Talk:Diversity, equity, and inclusion

Wiki Education

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 2 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katumassd, Spicyeggwhites, LiamG17 (article contribs).

Wow, this is bad.

Can someone please explain to me why an article called 'Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion' and therefore notably not 'criticisms of DEI', spends more of its space on criticisms of (what people who just use it as a buzzword call) DEI than on actually explaining what it is and how it works?

This is especially egregious when a number of the people noted and quoted in the criticism section are not notable relative to the topic. For instance, 'Canadian psychologist' Jordan B. Peterson's opinion on some subject related to psychology is notable and worthwhile to include (at least hypothetically, as far as Wikipedia's notability standard is concerned) in an article concerning that topic, but when it comes to this subject, 'just some guy' Jordan B. Peterson's opinion is about as notable and worthwhile as my hypothetical drunk uncle's.

And when the article lumps together criticisms of DEI (and 'DEI') as a concept and people supportive of DEI as a concept criticising bad attempts to implement policies based on it in the same section without distinction (i.e. not criticism of DEI).

Having a section of the article where criticism of DEI are outline makes sense. What does not make sense is having a section of the article where people can get on their soapbox to shotgun in a bunch of quotes from people who agree with them politically regardless of their relevance to the subject. Nor does having a section where people who support the practice, but at some point criticised some specific implementation of it, are lumped in with people who criticise the entire practice and even people who are criticising something completely different but calling it 'DEI' as a buzzword, just so the 'Criticisms and Controversies' section can be a bit bigger in order to create a stronger impression that is unpopular.

I'm no longer enough of a wiki lawyer to know how to say 'this section needs to be nuked from orbit' in policy-speak, but yeah, that. Robrecht (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Moved criticisms to end. Maybe could split the article and have a separate article "Criticism of DEI" and keep here only a shorter summary of these criticisms. HudecEmil (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I figured that rather than just complain and expect others to do all the work, it would be a good idea to go through it myself and see if I could weed out some of the worst offences:

