"affirmative action,"

One executive order directs the Office of Management and Budget to terminate all federal programs related to "diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility," ending any consideration of DEI factors, goals, or policies and curate lists of the "economic and social costs" of these programs. This includes any "environmental justice" or "equity-related" programming.

"DEI creates and then amplifies prejudicial hostility and exacerbates interpersonal conflict,"

DEI initiatives have come under attack by conservative legislators, including Trump, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.

DEI is not about hitting diversity hiring quotas, they say, since such quotas are illegal according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Opie and Foldy believe critics of DEI often frame these initiatives as unfairly giving something to marginalized people who some say “have not earned” it and are taking things away from others. They argue DEI is about removing barriers that hinder the ability for qualified people from marginalized groups to also succeed.

And although the DEI acronym is in the spotlight, Foldy says, these initiatives are implemented under a plethora of different acronyms or names.

ethos

DEI has its roots in the 1960's anti-discrimination legislative movement when laws like the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 addressed labor issues based on protected classes.

Where does DEI come from?

Christie Smith, former vice president of inclusion and diversity at Apple and C-Suite adviser,

“Equity”

policies and programs targeting discrimination -- some that go back decades -

President Donald Trump has issued several executive orders aiming to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within the federal government, as well as its grantees and contractors.

A look at what DEI means amid Trump executive orders

What is DEI's purpose?

according to Erica Foldy, a professor at NYU’s Wagner Graduate School of Public Service.

according to Tina Opie, a DEI consultant and professor at Babson College.

© 2025 ABC News

ByKiara Alfonseca

About two-thirds or more of Black (78%), Asian (72%) and Hispanic (65%) workers say that focusing on DEI at work is a good thing. Among White workers, however, fewer than half (47%) say it’s a good thing; in fact, 21% say it’s a bad thing. But there are wide partisan, gender and age gaps among White workers, with majorities of White Democrats, women and those under age 30 saying focusing on DEI at work is a good thing. Workers under 30 are the most likely age group to say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing. About two-thirds (68%) of workers ages 18 to 29 say this, compared with 56% of workers 30 to 49, 46% of those 50 to 64, and 52% of those 65 and older. Views also differ by educational attainment, with 68% of workers with a postgraduate degree saying focusing on DEI at work is a good thing, compared with 59% of those with a bachelor’s degree only and 50% of those with some college or less education. Democratic and Democratic-leaning workers are much more likely to say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing (78%) than to say it is a bad thing (4%) or that it is neither good nor bad (18%). Views among Republican and Republican-leaning workers are more mixed: Some 30% say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing, while the same share (30%) say it’s a bad thing, and 39% say it’s neither good nor bad.

About two-thirds or more of Black (78%), Asian (72%) and Hispanic (65%) workers say that focusing on DEI at work is a good thing. Among White workers, however, fewer than half (47%) say it’s a good thing; in fact, 21% say it’s a bad thing. But there are wide partisan, gender and age gaps among White workers, with majorities of White Democrats, women and those under age 30 saying focusing on DEI at work is a good thing.

Half or more of both men and women say focusing on increasing DEI at work is a good thing, but women are more likely than men to offer this view (61% vs. 50%). In turn, men are more than twice as likely as women to say it is a bad thing (23% vs. 9%).

Workplace diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, or DEI, are increasingly becoming part of national political debates.

Majorities of those who have access to these measures say each has had a positive impact where they work.

Some key findings from the survey: Relatively small shares of workers place a lot of importance on diversity at their workplace. About three-in-ten say it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere with a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities (32%) or ages (28%). Roughly a quarter say the same about having a workplace with about an equal mix of men and women (26%) and 18% say this about a mix of employees of different sexual orientations. More than half of workers (54%) say their company or organization pays about the right amount of attention to increasing DEI. Smaller shares say their company or organization pays too much (14%) or too little attention (15%), and 17% say they’re not sure. Black workers are more likely than those in other racial and ethnic groups to say their employer pays too little attention to increasing DEI. They’re also among the most likely to say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing (78% of Black workers say this), while White workers are the least likely to express this view (47%). Women are more likely than men to value DEI at work. About six-in-ten women (61%) say focusing on increasing DEI at work is a good thing, compared with half of men. And larger shares of women than men say it’s extremely or very important to them to work at a place that is diverse when it comes to gender, race and ethnicity, age, and sexual orientation. There are wide partisan differences in views of workplace DEI. Most Democratic and Democratic-leaning workers (78%) say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing, compared with 30% of Republicans and Republican leaners. Democrats are also far more likely than Republicans to value different aspects of diversity. And by wide margins, higher shares of Democrats than Republicans say the policies and resources related to DEI available at their workplace have had a positive impact. Half of workers say it’s extremely or very important to them to work somewhere that is accessible for people with physical disabilities. About three-in-ten workers (29%) say this is somewhat important to them, and 21% say it’s not too or not at all important. A majority of workers (76% among those who do not work fully remotely) say their workplace is at least somewhat accessible for people with physical disabilities. Many say being a man or being White is an advantage where they work. The survey asked respondents whether a person’s gender, race or ethnicity makes it easier or harder to be successful where they work. Shares ranging from 45% to 57% say these traits make it neither easier nor harder. But far more say being a man and being White makes it easier than say it makes it harder for someone to be successful. Conversely, by double-digit margins, more say being a woman, being Black or being Hispanic makes it harder than say it makes it easier to be successful where they work. The value of DEI efforts at work A majority of workers (56%) say focusing on increasing diversity, equity and inclusion at work is mainly a good thing; 28% say it is neither good nor bad, and 16% say it is a bad thing. Views on this vary along key demographic and partisan lines.

