Mickey Levitan: The DEI that should go is the performative variety

While I never liked the expression “throw the baby out with the bath water,” it keeps popping into mind when I see the raging debate over diversity, equity and inclusion, the latest flashpoint in the culture wars.

As someone who has been responsible for leading DEI efforts in several organizations, I have deep criticism for the rash of performative activity launched by many organizations post George Floyd. Poorly conceived and executed training programs were touted as enlightened efforts to redress longstanding inequities. Instead, they seemed to divide us into either oppressors or oppressed. Failure to do the real work of creating an inclusive workplace—leadership training, recruiting, mentoring, supplier relations, board representation, equitable compensation, etc.—underscored the performative nature of so much of what was done. Not to mention excessive policies and practices that intended to signal virtue but only added to the muck.

DEI falls into that category of ideas with merit that are poorly executed. The result is to sour us on the idea rather than the flawed implementation.

In days before the term DEI became a catchall, we talked about workplaces that were participatory, fair and representative. Performance improved with teams that harnessed diverse viewpoints, had a connection with customers they served and treated all with fairness and respect. We took on a pay gap between women and men doing similar work, gradually compensating women at equitable levels. We worked with managers who seemed to do all of their recruiting at their old fraternity and reworked the mix of schools where we did recruiting to create a higher likelihood that we could find people with a range of experience beneficial to our work.

When a manager had a hard time working with someone of another gender, we sought to bridge the divide. Barriers that prevented otherwise highly capable people with disabilities were removed. Capable board members were recruited to add needed perspective.

Some opponents of DEI wield it as a pejorative catchword for what has become another boogeyman concept—woke—reflexively claiming that women or people of color got their jobs for reasons other than merit. It makes me wonder how those folks feel about children of alumni and other large donors who are admitted to elite schools despite not reaching minimum standards. Or some of the nominees to Trump’s cabinet who have few of the qualifications we usually seek. How can you profess to be a stickler for merit-based practice but not call out such visible examples of non-merit-based decisions?

As someone who has spent a career dealing with organizational effectiveness in the corporate, nonprofit, educational and government sectors, I defy any leader to argue that fairness, transparency and incorporation of diverse viewpoints does not contribute to better decision-making and performance. So let’s address the bathwater—things done under than banner of DEI that should be unwound—without forsaking the baby, ways of working that have proven to be effective.•

__________

Levitan is adjunct professor in philanthropic studies at the Indiana University Lilly School of Philanthropy.]