to address. But we need to be realistic—much of the backlash against DEI was won. And let me be clear: When I say that, I am very much against my own ego. My work is built around examining ways to reduce bias in large randomized controlled trials, a study made possible by millions of dollars in funding from the National Institutes of Health—funding I can’t even apply for. The current federal backlash against DEI is likely to kill all that scientific enterprise for the foreseeable future. So I am not in favor of the total destruction of DEI. But we can’t pretend that all of DEI was good and revolutionary and that this backsliding didn’t come out of nowhere.
There are many things we will no longer be able to do or say or finance, because of this opposition to DEI. Good. That is our reality. We have to fight everywhere we can, but you know what? It doesn’t stop us from doing real, practical, everyday work to make our classrooms, departments and workplaces more inclusive.
“DEI efforts” have the strongest evidence behind them, ones built on proven models of cognitive-behavioral change, things that we as individuals can still do. Institutions will always bring us down eventually, whether it’s due to political and financial pressures as we are seeing now, or because of institutional ineptitude and red tape. Ultimately, it always falls to us as individuals to do the work.
It is the continuous, everyday efforts of people that create meaningful change. That’s what science says, and that’s what I’ve seen in my two decades as a scientist exploring ways to reduce bias and working with organizations across a variety of professions to implement those evidence-based solutions. Let me offer some advice from this work to help us answer the question of how to move forward from here.
Seek Evidence-Based, Data-Driven Solutions
Behavioral scientists like myself are pulling our hair out over this. We want people to look at the evidence, listen to expert advice and make informed decisions. People don’t put a drug in their body until it passes extensive clinical trials. So why would we try to change behavior with DEI training that hasn’t been tested yet?
“Evidence-based” doesn’t just mean sharing peer-reviewed information. I’ve lost count of how many times a professor has told me, “Students want a diversity program, so I’ve put together the best information I can find.” And it didn’t work. Many DEI trainings and programs share many facts, reporting the results of well-conducted research. But an “evidence-based” approach means that the way information is provided, and how you connect it to action and make it useful for people, has also been shown to work.
Even worse than untested efforts, many DEI efforts involve methods that have been tested and shown to be ineffective. We know that some things can have positive effects on DEI training: things like suppression of thought (don’t just think in stereotypes!) or ignoring group situations (try not to notice the race of your applicants!) lead to more biases and more differences. After introducing this content to the medical school training, one of the professors showed me a copy of the university recruitment training he had completed the previous week. The handout told them to do the things the evidence said not to do. Untested and ineffective DEI methods are prevalent.
Dig deep into important data. Another university I worked with was very confident in celebrating how 7 percent of its faculty was Black, which was perfectly in line with the population of the surrounding city. A great piece of data that can be highlighted as a success! But in the depths of the organization’s climate, it was clear that their Black talent was frustrated and felt completely unsupported. And it turned out that the 7 percent was, in fact, a revolving door—most Black professors quit after a year or two, and the university just did a good job of replacing them. “Getting the 7 percent” is a shallow, symbolic victory when your Black intellectuals are sad and see your climate as hostile to them. This brings us to my next big tip.
Focus on Brand Performance
Therefore, your door’s “separate speakers” support has been cut off. OK. That’s incredible! I wish it hadn’t happened. But what about your “regular” door speaker series? The cutting edge “diverse” label doesn’t stop you from encouraging speakers from underrepresented groups. The practical effect is to bring different speakers. Do it.
So, the university now says you can no longer include that diversity statement in your syllabus. OK. Did your university say, “Put only the study of white men on your syllabus”? Probably not. You can highlight different voices in your field, through your decisions and your efforts.
Symbolic wars have some value. I would like to have both symbolic and functional. But what works is very important.
Focus on Improving Results for Everyone
As we narrow our focus to the evidence-based methods we can use to make tangible progress in reducing bias and increasing inclusion and inclusion, it turns out that many of those skills and tools are useful for everyone.
Making an impression and seeking discriminating information about others are two evidence-based tools that are effective in reducing bias. They are particularly useful in relation to people from marginalized groups, because they work against pre-existing tendencies to ignore the views or distinguishing information of members of those groups. But they are just the obvious good things to do for everyone. If you isolate your students, get to know them all, you’ll be less likely to jump to conclusions about them, and they’ll be more likely to feel connected and supported by you, leading to better performance. The “DEI” ban cannot stop you from getting to know your students and trying to see things their way.
When the going gets tough, our disadvantaged students and partners are often hit hardest. For one woman in a department full of men, her gender is an added stress on top of everything else that stresses everyone else in the department. A man may worry that his colleagues will think less of him if he doesn’t get the government grant he wanted. A woman has similar concerns, and worries that her failure may reflect negatively on all women. Policies, programs and activities that improve general well-being and reduce stress for everyone can help members of marginalized groups in particular.
Another effective, evidence-based tool for reducing bias involves thinking ahead before making an important decision. For example, if members of a hiring committee decide what qualities they want in hiring new talent, and commit to them before looking at a pool of applicants, it helps prevent bias from influencing decision-making. This practice prevents “bias” of all kinds—not just race/gender bias, but also bias based on the type of research (applied vs. basic/opinion) or scholarship/art/other results (watercolors vs. oil paints) or whatever else is relevant.
Respect Independence
One of the biggest mistakes we see in non-scientific DEI efforts is the failure to respect people’s autonomy in trying to decide how they should think, speak and act. The whole point of this is to assume that the way people thought before was wrong, wrong, racist or evil.
On the contrary, the main characteristic of the DEI that approaches that task is that they respect the autonomy of people and assume that they want to behave in the right way. Effective methods provide skills and tools that people can choose to use as they see fit in their circumstances.
Coupled with this is the fact that people need tools that they can customize to their specific circumstances, rather than one-size-fits-all approaches. This makes them collaborators, rather than targets of the change process.
Be Courageous and Persevere
To some extent, it doesn’t matter if “DEI” is dead, in a coma or alive and thriving. It doesn’t matter what the business is, it’s the continuous, real work of people that creates meaningful change. This is work, and we should all be doing it. Scientific models of cognitive-behavioral change can help us succeed, if we listen to the experts and follow the evidence.
