If we want to strengthen America, it's time to rethink our approach to DEI

My first lesson on diversity came when I was about 7 years old. I was several years into the foster-care system, and the agency was struggling to find me a permanent home. After one of what felt like dozens of home visits, I asked my social worker why this was so hard.

"It's because we don't know if you belong with a white family or a Black family," she said, matter-of-factly.

This tidy explanation was a reference to my biological parents: my mother, who was white, and my father, who was Black. To her, it was a simple, even clinical, matter. But to me, a young boy unschooled on matters of race, it unleashed silent questions: "Is she referring to the color of the house? Why would that matter?" Back then, I never found the answers to those questions, and I never found a safe home. Rather, I would fall through the cracks of a well intended but burdened foster-care system, struggling to be seen, heard, and valued. Today, I wonder what those turbulent years would have been like had those entrusted with my care been less concerned with what I was and more concerned with who I was: just a young boy in need of a safe home.

In foster care, I experienced what happens when a diverse society gets immersed in labels. It led me to professions where I could create equitable and accessible environments, first in higher education, then in corporate America. In 2007, I became Monster.com's first chief diversity officer, then Walgreens' in 2012. Most recently I served as chief human-resources officer at Workhuman.

Those of us who have been advocates for equity and fairness understand that progress, however long overdue, is often met with resistance. But there's something different about the current cycle of pushback against diversity, equity, and inclusion. DEI roles across America are being eliminated — down 8% so far this year, according to Revelio Labs — a trend accelerated by the Supreme Court's decision last year to ban race-conscious admission practices. Billionaires have gone on anti-DEI campaigns, using their wealth and platforms to shape narratives, distorting or ignoring history, while bending organizations to their will.

I used to believe that as America wrestled with a deeply discriminatory past, it would inevitably move on an upward trajectory, leaving only the vestiges of those practices. However, this latest, relentless pushback against DEI efforts, much of it insincere and disingenuous, has given me considerable pause. The upward path of a representative America is not assured, and for some people, it's something that must be defeated. Older generations now see a society in which their grandchildren are fighting the same fights that they once did. Something has gone very wrong.

But there is a way forward for DEI. When done right, DEI programs not only give companies a competitive edge but also can be the very means of mending a broken America.

Today's most prominent critics of DEI — and its forefather, affirmative action — often cite their loyalty to meritocracy, where people are judged solely on their skills and ability. But this argument conveniently ignores DEI's roots.

Affirmative action was formally created in America by the Kennedy administration in 1961: Government contractors were required to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin," the executive order said. Fair treatment of employees was further cemented by executive orders from the Johnson administration and the Nixon administration as it became clear that, when left to their own devices, employers continued to discriminate in everything from hiring to the awarding of government contracts.

Still, decades later, the struggle for representation and inclusion continued. In 1994, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charged several major companies, including Texaco, Denny's, and McDonald's, with engaging in discriminatory employment practices based on age, gender, race, and disability. The next decade brought the 10 largest lawsuits in the EEOC's history — from a nearly $192 million settlement for Black employees at Coca-Cola who had alleged discrimination in pay and promotion to a $176 million settlement for Nextel employees who had alleged a pattern of age, racial, and sexual discrimination. In all, plaintiffs' settlements totaled a staggering $1.5 billion.

Most companies have been reactive on DEI, often responding only after some lasting damage had already been done. This approach is rarely sustainable.

A central theme emerged in those cases: Despite equal performance, employees from diverse backgrounds found themselves routinely facing organizational and institutional barriers around pay equity to career advancement. Unsurprisingly, the role of chief diversity officer became more popular during this time as CEOs and boards recognized that they needed a dedicated team with resources to prevent similar class-action settlements and public-relations disasters. Those roles have served their organizations well, and companies that are currently abandoning their DEI commitments would be well served to pay close attention to their internal metrics in the coming days and months.

Against the backdrop of that history, it's ironic that DEI naysayers cling to meritocracy as a prime reason for their objections. While a pure merit-based system would be ideal, it doesn't exist — as the Supreme Court's decision on college admissions tells us. While the court eliminated affirmative action, it left intact a long-standing bastion of privilege: legacy admissions. In 2022, Harvard's overall acceptance rate was 3.2%. The acceptance rate among children of Harvard graduates, meanwhile, was 34%. Certainly, these critics are correct when they say that discrimination of any kind has no place in our society. But they do not apply this standard equally and are often eerily quiet when irrefutable evidence of discrimination against women and people of color is uncovered.