• The entire 'Equity vs. Equality' section can be removed outright. It seems to be an outline one editor's argumentation for why using the word 'equity' instead of 'equality' is bad, based on definitions of equity and equality it doesn't adequately support as being the definitions used in the practice of DEI. It doesn't contain an actual direct criticism of DEI.
• The 'Diversity Training' section can also be removed from this article and its contents if necessary moved to the appropriate article. Diversity Training has its own article, the segment even links to it. Criticisms of Diversity Training should go there.
• The 'Mandatory diversity statements within academia' section can also go, because criticism of one DEI measure does not constitute criticism of DEI as a concept and the article is about DEI as a concept. But if it must be kept, it is frankly a mess. Besides reading like a social media post, half the text contains no direct criticism of DEI, but rather contains a bunch of statistics that opponents of DEI practices like to cite and then have people draw their own conclusions from. To wit:
  • According to a 2022 survey conducted by the American Association of University Professors, one in five American colleges and universities include DEI criteria in tenure standards, including 45.6% of institutions with more than 5000 students. Some universities have begun to weigh diversity statements heavily in hiring processes. For example, University of California, Berkeley eliminated three-quarters of applicants for five faculty positions in the life sciences exclusively on the basis of their diversity statements in the hiring cycle of 2018–2019. This entire segment of the section contains no criticism. It adds nothing relevant, because a Wikipedia article is not the place for opponents of DEI to share 'scary' statistics with each other.
  • A 1,500-person survey conducted by FIRE reported that the issue is highly polarizing for faculty members, with half saying their view more closely aligns with the description of diversity statements as "a justifiable requirement for a job at a university", while the other half saw it as "an ideological litmus test that violates academic freedom" This information, without the size of the survey, but with the mention of FIRE and the words 'litmus test' was already mentioned three paragraphs earlier, except there presented as a separate opinion from FIRE itself. It shouldn't be included twice, FIRE gets enough undue attention in the section already.
  • This:
    • The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has called such practices an attack on academic freedom, stating that "[v]ague or ideologically motivated DEI statement policies can too easily function as litmus tests for adherence to prevailing ideological views on DEI" and "penalize faculty for holding dissenting opinions on matters of public concern".
    • The Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA) has called for the end of required diversity statements, stating it "encourages cynicism and dishonesty" and erases "the distinction between academic expertise and ideological conformity"
    • Other criticisms include that it "devalues merit"; (...) or functions as a loyalty oath.
    • According to Professor Randall L. Kennedy at Harvard University, "many academics at Harvard and beyond feel intense and growing resentment against the DEI enterprise because of features that are perhaps most evident in the demand for DEI statements", stating "I am a scholar on the left committed to struggles for social justice. The realities surrounding mandatory DEI statements, however, make me wince"
    • The first three of these are, at their core, the same exact criticism. In any decent Wikipedia article this would get consolidated into a singles short paragraph rather than padding out the section length with several people all getting quoted saying the same thing in different ways. In addition, the actual criticism made of Diversity Statements in the cited article for the fourth quote is also the same criticism, with the quote given in the article not actually containing a criticism. (If anyone feels it does, they should immediately take action to add a 'Criticism' section to everything anyone notable has ever said made them wince for the sake of encyclopaedic completeness.)
  • Several U.S. states have implemented legislation to ban mandatory diversity statements. In 2024, MIT announced that diversity statements "will no longer be part of applications for any faculty positions" at the university, becoming the first major university to abandon the practice. This sentence shouldn't be here. It doesn't contain any criticism or controversy, I'm pretty sure it's only included because the DEI opponent who added it wanted to take a textual victory lap.
• The 'Effects of DEI policies on free speech and academic freedom' section. Well, at least we're finally on the subject of DEI policies here. However...
  • The 2021 cancelling of a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) guest lecture by astrophysicist Dorian Abbot after he criticized DEI programs led to media attention and controversy. This sentence describes a controversy surrounding choices made by MIT. This is not the Wikipedia article on MIT.
  • The 2023 disruption of a talk by Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kyle Duncan at Stanford Law School sparked criticism and discussion in the media, with many focusing on the role of Associate DEI Dean Tirien Steinbach, who joined protesters in denouncing Duncan's presence on campus. In the wake of the incident, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal opined that DEI offices have "become weapons to intimidate and limit speech". Steinbach replied with a piece entitled "Diversity and Free Speech Can Coexist at Stanford" that was published in the Journal the following week. This is literally all this paragraph needs. It contains the inciting incident, the criticism and the immediate response. The entire controversy in a nutshell. The rest of the paragraph is several other quote refuting this criticism and while I am, as should at this point be obvious, not an opponent of DEI and don't mind there being more refutation from a personal perspective, the issue we're addressing here is that the 'criticism and controversies' part of the article is longer than the rest of the article and this being in that section doesn't help.
  • Two of the authors, Anna Krylov and Jerry Coyne, subsequently argued in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that their emphasis on merit – "once anodyne and unobjectionable [...] now contentious and outré, even in the hard sciences" – led to its refusal by major journals and subsequent publication in the Journal of Controversial Ideas. Wikipedia articles are not a forum for people to have their grievances aired. The preceding sentence describes a criticism of DEI, this sentence describes two authors whining they couldn't get published in the publication they wanted with no mention of DEI.
  • The 2023 suicide of former Toronto principal Richard Bilkszto This whole situation probably shouldn't be in the article, certainly not in its current form.
• The Antisemitism section. Oof. Okay. First paragraph is fine. Second paragraph may need an edit, the current formatting (intentionally?) suggests the quote is from the Stanford DEI committee, but it's actually the Brandeis Institute being quoted. Third paragraph... Ah... Oh dear.
  • Following a wave of antisemitic incidents on American campuses in 2023–2024, Do you see where that link goes? Is it the official position of Wikipedia and WikiCommons that 'antisemitic incident' is an appropriate descriptor of 'pro-Palestinian protest'? It doesn't really matter, though, because this whole paragraph can go. Most of it it just repeats the criticism of the first two paragraphs, except quoting new people (seen that before) and the last sentence is a completely unrelated non-sequitur that shouldn't be in the criticisms and controversy part of the article and even if it was, not in the antisemitism part.
• The 'Politicization and ideology' section... Two paragraps dedicated to the opinions of three people, I'm pretty sure that entries in the 'criticism' part of Wikipedia articles have to be supported by more than just the opinions of singular people for them to be included.

The remaining three sections are largely fine, could probably do with a bit of editing to make it more clear that those criticisms are of poor implementation of DEI policies by people who are otherwise proponents of DEI, but unlike most of the entries under the current criticisms and controversies header at least they don't read like some debate bro Reddit post. Robrecht (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else is voicing concern for the "pro-Palestinian protest part". Directly calling it an "antisemitic incident" is an inherently dangerous false equivalence. Naphxing (talk) 10:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

correction: "pro-Palestinian protest" part Naphxing (talk) 10:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Then don’t show up with nazi flags. Seems pretty easy. 2601:18F:801:1D20:9CC5:4CB3:42F9:9EDF (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Seconded with pretty much all of this. Harry Hinderson (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps a small gripe, but there is only one graphic in this article and it happens to be of a viciously anti-DEI book cover. One effect of this is that pasting a link to the article (for example in a text message, where there are no backsies) causes that image to be displayed with the link. It feels almost like a bait and switch. N8chz (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not just a USA article

I'm really concerned that this article is giving far too much space to the United States. We need to trim back some of the Americana here. This isn't Diversity, equity and inclusion (United States). Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is about a framework that has been largely pioneered and championed by activists in the United States, and spread to other countries through the vast reach of American media and business. It's not about the subject of diversity, equity, or inclusion. DEI is rooted in the lens of United States history and social issues. Its tenets can be theoretically applied to other countries' contexts, but in practice is ill-equipped culturally to address non-US social issues (e.g. xenophobia and colorism in Japan, caste in India, gender in the Arab world, Hutu/Tutsi/Twa tensions in Rwanda, etc.) with deep nuance. Bert303 (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Could we possibly make a separate article specifically for the U.S.

