What is DEI, and why is it a hot issue? Why is DEI alone not enough?
by: Ji Ho (Geo) Yang, PHD Candidate at the University of Washington
Seattle Public Schools is grappling with budget deficits like many other districts across the country. These budgeting issues are connected to inflation and the end of COVID-19 federal funding, as well as contending with the Trump administration and its aim of dismantling public education. We are starting to really see the impacts of the dismantlement of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). Businesses, public institutions, and corporate organizations are readily doing away with their DEI policies and commitments in order to stay aligned with federal policies and larger right-wing agendas. Like so many other policies and mandates that dismantle practices meant for social progress, the current demolition of DEI is part of a long-standing mission to create a color-evasive society that would benefit the status quo (such as whiteness, ableisms, patriarchy, etc.).
The argument for getting rid of DEI often lies in promoting a merit-based system or meritocracy. This argument disguises the truer intentions and outcomes of meritocracy, where merit lies in the status quo. Thus, merit is not truly possible for those outside the margins of the status quo. The essence of DEI makes “meritocracy” more viable by creating practices where all those with merit are actually considered rather than “merit” being limited and only accessible through whiteness, ableness, etc.
DEI and its current destruction have direct impacts on education. A prominent example is college admission and the policies of affirmative action. This example alone has huge implications, including who gets to generate wealth, what types of people enter certain occupations, etc. It may appear as though DEI is an inherent aspect of public education in the U.S. when considering how much “equity” is talked about and how many policies being developed/implemented around “equity”, and the assumption that schools are in a post-racial context as schools have been integrated (via Brown v. Board). This is simply not the case. Schools are segregated inside and outside. DEI policies and practices are so needed and so important to moving towards a more just world; however, DEI alone is insufficient to address the complexities of diversity, equity, and inclusion in our schools. This is a key finding so far in my dissertation research as well.
The school sites of my research are Southside Chicago schools, where schools broadly in that area are Black, meaning students and families are all (over 90%) Black, school leadership are Black, school staff are strong majority Black, and the neighborhoods are Black. Even in these spaces where there appears to be little room for whiteness to become privileged and dominant, whiteness can prevail at the expense of people of color.
At one of the school sites, teachers note inequities within their school, specifically inequities across grade levels. Teachers here talked about how the primary grades (K-1st/2nd) receive greater resourcing, such as additional staff support, more volunteers, and praise/acknowledgment from school leaders. Other grade levels in the school, especially upper grades (6th-8th), do not receive a comparable level of staff, support, or attention. All teachers in my research identified this inequity broadly.
One key factor in this inequity is there being multiple white teachers in primary grades while other grade levels do not have as many or any white teachers. Teachers outside of the primary team largely identified the racial dynamic in this inequity, while primary teachers did not note racial dynamics as a reason for the inequity. One of the non-primary teachers noted how they used to be a part of the primary team until a middle grades (3rd-5th) teaching position needed to be filled. One of the primary team teachers had to fill that vacancy, which came down to two teachers, a white teacher and a Black teacher. Although the Black teacher had taught at the school longer, has been teaching in primary grades extensively, and has an exemplary teacher record, the Black teacher was moved to the vacant position. At the same time, their white counterpart kept their position in primary. This was solely a school administrative decision, who are also Black. Although the teacher that moved could not know exactly the reasoning behind the decision, they felt that the school leadership were attempting to appease the white primary teachers and avoid disrupting the primary team in that sense. My analysis of this inequity also identified that whiteness was being privileged and served as a credential, or in simpler terms, race was a factor in determining who is valued and credible.
In this school site where white educators are the absolute minority amongst their colleagues and students/families, whiteness still dominates as a key line of credibility and value, and thus, privilege. The issue of whiteness is not the only factor contributing to this particular inequity; other issues include the adultification of Black youth. However, in considering DEI, we often associate it with white or racially diverse settings. What does it mean to consider, practice, and evaluate equity in non-white homogenous spaces such as Black schools? How can whiteness be critically discussed in those spaces? This inequity at this one Southside Chicago school highlights the pervasiveness of white supremacy and how ingrained it is in how we, including local stakeholders of color, navigate our day-to-day lives.
Within Seattle and SPS, what does it mean to evaluate equity and inclusion in racially diverse spaces such as SPS leadership serving SPS? I recently came out of a meeting with local family and community advocates of color, and a major beef brought up was the insincerity of SPS in walking the walk of equity and inclusion (they do plenty of talk). For example, bringing in people to address family engagement and racial inequities but not providing sufficient resources and leverage/capacity to actually follow through on the recommendations developed by those people. We saw how this played out in the SPS school closure drama this school year, where the loudest voices (well-resourced white families) rather than the less visible/heard voices were recognized and attended to. Whether it’s Southside schools in Chicago or Southeast schools in Seattle, mere representation and diversity are not sufficient to progress toward equity and inclusion. Fundamental unlearning of whiteness is necessary.
DEI training and practices are instrumental in bringing in stakeholders beyond the status quo and equipping stakeholders with some capacity to engage in conversations and actions around equity and inclusion. However, DEI as is, is insufficient to break the current status quo. To further DEI intentions and address the needs of equity and inclusion, consistent training and reflective work must also be incorporated into DEI practices and policies. DEI hiring and one-time training are insufficient. Just as democracy requires constant vigilance, reflection, and adjustments, so does DEI work.
While the destruction and bulldozing of key public institutions and social protections are irreparably damaging our communities, they can also present opportunities to dream and create more just, equitable, and inclusive institutions and protections. I have continually been thinking about the current Trump administration, Project 2025, and the general white-nationalist backlash as both setbacks as well as opportunities to reimagine an educational system that is diverse, equitable, and inclusive. Steps back can provide more runway to leap forward.