By Oscar Holmes IV, Ph.D. and Julie Katz

DEI support

Source: Veronika Gotovceva / Canva

With recent anti-DEI laws that have been passed, such as Alabama Senate Bill 129 and Florida House Bill 999/Florida Senate Bill 266, which prohibit spending money on programs that “support DEI rhetoric” or “concepts dividers”, media outlets framed this. reaction as being caused by DEI and labeled DEI as a “splitter”. However, almost every concept can create backlash or cause division. Take, for example, the backlash and divisiveness over holiday displays and celebrations, school 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.

However, in each of these cases, framing the problem is extremely important. As for DEI’s high stakes, it’s problematic to square it cause of this reaction or that its division indicates malice. This framing infers that the problem is in the DEI. DEI opponents are therefore 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 et al., 2022; LeBoeuf and Shafir, 2003; Levin et al., 1998). Therefore, constantly talking about DEI reaction or dissociation normalizes this framing and makes people less likely to identify or discuss more proximal causes. As a result, DEI advocates spend an enormous amount of time and resources trying to create or change DEI policies and practices to satisfy critics when critics will be temporarily or never satisfied until DEI policies and programs are eliminated. While this diversion is a goal of DEI opponents, DEI advocates who agree with this framing also unwittingly support this goal and undermine their pro-DEI efforts.

How to reframe the narrative

A large body of research shows that prejudicial, biased attitudes are the real culprits of anti-DEI sentiments (Folberg et al., 2024; Ledgerwood et al., 2011; Son Hing et al., 2011). Instead of talking about DEI backlash or divisiveness, leaders need to reframe conversations to some aspect of “prejudicial and biased attitudes fuel the desire to enact anti-DEI legislation and eliminate DEI policies and practices to accrue opportunity.” This framing more precisely identifies the cause of anti-DEI rhetoric, actions, and legislation, and 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 those sanctioned by the government discrimination that existed and systemic oppression that persists in the United States. This government-sanctioned discrimination has provided extraordinary opportunities and advantages to social persons identity group members and created disadvantages and blocked opportunities for others. The most obvious and consequential advantages and disadvantages were based on race, genderreligion, sexual orientationand disability status. If the narrative were framed to address prejudicial, biased attitudes and opportunity hoarding, the conversation would raise questions about how these attitudes can be changed and how anti-DEI actions can be resisted, rather than how DEI policies and practices can be changed or removed to accept these attitudes. ignoble attitudes and actions. This framing raises another obvious question about why some people are unwilling to rectify historical discrimination and oppression.

After the civil rights movement won 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 the expression of overt prejudice as taboo. However, prejudicial and biased attitudes did not simply disappear with these recent civil rights gains, rather, researchers identified ways in which people updated their prejudicial attitudes and behaviors to act in a nuanced manner to avoid social ostracism (Avery et al., 2018; Brief et al., 2000; Swim et al., 1995). In particular, people who are high in social dominance and authoritarianism and who hold system-justifying beliefs are 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 advantage, opportunity, and systemic inequities. Ironically, social norms are changing again so that open expressions of prejudice and bias become socially acceptable again.

recommit Why for DEI

A narrative that frames DEI as culpable for backlash, divisiveness, or problem helps erode social norms whereby harmful attitudes and opportunity hoarding are unacceptable behaviors, and DEI policies and practices are seen as vital mechanisms to create more equitable societies and organizations. An additional central question that leaders must ask and answer is their own Why for DEI. Although many leaders focus on a business case, many scholars have already argued why this framing is insufficient and why we should move beyond the business case (Ely and Thomas, 2020; Georgeac and Rattan, 2022). Instead, the Why it should be rooted in some values ​​that leaders and organizations espouse and the context in which they find themselves. For example:

• Why is DEI important to our organization’s mission and who we aspire to be?
• Why certain groups are underrepresented within us lead or the 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 when it comes to 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 division and backlash against DEI that positions DEI as the problem is misleading and counterproductive. This framing ignores the underlying harmful attitudes and accumulation of opportunity that fuel anti-DEI rhetoric, actions, and legislation. Let’s assume that leaders are serious about creating diverse, equitable, and inclusive environments. In this case, it is past time to reframe the DEI narrative and focus Careful and solutions to 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 more. She has been featured regularly 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 coach.