Frustrations from a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Professional
Why many DEI professionals are frustrated, burned out, and rapidly leaving the field.
I have worked in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) for over a decade, and we have seen an increase in DEI jobs over the years. However, all DEI jobs are not created equal, and all DEI jobs are certainly not effective. Based on what I’ve seen in my experience, there are two approaches to diversity, equity, and inclusion jobs: the assimilationist approach, which pushes for limited changes while maintaining institutional norms and the status quo, and the liberation approach, which pushes for disruption of the status quo and systemic change.
There is the assimilationist approach (most DEI jobs explicitly or implicitly push for this approach), where people who take on DEI jobs are tasked with trying to be “inclusive”, but that inclusiveness relies upon forcing those who have been marginalized and oppressed to accept and acquiesce to institutional norms. This could be described as giving someone “a seat at the table”. But what is missing is that the “table” hasn’t fundamentally changed, the people already at the table might not be invested in equity, justice, or fairness, and the marginalization, harm, oppression, and problems that created and sustained the table likely have not been fully addressed or eliminated.
And equity in the assimilationist approach might mean “giving people what they need to succeed”. That sounds acceptable initially, until you realize that these organizations tend to define success through the lens of those in power or through the norms that are already in place and are inequitable. And though people are now included, they have to meet those metrics of success or else they will be labeled as not the right “fit” and eventually excluded. This manifests often in institutions when someone’s behavior, language, mannerisms, emotions, responses to disagreement, or responses to microaggressions and macroaggressions conflict with what is “expected” or considered “professional”.
Leah Goodridge in “Professionalism as a Racial Construct” details exactly how professionalism is used to harm people of color in the legal field, but notions of professionalism are harmful in every field and institution. Goodridge specifically points out “selective offensive”, which is described as “the normalization of racist, misogynistic, ableist or otherwise discriminatory behavior while the denunciation of said behavior is seen as disruptive,” which I will discuss more.
There is also the liberation approach, that relies on recognizing the struggles of every marginalized person as well as the interconnectedness of those struggles. It also requires taking action and working together to create spaces, institutions, and a world free of marginalization, harm, and oppression that works for everyone. Additionally, liberation requires self-reflection and self-awareness and a willingness to take action to dismantle systems that marginalize, oppress, and harm.
Harper and Kezar in “Leadership for Liberation: A Leadership Framework & Guide for Student Affairs Professionals” directly discuss liberation values that are helpful for a liberation approach:
Liberation: Becoming aware of our true selves and working to upend oppressive structures/systems.
Power and Oppression Acknowledgment: Being conscious of power imbalances, understanding the role of whiteness/white supremacy.
System challenging: Actively confronting oppressive systems, policies, and practices as well as challenging and diverging from what people in power view as the “norm”.
Storytelling: Sharing impactful stories and counter-narratives.
Support Networks: Creating systems of people inside and outside of groups to make change, provide advice, and support.
Fellowship: Creating connectedness, even beyond problems we want to solve.
I believe that a liberation approach is the best approach for creating meaningful change when it comes to diversity, equity, and inclusion work. Otherwise, diversity, equity, and inclusion becomes a compromise, where there may be small changes but with the same status quo and norms in place. Or, inclusion may become conditional, where people are included if they are able to fit the norms, status quo, or societal and institutional expectations, especially related to appearance, behavior, conduct, standards, and assessment. However, a problem is that many of these norms and expectations were formed to elevate one or a few groups/identities and their experiences, behaviors, and beliefs, without considering or emphasizing all others.
For example, in schools we use terms such as the “achievement gap”, where we compare students to one another, mostly pointing out that white students tend to score better on standardized tests than Black students or other students of color. And schools frequently take the assimilationist approach, where they view “giving students what they need to succeed” as taking incremental steps to close the gap with the goal of trying to get Black students to score similarly to white students. However, this assimilationist approach makes white students the “default” and the comparison point to which we measure what success looks like. This approach also ignores the history, context, and inequities that led to this “gap” in the first place. And, by calling it a “gap”, it places much of the burden and blame on the students rather than on the inequitable system, and it leads to oppression, marginalization, and deficit thinking about students who aren’t white.
Taking a liberation approach enables us to look at the situation more robustly. It allows us to understand the history and power dynamics of white supremacy that led to political, social, and economic power that marginalized, oppressed, and harmed Black people and denied Black students of resources, access, and opportunities. The approach also allows us to see the many advantages that white people received over time and how that manifests over time, leading to inequities in terms of wealth, access, and opportunity. This allows us to view this issue as an “education debt” that has accumulated over time with “historical, economic, sociopolitical, and moral components”
Not only does this liberation approach allow us to look at power, resources, and access, but it also allows us to look at the racist origins of standardized testing as well as for whom tests are generally created and why we value testing in the way that we do when we know that are often inaccurate measures of success and competence. Standardized testing generally ignores the historical and present impact of racism, ableism, languagism, and socioeconomics, and these tests tend to create a “one size fits all” metric for success that favors white, affluent areas. And school rankings are then based on the testing that already favors these areas in order to determine and rank school quality.
One could take the assimilationist approach of trying to fit all students into the norm and labeling any divergence from that norm as a “gap”, or they could take the liberation approach of trying to meet students where they are and create a system that acknowledges the impact of the past and defines success without the bias and discrimination that exists within our system today.
In my time working in diversity, equity, and inclusion, I’ve found that many may claim that they support the liberation approach, but really they support and are most comfortable with the assimilationist approach.
I have not given up on DEI work. Instead, I am dedicated to NOT compromising my values of liberation, and any DEI position or organization that doesn’t support those values is not the job for me. However, though I have not given up on this work, I have seen many things that lead to frustrations for DEI professionals. And unless we address these concerns directly, real and substantive DEI work can not occur.
