logo
What has DEI actually done for U.S. workers and employers?

What has DEI actually done for U.S. workers and employers?

Yahoo28-01-2025

President Trump's executive order banning diversity, equity and inclusion programs across the U.S. government is renewing debate over what DEI is and whether it has benefited workers and companies.
DEI has its roots in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which barred employment discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion and other criteria. In the following decades, a range of policies have sought to root out bias in hiring, promote fairness in the workplace and open career pathways for people of color and for women, while also expanding to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
This push gained momentum after the 2020 murder of George Floyd, as politicians and social activists pressed companies to do their part in confronting systemic racism. But Mr. Trump's Jan. 20 order, issued on his first day back in office, criticized DEI as "illegal and immoral," while the following day a memo from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management called for all federal DEI employees to be placed on leave.
What is DEI in the workplace?
DEI is often misperceived as focusing only on race, according to DEI experts. But such initiatives comprise many practices that aim to uplift different marginalized groups in the workplace. For example, a policy that accommodates working parents, such as flexible work hours, could qualify as DEI. So could establishing affinity groups based on shared identities, like sexual orientation.
May critics of DEI say employer hiring and promotion decisions should be based on merit alone without regard to race, color, gender and other categories. Other opponents of the policies go further, arguing that DEI itself promotes racism.
But DEI defenders say that policies that seek to foster diversity and inclusion within organizations aren't in conflict with those that seek to reward the most talented or hardest-working employees.
"DEI enhances merit by saying, 'How do we find the best people for the job or make sure we are promoting the best people?'" David Glasglow, executive director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging at NYU School of Law, told CBS MoneyWatch. "And that means thinking about barriers and biases that might be getting in the way of considering the full talent pool."
In defining DEI, Glasglow described "diversity" as a commitment to diversifying personnel within an institution so that U.S. workplaces better represent the population at large. "It's about engaging in effective outreach to places that might be overlooked and making sure hiring and promotion systems aren't screening out women or people of color from being considered," he said.
Meanwhile, when designed and implemented effectively, DEI programs are not discriminatory, according to Jessica Fulton, vice president of Policy at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a nonprofit that aims to improve African-Americans' socioeconomic status.
"These policies don't actually dictate who gets hired. They are ways to open doors to people who might not have access or aren't as well-connected in an industry or occupation," she explained.
The equity piece of DEI seeks to level the playing field for groups of workers who have historically been underrepresented in a given field or who, compared with their white or male peers, are underpaid for doing the same work.
"It could mean making sure women are able to enter traditionally male-dominated occupations, like construction or technology," Fulton said. "It's about addressing issues around equal pay for equal work, making sure people feel safe in the workplace so they don't feel discrimination when they come to work, because workers who don't feel safe are not the most productive."
Corporations also commonly aim to develop inclusion policies that help people from diverse backgrounds feel safe within a given workplace and its culture, she explained. They are intended to be, and often are, inclusive of everyone and not just members of marginalized communities, according to Fulton.
"It is also making sure they can put certain policies in place to make sure their workers stick around and keep working. It is about building a great team and being able to treat that team well and retain the folks they hire," Fulton said.
Given the recent backlash against DEI, though, a number of corporations are moving away from such inclusion policies, noting that they could pose a legal risk. That's after many major U.S. employers already ditched their DEI programs in response to pressure from anti-diversity activists. Among them are Ford, Harley Davidson, McDonald's, Meta and more.
How is success measured?
Many corporate executives have soured on DEI in recent years because of the perception that such policies don't enhance a company's performance, said Daniel Snell, co-founder of Arrival, a UK-based consulting firm focused on corporate leadership and culture. Other leaders, while recognizing the value of promoting diversity and inclusion, argue that DEI is inadequate for redressing what are at bottom much broader socioeconomic issues.
Glasglow of NYU Law concedes that it can be hard to determine if DEI programs are succeeding or otherwise clearly assess their outcomes. "It's difficult to measure certain DEI interventions, like the effectiveness of implicit bias training in the workplace," he said. "It also depends on what you are trying to achieve."
One tool employers use to try to gauge the efficacy of DEI policies are internal surveys that ask workers whether they feel like they can be themselves in the office, believe they are respected by their peers, and feel that their opinions matter. When it comes to a company's mentorship and promotion policies, employers will also monitor if members of a particular group of workers, such as veterans and Black employees, are quitting shortly after being hired — patterns that can yield insights into a workplace's equity and inclusiveness.
By contrast, if over time more women or people of color ascend to leadership positions, that could be viewed as a company achieving its goal of building a workplace that's more representative of its job applicant pool.
Corporate DEI programs aren't altruistic, experts emphasize, pointing to at least some empirical evidence showing that such efforts can help companies adapt to change, support innovation and even boost the bottom line.
"The point of diversity and inclusion is that companies, the government, universities, all do better when there are diverse participants in management and throughout the enterprise," said Michael Posner, director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. "The objective of this is not to set quotas or say we are going to take unqualified people because they fit a certain characteristic, like gender or race, but to create opportunity and try to overcome historic barriers to entry."
In one noted study, McKinsey found that companies in the top quartile for the gender diversity of their boards of director are 27% more likely to outperform financially than those in the bottom quartile. In separate research, the consulting firm in 2024 found that women's representation at work over the past decade has increased at every level of corporate management — women today make up 29% of C-suite level positions, up from 17% in 2015.
"[A] lot of the language and framing right now of DEI as illegal and discriminatory obscures who it's really for, which is all of us, and to the benefit of companies," Fulton told CBS MoneyWatch.
Vice President JD Vance's first interview | Face the Nation
Rebuilding Paradise
A tour of the Bronx