I don't know what I am doing, Sean T. Byrne (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

It's fair ask. I don't even know why one would lump in Equity with Diversity and Inclusivity. Employment equity has been around forever, and certainly doesn't seem to trigger the racists the same way that diversity and inclusivity do. Though does the rest of the world even need an article? Surely Employment discrimination should cover it as a main article, with some kind of political article just for the USA, where somehow a bog-standard very boring and mundane topic, seems to have been weaponized by the extreme right. Nfitz (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Recommend that this page be given full protection

While vandalism has slowed due to the previous increase, it is clear that edits continue to be biased and partisan in nature. This includes biased or bad sources or the removal of information that doesn't suit political agendas, such as mentions of disabled veterans. I recommend that this page be given full protection. Dswdon (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

This article itself is biased and based on a political agenda. DEI did not exist in the 19th century. "Equity" as a goal of the civil rights movement did not exist before 2011. 71.77.154.27 (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Equity existed the moment LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Get your facts straight!213.230.87.116 (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Technical Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2025 and 17 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JessieGuijosa (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by JessieGuijosa (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

DEI or "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" is a new subject matter

This article is basically a lot of lies propaganda. The term and concept of "DEI or Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" is new from 2011, and absolutely does not date back to the 19th century. The use of the term Equity in this context is new in the 21st century and was started because they finally got the full equality they wanted, to the point of having a black man elected as President of the United States -the most powerful man in the world- so they couldn't cry about inequality and having no power anymore. This reads like a bunch of lazy grifters trying to take credit for a movement they had nothing to do with by claiming it's the same as theirs and also therefore exempting their own movement from criticism by association.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Diversity+Equity+and+Inclusion&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en-US&smoothing=3

71.77.154.27 (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I checked from the year 1500 through 2022, not case sensitive, with smoothing of five. Peaks can be seen for "diversity" in 1660, "equity" in 1646, and "inclusion" in 1535. The entire phrase "diversity equity and inclusion" first appears in 2009, not 2011. Link for the entire phrase. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=diversity+equity+and+inclusion&year_start=2005&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=5&case_insensitive=true

My next step was Google Trends. According to that tool, "diversity equity and inclusion" first appears around October 2012. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2010-01-01%202025-02-27&geo=US&q=diversity%20equity%20and%20inclusion&hl=en

I am not sure the history of the term "equity". Can you provide a source?

The kind of people who believe in DEI policies believe that 1) It is more difficult for certain groups than it is for other groups to achieve the same goals, 2) That extra difficulty is not based on reason, and 3) The extra difficulty is morally wrong and should be stopped. DEI is not only about race / skin color. According to this very article, the first policies helped veterans -- did you read that? But if you want to focus on race, I'll do it. President Obama got at least one credible death threat soon after he announced his campaign in 2007. That was earlier than most or all other candidates in past elections. Because of that, he was given protection from the Secret Service earlier than usual. Source one. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-under-secret-service-protection/ Source two. https://www.cleveland19.com/story/6466851/obama-gets-secret-service-protection-earliest-ever-for-presidential-candidate/ 108.20.199.76 (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Multiple ideas to improve the text

Current text: "Into the 2020s, DEI efforts and policies have generated criticism and controversy, some directed at the specific effectiveness of its tools, such as diversity training, and its effect on free speech and academic freedom, as well as more broadly attracting criticism on political or philosophical grounds." My idea for replacement text: "During the early 2020s in the United States of America, DEI policies have been criticized from multiple angles. Is each individual goal – diversity, equity, and / or inclusion – an appropriate goal to set? Why or why not? If yes, what are the most effective and fair methods to use – for example, does diversity training work? If no, what is an appropriate goal? What is the difference between making a comment which criticizes a goal and / or method versus making a comment which is prejudiced?"

The "Early history" section might be renamed "Late 1800s through 1970s". The "Early history" section currently includes the court case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which happened in 2023 – that should be placed elsewhere.

Current text: "Diversity themes gained momentum in the mid-1980s. At a time..." My idea for replacement text: "Conversations about the importance of diversity in schools and work places gained momentum in the mid 1980s. President Ronald Reagan suggested dismantling equality and affirmative action laws. Many people who disagreed with the suggestion argued that the laws benefitted not only the people they were created to help, but all people in a school or work place. In other words, both women and men, both African Americans and Whites (and people of other races), both the disabled and able bodied were helped by learning and working together. From then on, researchers have been testing whether or not that is true. The hypothesis is sometimes called the business case for diversity." 108.20.199.76 (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Link preview image is currently not representative

The current link preview image is of the cover of a publication critical of DEI since it is the first image of the article. This does not make sense (would be like putting an "asbestos-free" label as a representative image of an article on asbestos).

While I think there are lots of thorny caveats to finding the representative image I would think anything that actually came from a DEI practice would be more representative than what we have right now. Bert303 (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)