Below I’d like to share 5 frustrations that many DEI professionals see every day:
Much of the assimilationist approach focuses on the interpersonal perspective, where people are asking to be seen, heard, and valued. That should be the bare minimum, yet many institutions are still resistant to those requests. Sometimes organizations won’t even acknowledge that there is a problem, or the extent to which they see, hear, or value people is when a “cultural holiday” approaches or they need to market their “diversity”.
However, even when institutions agree with the ideas of “seeing, hearing, and valuing”, those are still done within the framework of an institution that has created, maintained, and sustained oppressive and harmful practices. Institutions will also focus on trying to “see, hear, and value” on an individual level while ignoring the policies, practices, and culture that excludes or makes the system work better for some as opposed to others. Additionally, institutions regularly ignore the history, impact, and reality of oppression and marginalization and how those are embedded within systems. So, while many institutions may “commit” to seeing, hearing, and valuing the individual, they hardly ever truly “commit” to uprooting the systems and structures of oppression that truly shift power. So, people are seen or heard only within the context of a system that is inequitable.
People who are in power may see diversity, equity, and inclusion as an opportunity for change. However, that change is frequently seen as something that should be done slowly and incrementally. However, having power and prioritizing incrementalism is an ACTIVE choice; it is an active choice to maintain norms and status quo as long as possible (perhaps forever). Those in power can not claim to value equity, justice, or liberation while telling those who have been harmed, oppressed, and marginalized that they should wait until those in power feel comfortable with change. Instead, incrementalism is an approval of the status quo.
As I mentioned above, there is the issue of “selective offensive”, which Goodridge described as “the normalization of racist, misogynistic, ableist or otherwise discriminatory behavior while the denunciation of said behavior is seen as disruptive.” Goodridge also says that the “problematic employee who engages in racist, misogynistic, or transphobic behavior is not deemed unprofessional, yet the tone, approach, and timing of the person who challenges said behavior is so scrutinized.”
Many times, when anyone, especially a DEI professional, calls out or provides direct feedback, it is viewed as negative or aggressive or unprofessional. As a DEI professional, I believe that “calling out” and providing direct feedback is important, especially because I believe that calling someone out is necessary to publicly and directly insist that people stop problematic behavior right now and that this behavior should never be tolerated. Many of those in power insist on only “calling in”, which leads to a small group or 1-on-1 discussion that brings attention to one’s behavior. And while I believe “calling in” has value, many organizations prioritize “calling in” not because they care about growth but because of their discomfort with publicly disrupting harm, which is commonly harm that has been allowed, accepted, or fits within the status quo.
Too often, notions of “professionalism” and “kindness” are weaponized against anyone who publicly insists that it is not okay to exhibit problematic and harmful behavior. So, like Goodridge points out, those who call out bad behaviors or actions are treated worse than those who do the actions. Time and time again, grace is given to those who do the harming or oppressing, and the blame is passed on to those who are harmed or oppressed or those who opposed and called out the harmful treatment. In addition, those who are hurt are continuously asked to suspend their need for dignity and humanity to coddle others who do harm.
People who insist on equity in institutions and organizations are often ostracized and isolated while people who are willing to maintain and sustain inequity are protected and sometimes even praised and promoted. If an institution truly cared about equity and systemic change, they would protect and praise people who challenge systems of oppression and inequity, and they would view anyone not actively challenging systems as the real problems. DEI professionals tend to be isolated and put in the position of being one of few who consistently push back and challenge systems. These challenges come without institutional support and many times, DEI professionals are challenging norms or systems in a culture that views challenges as “unprofessional”, “aggressive”, “radical”, or “causing trouble”.
There is also a perception issue in the DEI space, where people believe or claim to support DEI professionals but are actually the problem or the gatekeeper. Paul Gorski’s tweet and research points out that DEI professionals are frequently burned out because of “liberal-ish white administrators who act as DEI gatekeepers and police mostly Black & Brown DEI specialists.” He also points out that there is a “liberal white delusion”, where those who are really the gatekeepers actually see themselves in solidarity with the people they are policing. This is incredibly common. People in positions of power claim they support the upending of structures and systems and that they support people put in place to help upend them. However, when it comes time for substantive change, the support wanes, and those in power become resistant or adopt assimilationist/incrementalist views that stifle change.
These are just some of the frustrations that DEI professionals who take a liberation approach face. Many organizations love being able to claim that they employ a DEI professional, but this claim is often for performative reasons or for virtue signaling.
Many DEI professionals grow frustrated with organizations that are neither committed to nor supportive of structural and systemic change. And when organizations are challenged, they regularly resort to dismissing the DEI professional as “too extreme” or “too radical”, or they decide to hire a different DEI professional who will embrace an assimilationist view that won’t cause trouble or rock the boat.
I am a believer in diversity, equity, and inclusion but never as a method of compromise. Those who have been oppressed, marginalized, harmed, or discriminated against should never have to compromise. They should demand equity, justice, and freedom, and all others should share and make those demands as well. And people in search of equity, justice, and freedom shouldn’t be asked to wait or be patient.
Because none of us are free until all of us are free.
I’d be interested in hearing more about the liberation approach, and examples where there has been tangible change as a result. To your point, situations where DEI professionals and others can enact that type of change seem to be far less common than instances of performative “checking-the-box.” I’d imagine this is especially true when DEI efforts are often first on the chopping block in budget cuts, and many people claim that DEI efforts aren’t adding any value in a self-fulfilling, mind-bogglingly dense contradiction (i.e. if it is treated as an unimportant aspect of an institution with no tangible power to enact change...of course one wouldn’t see results).