Americans’ perceptions of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) are showing signs of decline as they understand the implications for how the term has been weaponized to push radical political agendas. While Americans widely believe everyone, regardless of race, gender or background, should have a chance to succeed, they are increasingly cooling to programs that inject division into workplaces or fan animus between racial groups.
Recent polls by Pew Research found workers’ views of DEI in the workplace have moved slightly more negative. In 2024, some 21% said DEI is negative, up from 16% one year prior. Now, just a slight majority (52%) consider it positive, down four points from 2023. Other polls register slightly stronger public support for DEI programs in the workplace, but even those may begin to decline as corporate America and academia retreat from DEI efforts.
As we reflect on the past year, here are several trends that explain why America is moving away from DEI:
1) The aftermath of affirmative action’s demise. One year after the Supreme Court struck down racial preferences in admissions at elite colleges, we gained insight into the admissions’ impact on racial minorities. Early published data from a number of select schools paints a complicated picture. As I wrote in October, “There isn’t evidence of a clear trend line pointing in a particular direction—racial minority admissions fell to varying degrees at some schools while at others saw little or no change. In a few cases, student enrollment actually rose among students who did not identify as Asian.” For example, Black student enrollment at Yale and Princeton did not experience the same declines as at Harvard and MIT. At some schools, Hispanic student enrollment increased while Asian students remained the same or faltered.
One admissions cycle isn’t enough time to tell whether patterns will hold. But positively, as I noted, “The worst outcomes some feared of Black and Hispanic students disappearing from the Ivy Leagues did not materialize.” We also now have a better sense of which elite schools relied on race as a factor more heavily than others in admitting students.
Affirmative action in higher ed admissions may be dead. But as Devon Westhill, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, explained in a True Diversity interview earlier this year, there is reason for optimism: “The door of opportunity has not been slammed shut but opened wider for people to be judged based on their character, merit and potential, not their skin color or ethnicity.”
Courts struck down quotas. Recently, a federal appeals court struck down board diversity rules the NASDAQ and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) implemented in an effort to nudge public companies into embracing race and gender diversity. The financial bodies proposed new rules requiring the disclosure of racial, gender and other personal characteristics of board members and mandating future board diversity unless companies had a good explanation for their non-compliance. The court determined the new rules were arbitrary and unconnected to the goals of the exchange.
As Philanthropy Roundtable Senior Vice President Elizabeth McGuigan noted in a statement following the decision, “The court’s decision to block NASDAQ from requiring corporate boards to report their racial and gender makeup reaffirms that individuals should not be sorted and evaluated based on their personal characteristics. … The NASDAQ disclosure regime, if allowed to stand, would have been a de facto mandate disguised as reporting and disclosure rules that violate personal privacy.”
Charitable organizations have watched this decision closely because policies that begin in the business sector often move to the charitable sector. As our research has shown, “Advocates of greater board diversity commonly argue it improves a firm’s financial performance, the data are less certain.” Organizations should not be forced to adopt discriminatory policies that open them to legal troubles or can undermine their mission focus.
2) Donors flex their muscles to save academia. After rabid antisemitism exploded on college campuses following the October 7 attack, donors and alumni were shocked by the hatred against Jews and appalled by many universities’ unwillingness to clamp down on violent rhetoric and behavior.
Donors used the power of their purse to voice disapproval and push for needed changes in higher education. Many prominent donors who give billions each year to academic institutions closed their wallets and canceled planned support to send the message that bigotry should not be tolerated on campuses. As a result of public and donor scrutiny, college presidents have resigned, and administrations were forced to make amends.
For those who want to put their charitable dollars into action, Philanthropy Roundtable’s President Christie Herrara provided a roadmap in the New York Post, writing, “While it’s wise to abandon some giving strategies, I’ve urged donors to take a more effective — and more aggressive — approach to advance their values and secure the reforms higher education desperately needs.”
Although the recent campus protests have died down, donors are awakened to the threats and activated to ensure their dollars are used to enrich the free exchange of ideas and learning, not create a safe haven for hate.
3) Changing legislative landscape. States are aggressively rooting DEI out of publicly funded colleges and universities by eliminating DEI positions, shuttering departments and ending programming. Last year, Florida passed a first-of-its-kind legislation defunding DEI positions and programming throughout the state’s postsecondary public institutions.
In 2024, Texas followed the Sunshine State in passing similar legislation removing DEI, eliminating at least 100 positions across the state. Utah prohibited DEI initiatives in higher education and state government. In addition, nearly two dozen states have introduced 50 pieces of legislation that would defund or eliminate DEI in public higher education institutions this year. This trend is only expected to continue in the years to come.
Furthermore, state attorneys general have also opened a new front in the war to root out equity in law school admissions. In light of the SCOTUS affirmative action decision, dozens of red-state AGs have called on the American Bar Association (ABA) to remove race-based criteria from its law school accreditation process and urged the legal accrediting body to employ race-neutral admissions policies. Now, blue-state AGs have sided with the ABA and demanded they keep race-conscious policies in place. The court will likely decide who wins.
The idea of equality has always been a principle Americans support, but they don’t support equity.
Philanthropy Roundtable launched the True Diversity campaign to push back against divisive or harmful DEI efforts in philanthropy. Demographic diversity only goes skin deep and ignores the varied perspectives, experiences and backgrounds that make each person unique. We have advocated for a broader understanding of diversity that encompasses viewpoint diversity.
As society continues to move away from DEI, we have an opportunity to put forward true diversity as a means to advance equality for all and uplift all without discriminating against anyone.