A main source of this line of opposition to DEI is fear. America's growing demographic diversity has ignited a fear of displacement. But this fear ignores how diversity has been one of this nation's great strengths for centuries. It also turns a blind eye to the future of corporations. Increasingly diverse customers require a diverse workforce, and a diverse workforce helps fuel innovation.

For decades, most companies have been reactive on DEI, often responding only after some lasting damage had already been done. This approach is rarely sustainable. Corrective actions such as unconscious-bias training, while well intentioned, often put employers and employees alike on the defensive and can preclude us from getting to the empowering, illuminating power of DEI. For example, if the only time we talk about gender in the workplace is in the context of sexual harassment, then we miss out on the unique insights and varied perspectives that women bring to the workplace.

The rise of employee resource groups has been an important way to bring diverse perspectives to the forefront — helping recruitment efforts and introducing customer-segment awareness, among other invaluable benefits to a company — but they, too, have limitations. In a world of increasing intersectionality, ERGs often force us into a single dimension of diversity when none of us is a single, individual thing. This has also contributed to a lack of sustainability for these groups.

The world of work might be our last defense against a descent into a nation of 1 million isolated, ideological clans.

What has been sustainable is when DEI is anchored in a business strategy central to the growth and performance of the company. I saw this firsthand when I oversaw Walgreens' commitment to employing people with disabilities, specifically in several of our largest distribution centers. These are time-sensitive, pressure-packed environments; either you do the job or you do not. Everyone at a distribution center has to be held to the same demanding standard. But with training accommodations and short-term coaching, people with disabilities performed the same job just as effectively, in some cases even more so, as their peers.

Such approaches have yielded demonstrable business results, from penetration into emerging markets to driving innovation and positively influencing brand perception. And these investments are paying off: In a study of companies with mature DEI organizational commitments, 75% said that it had a very positive impact on their business' competitive position. They can point to increased employee engagement and retention, increased revenue streams and gross profit, as well as enhanced brand image. In those organizations, DEI isn't a sidecar, temporary response to a social concern or organizational incident. It has quantitative measures, is routinely assessed and recalibrated, and has direct visibility to the CEO and the board. In those organizations, DEI is essential to the business strategy and gives them a distinct competitive advantage.

There's a broader impact as well, one that's not just good for employers but critical for a healthy democracy. On a daily basis, the place where most Americans are most likely to encounter diversity — to interact with those from all walks of life, generations, languages, cultural experiences, and faith expressions — is in the workplace. Often, we must harness these different experiences to work toward a common goal. The workplace is an imperfect but vital forum for what we most need in this digital age: proximity. Proximity allows me to get closer to your story and you to mine, and find something in common that goes beyond the labels that so often divide us. Those ties that bind us are critical to repairing trust in our neighbors, institutions, and our country. The world of work might be our last defense against a descent into a nation of 1 million isolated, ideological clans.

Doing what is right is inextricably linked to the idea of America.

I have witnessed this empowering paradigm of DEI. I have watched a 40-year-old person with disabilities receive their very first paycheck, ushering in an independence that they once believed would never come to pass; I have witnessed the power of a college acceptance letter to a first-generation student that would not have been possible in prior generations; and I have held the letter Charles Walgreen wrote to his staff in 1928 ensuring that a Black pharmacist would be paid fairly, decades ahead of industry norms.

As we collectively define the next stage of DEI, we can also look to history — specifically to a great debate that unfolded in 1874 about the first civil-rights bill. It was met with strong objection from those who would ultimately usher in the blight that was Jim Crow. But there was one voice, that of Rep. Robert B. Elliott of South Carolina, whose eloquence in support of the bill rose above the rest. His speech began with a powerful statement as to why he was there, and it is a reminder for all of us that we must remain committed to creating access and opportunity for all:

"I regret, sir, that the dark hue of my skin may lend a color to the imputation that I am controlled by motives personal to myself in my advocacy of this great measure of national justice. Sir, the motive that impels me is restricted by no such narrow boundary but is as broad as your Constitution. I advocate it, sir, because it is right."

Doing that which is right has always been at the center of DEI advocacy. From the suffragettes at the turn of the 20th century and the monumental civil-rights work of the 1950s and '60s to the decadeslong fight for equality in the LGBTQ+ and disability communities, doing what is right is inextricably linked to the idea of America. Generations before us who were responsible for building the nation we now enjoy sacrificed far more than we have been asked to in order to bring us closer to that ideal. All of us, advocates and allies alike, owe it to them, as well as those who will follow us, to find a common trust and a common bond that most certainly exist within us.

Steve Pemberton is the founder and CEO of The Lighthouse Academy, a leadership, coaching, and HR consultancy. Prior to serving as chief people officer for Workhuman, he was chief diversity officer for Walgreens and Monster.com.