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Morning Bid: Inflation to set the tone for ECB
Morning Bid: Inflation to set the tone for ECB

Yahoo

time22 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Morning Bid: Inflation to set the tone for ECB

A look at the day ahead in European and global markets from Rae Wee The highlight for the European day on Tuesday will be flash euro zone inflation figures for May, which come ahead of an expected rate cut from the European Central Bank (ECB) later in the week. Expectations are for consumer prices to have slowed to an annual 2.0% last month after April's larger-than-expected 2.2% rise, but what the reading means for the ECB's rate trajectory will be the question on investors' minds. The ECB is considered almost certain to cut its rates by a quarter point to 2.0% on Thursday, but traders are sensing a pause will then follow as the economy holds up better than anticipated and longer-term inflation worries creep back. U.S. tariff uncertainty, heightened further by ambiguity over court rulings on the legality of the tariffs, makes the backdrop challenging as the ECB weighs the impact to business activity against implications for inflation further out. And in more tariff news, the Trump administration wants countries to provide their best offer on trade negotiations by Wednesday, as officials seek to accelerate talks with multiple partners ahead of a self-imposed deadline in just five weeks. President Donald Trump's erratic trade policies continue to cast a pall over markets, and the dollar fell anew to a six-week low on Tuesday on signs of fragility in the U.S. economy. Talks between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping are expected this week as trade tensions between the world's two largest economies simmer. It remains to be seen whether it will be a "beautiful" chat or if things could take a turn for the worse. Key developments that could influence markets on Tuesday: - Euro zone flash CPI (May) - U.S. Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) report (April) - Fed's Goolsbee, Logan speak Trying to keep up with the latest tariff news? Our new daily news digest offers a rundown of the top market-moving headlines impacting global trade. Sign up for Tariff Watch here. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Why Brands Are Still Betting on the US
Why Brands Are Still Betting on the US

