Trump is right to end federal diversity programmes

Matt K. Lewis, Tribune News Service

Recently, I had the chance to catch up with a friend from Los Angeles. She’s a political liberal and cast her vote for Kamala Harris last fall. As we talked, I discovered she shared common ground with the MAGA crowd: My friend was outraged by what she said “diversity, equity and inclusion” initiatives have done to the entertainment industry. Instead of prioritizing quality art, my friend told me that publishers and studios pressure creators to produce content focused on protected classes, such as minorities or disabled characters. When creators comply, they get criticised for “cultural appropriation” for trying to include perspectives for which they have no first-person knowledge.

Anyone except Hollywood’s biggest names and guaranteed box-office draws can get stuck in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t cycle.

Making matters worse, the scourge of racial preferencing isn’t limited to fictional characters, but to the artists and actors themselves. In 2020, for example, it was reported that CBS pushed writers’ rooms for its shows to include at least 40% representation of individuals who were Black, Indigenous or people of color. Though well-intentioned, such policies leave many feeling like checkboxes on a diversity scorecard. (And it’s not like the push for diversity has made our movies more entertaining or enjoyable. Often, the mandate for forced diversity and “woke” agendas undermines passion, originality and quality in the creative arts.) Of course, the long arm of diversity initiatives reaches far beyond the world of entertainment, touching the lives of many, if not most, Americans. In recent years, inclusion mandates and training have wormed their way into virtually every facet of American life, including (but certainly not limited to) Hollywood, corporations and academia, just to name a few of the most prominent targets.

This brings us to the world of elective politics. Amid the flurry of executive orders and initiatives President Donald Trump has undertaken since returning to the White House, there are plenty of controversial — and in many cases probably unconstitutional — actions. But his order to dismantle diversity programs in the federal government stands out as a notable exception. Let’s hope it will be a shot across the bow, accelerating an end to these initiatives in the private sector as well. Most of us broadly support the principles of diversity, inclusion and equality (the term of art “equity” — with its emphasis on equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities — remains a more controversial issue). But for many Americans who must endure the relentless push to navigate hypersensitive cultural norms or endure endless “training” sessions — sometimes more like Maoist “struggle sessions” aimed at conformity and compliance — Trump’s pushback against this overbearing orthodoxy is a welcome relief.

On college campuses, diversity programs frame the Founding Fathers as “colonizers” or label European art as “oppressive.” As Nicholas Confessore of the New York Times reported last year, the University of Michigan’s largest division hands out guides for “Identifying and Addressing Characteristics of White Supremacy Culture,” which include such traits as the “worship of the written word.” One might tolerate these initiatives if they delivered tangible benefits. However, they often fail to achieve their ostensible goals. In the aforementioned Michigan case, after the program had gone into effect, a survey found: “Students were less likely to interact with people of a different race or religion or with different politics — the exact kind of engagement DEI programs, in theory, are meant to foster.” The backlash isn’t confined to disaffected students or boomer workers clinging to outdated prejudices. As my friend in Los Angeles can attest, its overreach has alienated a broad swath of Americans, including many who wouldn’t typically align with Trump’s base.

That’s because its race-conscious worldview runs counter to a core American value: the idea, championed by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., that we should at least aspire to be a colorblind society. As such, we probably shouldn’t be surprised that rampant identity politics and political correctness has sparked a powerful backlash, or that increasing numbers of young people and even racial minorities — cohorts that traditionally skew liberal — are rebelling by doing the unthinkable: voting Republican. Instead of fostering inclusion or understanding (or even browbeating the masses into obedience), diversity programs have inadvertently radicalized or “red-pilled” many erstwhile liberal Americans, leaving them resentful and disillusioned.

Now, to those of us who closely follow politics and care about the preservation of liberal democracy, turning to Trump as a savior might seem absurd, given his two impeachments, 54 felony indictments and role in inciting the Capitol riot. But here’s the thing: For the average American, these lofty concerns can feel distant, esoteric and abstract. To paraphrase George Orwell, the boot stomping your face on a regular basis isn’t MAGA — it’s the DEI administrator or HR director. For all the richly deserved criticism Trump gets for behaving like a totalitarian strongman, it is notable that one of his more resonant actions so far involves loosening the draconian grip of “diversity, equity and inclusion” on American life.

If he succeeds, he will have ironically dismantled one of the strongest justifications for his own political appeal. In this regard, I’m rooting for his success.