On Jan. 21, President Donald J. Trump introduced Executive Order 14173, titled: “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” The order states, “Illegal [diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)] and [diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA)] policies … deny, discredit, and undermine the traditional American values … in favor of an unlawful, corrosive, and pernicious identity-based spoils system.”
Additionally, he revoked President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Executive Order 11246, which “provide[s] equal opportunity in Federal employment for all qualified persons.” While Trump’s executive order only rescinded DEIA policies in the federal government, many private sectors and companies are encouraged to eliminate long-standing DEI programs. Over a dozen companies such as Google, Amazon, Target, Walmart and Meta have already begun eliminating their DEI programs. In retaliation, activists have begun to boycott companies that eliminated their DEI initiatives. Activists from The People’s Union USA have called for a nationwide economic boycott on Feb. 28, “asking that American consumers refrain from making any purchases at major retailers on Friday, February 28.” The goal is to enact broader economic change with the impending rise of consumer prices.
Trump’s executive order sparked the latest division in the ongoing national debate over DEI. Critics argue that DEI programs encourage racial advantages and undermine merit-based achievements. However, supporters assert that DEI initiatives aid in dismantling systemic hurdles and foster equitable opportunities for marginalized groups. But beyond political rhetoric, how do DEI initiatives actually function and who do they serve?
Although DEI has been increasingly framed as a divisive issue, its impact extends past politics — it has played a crucial role in opening doors for individuals who face discrimination in education, employment and society as a whole. To understand DEI, we must look past the controversy that surrounds it and toward its real-world effects.
A common misconception about DEI is that it only concerns race and benefits Black and brown people exclusively. However, race is just a small sector of what DEI encompasses. Race would fall under the diversity part of DEI, which is defined as “the representation or composition of various social identity groups in a work group, organization, or community.” Diversity acknowledges all the ways we differ: race, sex, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, religious belief and more.
Inclusion, however, ensures diversity by fostering environments that welcome, celebrate and value different perspectives and experiences. Equity, not to be confused with equality, distributes resources based on need. Equality produces a system in which every individual receives the same opportunities regardless of circumstance, which has negative drawbacks in a society where individuals are disproportionately impacted by social issues. Equity corrects this imbalance by creating more opportunities for marginalized groups that historically have less opportunities.
According to these definitions, racial groups are not the only beneficiaries of DEI. In fact, DEI initiatives affect everyone: racial minorities, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, immigrants, individuals with disabilities, individuals of different faiths and low-income individuals. These characteristics are not inherently defining features that grant certain privileges, rather they are aspects that can be used to detract from one’s merit. DEI recognizes this idea and provides opportunities to those with either limited or no access to professional connections and fosters an environment for success, promoting equity over equality.
One example could be encouraging more women to work in traditionally male-dominated industries like technology or business. Others could include allowing extended paid parental leave for families, lactation rooms for breastfeeding mothers, prayer rooms for different religious communities, the hiring of veterans who may have physical or mental disabilities, promoting the use of inclusive language — such as gender-neutral terms and avoiding expressions that denote stereotypes — and accessible accommodations for individuals with disabilities.
The perception that race is the sole reason why people of color are getting hired has discredited and politicized DEI initiatives to the point of division. The true purposes of DEI are to promote accessibility efforts, consider the struggles marginalized groups face and encourage a healthier society overall. People of color are not the top beneficiaries of DEI; experts argue that white women have seen the greatest gains since 2020. Statistically, 76% of white people hold chief diversity officer roles and 54% of those roles are held by women. This illustrates that DEI is not about taking away opportunities from one group in favor of another, but is about equitably broadening access, creating fairness and fostering environments where all individuals — regardless of their identity — can thrive.
In light of these policy changes, concerns have been raised about Stony Brook University’s efforts toward furthering DEI initiatives. Stony Brook has a highly diverse population, with 71.8% of students identifying as a racial minority and 51% of students identifying as women. Currently, Stony Brook still features its Diversity at Stony Brook page on its website, demonstrating its commitment to diversifying the overall learning environment.
In an email sent on Jan. 27, Interim President Richard L. McCormick contends that Stony Brook “remain[s] committed to fostering an educational environment that welcomes everyone, advancing research of the highest international standards, healing and protecting our patients, and building an inclusive community.”
As institutions continue to navigate the evolving debates regarding DEI policy changes, they face a challenge: balancing federal orders with their dedication to providing equitable opportunities. Recently, Trump put out a statement threatening to cut federal funding for public universities and academic institutions who continue with DEI programs. Universities and organizations are now tasked with mitigating whether or not they want to maintain their policies despite a loss of money. If so, they must ensure their policies foster diversity, equity and inclusion for the benefit of community members everywhere.
Over the next four years of Trump’s presidency, observing the adaptations these institutions implement based on federal and societal pressures will be crucial. The future of DEI initiatives will depend on how effectively organizations respond to these challenges and balance merit, fairness and inclusivity. Ultimately, these actions will expose whether American institutions will continue to be the leaders in promoting diversity and inclusion or whether they will allow their priorities to be influenced by political and societal changes.