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder. © 2025 Pew Research Center

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in the Workplace

By Rachel Minkin

Research recommendation 1 To enhance equity, integrate community-engaged approaches into the research design, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination. Examples include inviting community experts as co-leads or co-investigators on the research and including communities most impacted by discrimination to provide input and guidance. Research recommendation 2 To improve generalizability, future studies can recruit more representative samples (e.g. participants reflect organizational, sector, or regional demographics) and test trainings across a variety of sectors. The majority of studies in this review were conducted in higher education or health care, where female employees are overrepresented [64]. Research recommendation 3 Studies of DEI and antiracism trainings can implement more rigorous study design methods to better identify best practices. Specifically, using a randomized controlled design as utilized by Ehrke et al., Chang et al., Holladay and Quinones, and Lindsey [21, 23, 26, 28] allows researchers and practitioners to better isolate the effect(s) of the training being tested, as this kind of design is the strongest for controlling for measured and unmeasured confounding. Additionally, utilizing comparison groups that receive some kind of DEI and/or antiracism training may be more ethical and equitable, so that all participants have some exposure to DEI and/or antiracist content (vs. an experimental group receiving training and a control group receiving no training or resources at all). For example, one study [21] randomly assigned participants to one of three experimental conditions (gender-bias training, general-bias training, or control). Another study used a 2 × 2 × 2 design, where participants were randomly assigned to three conditions: training focus (similarities or differences), trainer gender (male or female), and trainer race (White or Black) [26]. Another study [28] used a 3 × 2 design, where participants were randomly assigned to one of three diversity training methods (perspective taking, goal setting, or stereotype discrediting) and one of two groups of focus (African–Americans or the LGBT community). These methods can be implemented during the pilot phase of new training programs. Research recommendation 4 To measure change over time, studies of DEI and antiracism trainings can include intermediate and long-term follow-up assessments. As only six studies in this review (26.1%) collected and reported follow-up data, and of those, only one study focused assessing program satisfaction rather than intervention impact at the long-term follow-up [20], longer-term effects associated with such trainings remain not well understood. To address this gap, studies recommend an implementation of longitudinal design in diversity training interventions, which would improve data collection and allow researchers to ensure such interventions meet their goals and sustain improvements over time [65–67].The above recommendations may facilitate the movement of DEI and antiracism training studies further along the research translational continuum. Study findings and recommendations should be interpreted within the context of the following limitations. The relatively small number of studies in our review limited our ability to conduct statistical comparisons of efficacy across study characteristics (e.g. multi-session vs. one-time training sessions, theory-informed vs. non-theory-informed interventions, randomized vs. non-randomized design). Of the studies that reported participant demographic data, several included majority female, majority White participants, which may limit the generalizability of findings to other populations. Additionally, studies did not include information on their overall workforce population; thus, participant representation and study findings may not necessarily be representative of the demographics of the organizations and industries from which the studies were conducted.Study designs were moderate-to-weak with respect to causal inference. Combined with high variation in training content, duration, instruments, and outcomes assessed, it was not possible to determine which training characteristics are critical for improving outcomes. Studies also lacked uniformity in reporting the duration of training sessions (e.g. some only reported day-long sessions while others reported duration in hours) and in defining terminology. This study was limited to peer-reviewed research available through search engines and does not include white reports or publicly unavailable research. Depending on the organization, some recommendations may be more feasible than others. Lengthening the duration or frequency of training can represent a challenge in terms of time and resources. Organizations may have limited diversity among employees, thus limiting how representative participants may be with respect to demographics. More rigorous evaluation designs such as randomized conditions or comparison groups may be difficult to implement.In conclusion, findings from this systematic review highlighted conceptual and methodological directions to enhance the delivery and efficacy of DEI and antiracism training interventions in the workplace. Areas for future research include exploring in-depth the intervention design elements that are critical to facilitate improved outcomes, such as examining the mechanisms and efficacy of different training durations, application of various theories and frameworks, and topics and skill sets addressed using strong evaluation designs and longer follow-up time periods. Future community-engaged research across the spectrum of translational research stages is needed to understand the optimal characteristics of DEI and antiracism trainings and how to best integrate these trainings within organizations for impact, sustainability, and scalability.