Business of Fashion

time22 minutes ago

  • Business of Fashion

Why Brands Are Still Betting on the US

Serena Uziyel isn't giving up on the US. Over the last year, the Istanbul-based luxury shoe brand has opened two stores in Florida and one in New York in what is now its second-largest market after Turkey. The brand hopes to open more stores in Florida, as well as new markets like California and Texas. Those plans were made before the Trump administration unleashed its tariffs, and when the US economy was on more solid footing. But the brand has no intention of changing course now. 'We know how to deal with it, so we are not going to change our plans,' said chief executive Nadir Celik. It helps that the brand has experience navigating economic turbulence and high inflation in Turkey, he added. Countless brands are making their own assessment of whether trying for a slice of the world's biggest fashion market is still worth the investment. All signs point to a weak economy with consumer confidence plummeting as the costs for essential goods like eggs go up. Retail sales on discretionary items fell in April. Trump's trade policy is also in flux, with the Supreme Court potentially weighing in on whether he can impose tariffs on dozens of countries on top of a 10 percent global levy that went into effect in April. Investing in America could be a costly mistake in a worst case scenario, where Trump imposes prohibitive tariffs, the economy enters a deep recession, or both. But missing out if the turbulence is milder than expected has its own costs. Brands operating in the US are moving quickly to protect themselves, such as by reconfiguring their supply chains to minimise potential tariffs, or operating on parallel tracks, growing their US presence while speeding up expansion elsewhere. For many, the choice to stay is clear – the market is simply too big to ignore. 'America as an economy is too important to be canceled,' said the Switzerland-based designer Philipp Plein. 'People have money to spend; people will keep on spending money.' A Resilient Market Philipp Plein International Group is going ahead with a number of US store openings for its Plein Sport activewear brand, as it looks to at least double sales for that business to $40 million, Plein said. The line is made in China, where Trump has slapped 30 percent duties on all products, but he's betting that the tariff uproar won't be as detrimental as many fear. He's even more confident in the American consumer. He noted the country's economy bounced back quickly after Covid compared to other leading economies like China, which has struggled to recover from the pandemic. Brands are also banking on customer loyalty to get them through a potential rough patch. When it comes to customers, 'once we get, them we keep them,' said Peta Heinsen, co-founder and director of the Australian womenswear brand Matteau. Heinsen said the label aims to have more than half its sales come from the US, up from 35 percent today. If US customers replicate a 70 percent global repeat purchase rate, they'll get there, tariffs or no tariffs, Heinsen said. The more that happens in the US, 'we can see huge potential without having to do too much more than we're already doing,' she said. Supply Chain Alignment Where brands are changing course, it's often behind the scenes. Ever-changing tariffs have underscored the need for brands to have a global supply chain — particularly one that isn't wholly dependent on China. The more suppliers and factories in its network, the more flexible a brand can be in relocating production when the cost of doing business increases. Diversified supply chains will help in most tariff scenarios, experts say. Several brand founders cited Portugal, Turkey and India as countries with relatively low manufacturing costs that were likely to dodge the highest tariffs. In February, Matteau moved production of its swimwear line from China to Portugal, sidestepping the roller coaster ride in April and May that saw tariffs on Chinese imports set as high as 145 percent before temporarily settling at their current level. (Whether the brand's bet pays off in the long run remains to be seen; in late May, Trump threatened a 50 percent tariff on goods from the European Union). After moving into 1,700 Target stores, supplement maker Imaraïs Beauty is in talks to move production of its gummy supplements from Canada to the US so it can keep its big new retail customer consistently supplied without having to pay tariffs. 'As a brand, and a brand owner, you're putting out fires nonstop,' said co-founder and chief executive Aaron Hefter. 'This is a forest fire.' With a trade war still brewing and consumer sentiment in flux, brands have to move forward with their growth plans while minimising any threats to their business, said Anshuman Jaiswal, chief business officer at software firm OnePint, which helps global businesses manage inventory. 'The only thing that you can control is, 'Can I have more risk cushion in my business plan?'' Jaiswal said.

