By Oscar Holmes IV, Ph.D., and Julie Katz
Support DEI
Source: Veronika Gotovceva / Canva
With the recent anti-DEI laws that have passed, such as Alabama’s Senate Bill 129 and Florida’s House Bill 999/Senate Bill 266, which prohibit spending money on programs that “espouse DEI rhetoric” or “divisive concepts,” media outlets have framed this backlash as being caused by DEI and labeled DEI as “divisive.” However, nearly every concept can create backlash or be divisive. Take, for example, the backlash and divisiveness over holiday displays and celebrations, schools’ names and mascots, paper straws, daylight savings time, self-checkout lines, participation trophies, and pumpkin spice products. There will likely be people on both sides of every issue.
Nonetheless, in each of these cases, the framing of the issue is critically important. Concerning the high stakes of DEI, it is problematic to frame it as the cause of this backlash or that its divisiveness indicates malevolence. This framing infers that the problem lies within DEI. Hence, DEI opponents are justified in their anti-DEI rhetoric and actions.
Why Framing Matters
How a narrative is framed has incredible power in shaping people’s beliefs and behavior (Ibarra and Barbulescu, 2010; Kraus and colleagues, 2022; LeBoeuf and Shafir, 2003; Levin and colleagues, 1998). Therefore, constantly speaking about DEI backlash or divisiveness normalizes this framing and decreases the likelihood that people identify or discuss more proximal causes. As a result, DEI proponents expend an enormous amount of time and resources attempting to create or change DEI policies and practices to satiate the critics when the critics will be temporarily or never satisfied until DEI policies and programs are eliminated. While this diversion is a goal of DEI opponents, DEI proponents who go along with this framing also unwittingly support this goal and undercut their pro-DEI efforts.
How to Reframe the Narrative
A large body of research shows that prejudicial, biased attitudes are the real culprit of anti-DEI sentiments (Folberg and colleagues, 2024; Ledgerwood and colleagues, 2011; Son Hing and colleagues, 2011). Instead of talking about DEI backlash or divisiveness, leaders need to reframe conversations to some aspect of “prejudicial, biased attitudes are fueling the desire to pass anti-DEI legislation and eliminate DEI policies and practices to hoard opportunities.” This framing more accurately identifies the cause of the anti-DEI rhetoric, actions, and legislation, and it also changes the narrative of what people would see as “the problem.” In this framing, people would see that prejudicial, biased attitudes and opportunity hoarding are the problems and should be challenged and addressed, not DEI policies and practices.
DEI policies and practices were created to rectify the government-sanctioned discrimination that existed and systemic oppression that persists in the United States. This government-sanctioned discrimination afforded extraordinary opportunities and advantages to some social identity group members and created disadvantages and locked out opportunities for others. The most obvious and consequential advantages and disadvantages were based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and disability status. If the narrative were framed to address the prejudicial, biased attitudes and opportunity hoarding, the conversation would raise questions about how these attitudes can be changed and anti-DEI actions resisted rather than how DEI policies and practices can be changed or eliminated to acquiesce to these ignoble attitudes and actions. This framing raises another obvious question as to why some people do not want to rectify historical discrimination and oppression.
After the civil rights movement won the passage of significant civil rights legislation, executive orders, and new corporate and governmental DEI policies and practices, social norms shifted to institutionalize DEI policies and practices and make expressing overt prejudice taboo. Yet, prejudicial, biased attitudes did not simply disappear with these newly won civil rights gains, rather scholars have identified ways in which people have updated their prejudicial attitudes and behaviors to act in a nuanced manner to evade social ostracism (Avery and colleagues, 2018; Brief and colleagues, 2000; Swim and colleagues, 1995). Particularly, people who are high in social dominance orientation and authoritarianism and who endorse system-justifying beliefs are much more likely to oppose DEI efforts in favor of maintaining the status quo. Since President Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign, attacking DEI or “woke” policies and practices has become a more socially acceptable way to maintain systemic advantages, opportunities, and inequities. Ironically, the social norms are shifting again such that overt expressions of prejudice and bias are becoming socially acceptable again.
Reframe the Why for DEI
A narrative that frames DEI as the culprit for the backlash, divisiveness, or problem helps to erode the social norms whereby prejudicial attitudes and opportunity hoarding are unacceptable behaviors and DEI policies and practices are seen as vital mechanisms to create fairer societies and organizations. An additional central question leaders must ask and answer is their why for DEI. Though many leaders focus on a business case, many scholars have already argued why this framing falls short and why we should move beyond the business case (Ely and Thomas, 2020; Georgeac and Rattan, 2022). Instead, the why should be rooted in some values that the leaders and organizations espouse and the context in which they are situated. For example:
- Why is DEI important to our organization’s mission and who we aspire to be?
- Why are certain groups underrepresented in our leadership or workforce?
- Why do some employees resist or feel uncomfortable with DEI policies and practices?
- Why do some of our employees adopt a zero-sum mentality concerning DEI?
- Why are we successful in the current system and how, if at all, have we benefited from any system of oppression?
The current framing of the divisiveness and backlash against DEI that positions DEI as the problem is deceptive and counterproductive. This framing ignores the underlying prejudicial attitudes and opportunity hoarding that fuel anti-DEI rhetoric, actions, and legislation. Suppose leaders are serious about creating diverse, equitable, and inclusive environments. In that case, it is past time that we reframe the DEI narrative and focus attention and solutions on the real culprit.
Co-author Julie Kratz founded Next Pivot Point, an organization focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion speaking and consulting for over nine years. Her clients include Intel, Salesforce, Vans, Draft Kings, Trip Advisor, Mansueto Ventures, Amazon, and many others. She has been regularly featured on Forbes, Entrepreneur, CNBC, and HR.com. She teaches inclusive leadership at the IU Kelley School of Business and is a certified master coach and psychological safety and culture intelligence trainer.