Practice recommendation 1 Develop and deliver longitudinal trainings so that concepts and skills are able to be built upon over time. To enhance efficacy, both the frequency and duration of trainings can be extended beyond one-time sessions. Practice recommendation 2 Deepen the curriculum focus beyond individual knowledge and attitudes to include skill building and organizational development to support and sustain individual, interpersonal, and organizational change [55]. Practice recommendation 3 Prioritize skills and behavioral and organizational change as outcomes of interest, using validated or established instruments where possible. While demonstrating improvements in individual knowledge, awareness, and attitudes can be useful in assessing immediate gains from training participation, changes in these domains alone need to be accompanied by changes in skills and actual behavior change (individual, interpersonal, or organizational) in order to advance DEI and antiracism in the workplace. Practice recommendation 4 Use validated measures of DEI and antiracism where relevant. Studies in our review that reported using validated instruments in their outcome assessments include the Reaction-to-Diversity Inventory [56], Ambivalent Sexism Inventory [53], Race Implicit Association Test [34], and the Modern Racism Scale [57]. These four instruments have demonstrated reliability and validity in the studies included in our review as well as others [53,58–60]. Other validated instruments that practitioners and researchers can consider using include the Anti-Racism Behavioral Inventory [61], the Diversity Engagement Survey [62], and the Political Skill Inventory [63].

Nine of the 15 DEI studies (60%) included training on topics other than race and racism, most commonly sexism, classism, homophobia and transphobia.

References

While the definition and purpose of DEI and antiracism trainings has varied over time and context, we define DEI training as the intentional provision and application of education (in various forms) to “recognize and address how power, privilege, and how society affects our personal identities,” including race, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, gender, etc [17].

A recent Gallup poll results revealed that 61% of Latine employees and 75% of Black employees in the USA experienced ethnicity or race-based discrimination in the last year [11]

ittle is known about the efficacy of such trainings (T2 of the translational research spectrum)

Following the racial reckoning of 2020 in the USA and globally, the number of DEI-related job positions increased by 60% in the USA [1] and 86% of large financial companies surveyed stated intention to increase investments in DEI training [2].

Future research is needed that integrates community-engaged approaches in the design, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination of DEI and antiracism trainings.

Characteristics and results of DEI training studies published between 2000 and 2022 (N = 15)

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.

Lay Summary

The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate training characteristics, measures, and results of peer-reviewed studies (published between 2000 and 2022) testing DEI or antiracism trainings.

efficacy

Monica L Wang, Monica L Wang Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USADepartment of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA Correspondence address. Chair of the Narrative Office, Boston University Center for Antiracist Research, Associate Professor, Boston University School of Public Health, 801 Massachusetts Ave, Boston, MA 02118, USA. E-mail: mlwang@bu.edu   https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7019-5072 Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Alexis Gomes, Alexis Gomes Boston University Center for Antiracist Research, Boston, MA, USA Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Marielis Rosa, Marielis Rosa Boston University Center for Antiracist Research, Boston, MA, USABoston University College of Arts and Sciences, Boston, MA, USA Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Phillipe Copeland, Phillipe Copeland Boston University School of Social Work, Boston, MA, USA Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Victor Jose Santana Victor Jose Santana VJS Consulting, Boston, MA, USA Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Translational Behavioral Medicine, Volume 14, Issue 3, March 2024, Pages 156–171, https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibad061

Data in this report is drawn from the panel wave conducted from Feb. 6 to Feb. 12, 2023, among a sample of ATP members who indicated that they currently work either full or part time for pay. A total of 5,902 panelists responded out of 6,494 who were sampled, for a response rate of 94% (AAPOR RR3). The cumulative response rate accounting for nonresponse to the recruitment surveys and attrition is 4%. The break-off rate among panelists who logged on to the survey and completed at least one item is 1%. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 5,902 respondents is plus or minus 1.9 percentage points.