2 key findings on Democrats' brand problem from the new CNN poll
2 key findings on Democrats' brand problem from the new CNN poll

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

2 key findings on Democrats' brand problem from the new CNN poll

There's new evidence that the Democratic Party's reputation is in a bad place. That doesn't mean the party is doomed, electorally speaking. There's plenty of reason to doubt that, given lots of history and its performance in the 2025 elections thus far — but it is a complicating factor for the party's path forward. And a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS provides insights into the party's problems. It's worth a breakdown. The poll, which was released Sunday, asked a battery of questions about how people view both parties. Perhaps most striking was that people were more likely to view the Republicans than Democrats as the party with strong leaders (40% to 16%) and even the 'party of change' (32% to 25%). Neither party won close to a majority in either category. But the former is notable because there is such a gulf between the two parties. And the latter is notable because the party that's out of power is usually viewed as the party of change. Not this time. So what can we read into these findings? The 'strong leaders' question might be the most troublesome finding for Democrats. Only about 1 in 6 Americans said Democrats have stronger leaders than Republicans. As remarkably, only 39% of Democrats said that. We've seen hints of this in previous polls. A March CNN poll found about 3 in 10 Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters couldn't name a single leader who best reflected the party's core values. An AP-NORC poll last month showed just 35% of Democrats said they were at least 'somewhat' optimistic about the future of their party, compared with 55% of Republicans for their party. This might not seem too surprising. We just said goodbye to a Democratic president (Joe Biden) who was a diminished figure even when he was still in office. And the Democratic nominee who replaced him (Kamala Harris) wasn't exactly viewed as the future of the party when she took over the ticket in the 2024 race — and then lost. But there was a time when Democrats were at a somewhat similar crossroads, and the numbers weren't as dismal. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll asked the same question in 2006 — after John Kerry's unsuccessful emergence as Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate — and found a smaller 14-point advantage for Republicans. Back then, 63% of Democrats said their party had stronger leaders than Republicans — 24 points higher than today. One reason for the difference is that the 2025 and 2006 polls asked the question in a slightly different way, partly because one was conducted entirely by phone and the other mostly online. Today's poll gave people an explicit 'neither' option, which the 2006 poll didn't (though some people volunteered that option back then). Nearly half of Democrats in the new poll (48%) chose that option. That's still a remarkable finding. Combined with the 13% of Democrats who said Republicans have the stronger leaders, that's 6 in 10 Democrats this year who don't think their side has stronger leaders than a party led by a president whom a huge majority of them revile. The other notable finding is on which party is the 'party of change.' Americans chose Republicans, 32% to 25%. That's not a big gap, but it is counterintuitive given Republicans swept the House, Senate and White House last fall. Historically speaking, it's almost always the party that's out of power that's viewed as the party of change. Before the 2006 election, the same CNN-ORC poll mentioned above showed Democrats had a huge, 56% to 29% lead on this measure. Then, as now, Democrats didn't hold the presidency or either chamber of Congress. But the numbers are very different today. Not only do Democrats trail on this measure, but only a slight majority of Democrats themselves — 51% — say their party is the party of change. And only 18% of independents say that. It's likely this is, in part, about Democrats' failure to position themselves as change agents, but also about what President Donald Trump is doing — and about people not necessarily seeing 'change' as a good thing. However you feel about the changes Trump is making, there is no question he is pushing lots of them. You see that in his and the Department of Government Efficiency's rapid overhaul of the federal government and in Trump's historic efforts to expand executive power — in ways that are often being halted by the courts because they go too far, too fast. It's possible that people just see Trump changing lots of things, whether for good or ill in their opinions, so the 'party of change' mantle doesn't mean what it usually does. We already saw during the 2024 campaign that people's definitions of 'change' were somewhat jumbled by unusual circumstances — i.e., Harris replacing Biden, and a former president running as the challenger. But it's also pretty clear that Democrats have failed to make themselves into a viable and attractive alternative to the party in power. The new CNN poll also asked which party people viewed as the 'party that can get things done.' Republicans led on this by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, 36% to 19%. Only 49% of Democrats and 11% of independents picked the Democratic Party as the more formidable one. There's also, of course, Republicans' big edge on the 'strong leaders' question. None of this means Democrats are sunk in the 2026 elections — or anything close to it. History shows the party that doesn't hold the White House almost always wins midterm elections, in large part because they're viewed as a check on the president. Democrats and liberal candidates have also been doing well in special elections and other races held since the 2024 election. In other words, being not-Trump could be good enough to at least reclaim a very closely split House. But if the Democratic Party wants to run up the score in 2026 and really chart a path for the 2028 election, it has some real work to do on its branding.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store