Was DEI Worth It?

Before you walk away from DEI, you might want to know what actually worked—and how it can still work for you.

House of Cards © 2025 forwardED LLC

The first time I saw Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) change a life wasn’t in a conference room or a training session. It was in a classroom. A young teacher, skeptical of everything equity-related, sat stiffly as we discussed how belonging shapes learning. He crossed his arms, uninterested, resistant. Then, weeks later, something shifted. A student—one who had spent most of the semester silent, unseen—spoke up. “This is the first time I’ve felt like I belong here.” The teacher looked at her, startled, as if seeing her for the first time. He nodded. From that moment on, he called her by name, asked about her day, rethought how he taught. A small moment, an imperceptible shift—but everything was different.

This is what DEI was meant to do. At its best, it creates spaces where people see one another, where relationships become bridges to understanding, where institutions reshape themselves not just for efficiency but for humanity. But the question lingers: Did DEI live up to its promise? Over the past three years, we at forwardED sought to answer that question—not through rhetoric, but through evidence. What we found was far more complicated than its champions or critics might have expected.

One of the most apparent insights from our research is that sustained, high-quality DEI engagement can lead to meaningful shifts in individual mindsets—exposure over time matters. When individuals are given space for reflection and engaged in non-threatening ways, attitudes change. However, these shifts in belief do not always immediately translate into shifts in practice. Instead, the more tangible effects of DEI work are often found in policy, which, in turn, shape institutional practice. This finding echoes the work of Michàlle Mor Barak (2017), who argues convincingly that diversity policies mediate employees’ perceptions of inclusion, influencing job satisfaction and institutional effectiveness. The evidence suggests that while DEI may not always persuade the most resistant individuals, it can still reconfigure the structures that shape institutional behavior.

Perhaps DEI’s most observable impact has been on the cultural climate of institutions. Where effectively implemented, it has created spaces where individuals—particularly those from historically vulnerable groups—report feeling more seen, heard, and safe. This kind of change can be profound, making environments more inclusive and fostering greater participation. Yet, we also observed an unintended consequence: the emergence of a surveillance culture. Some individuals, mainly those unfamiliar or uncomfortable with DEI principles, experienced this as a sense of constant scrutiny, a fear that missteps would not be opportunities for learning but grounds for public censure, humiliation, and punishment. This effect raises a paradox—while cultural correction is necessary, cultural overcorrection can lead to cultural corrosion. Joan C. Williams (2021) has pointed out that many traditional bias trainings fail because they inadvertently trigger defensiveness and resistance, reinforcing rather than dismantling bias. The same logic applies to DEI’s broader cultural footprint: when equity efforts become punitive or moralizing, they lose their ability to be instructive.

A striking pattern in our research was how DEI initiatives often reinforced existing beliefs rather than altering them. One-off implicit bias trainings, for example, tended to affirm the convictions of those already inclined toward equity while deepening the skepticism of those who resisted it. By contrast, when DEI was implemented in sustained, reflective ways—through iterative engagement, dialogue, and exposure to irrefutable data—it facilitated genuine introspection. People who came to understand that belonging and relationships directly impact how students learn, how employees collaborate, and how teams function often shifted their perspectives on the necessity of equity work. This aligns with the findings of Dover, Kaiser, and Major (2020), who argue that equity initiatives are most effective when they offer concrete, replicable solutions rather than abstract moral appeals. DEI, then, is most transformative when it is tied to practical interventions—when it not only makes the case for equity but also provides clear, actionable strategies for advancing it.

If one essential truth about DEI emerged from our study, it is that this work is deeply intimate. It requires trust, reciprocity, and an environment where individuals feel safe enough to take risks. DEI efforts that rely on performative value-signaling, punitive measures, or elite gatekeeping fail because they alienate rather than invite people into the work. The most common mistake in DEI implementation is to treat it as a binary—a framework that rigidly categorizes some as oppressors and others as perpetual victims. This reductive approach is not only intellectually dishonest but also counterproductive. DEI should never be about condemnation but transformation. As Shore et al. (2011) argue, equity efforts must be relational, not just structural; without reciprocal trust, efforts at institutional equity will flounder.

Despite these complexities, one conclusion remains clear: DEI has been most effective at influencing policy. Policies shaped by DEI frameworks—those that go beyond anti-discrimination laws and make proactive commitments to inclusion—tend to generate the most significant institutional shifts. Our research showed that practice is more often driven by policy than personal belief. Regardless of individual attitudes, when policies mandate equitable practices and enforce them with accountability measures, behavior follows. Ashikali and Groeneveld (2015) confirm this, demonstrating how equity policies increase organizational commitment and reduce turnover when integrated into leadership strategies. In this sense, DEI’s greatest legacy may not be in changing minds but in designing systems that ensure equity in action. That is, while changing hearts and minds is valuable, sustainable institutional change is driven by policies, measurable actions, and accountability mechanisms. The following recommendations outline how DEI can be restructured to maximize its impact while avoiding the pitfalls that have led to skepticism and resistance.

1.     First, DEI efforts should prioritize policy over persuasion. A growing body of research supports the idea that workplace and educational policies, when designed with equity in mind, lead to measurable improvements in organizational culture and outcomes. Dobbin and Kalev (2016) found that diversity training programs aimed at reducing bias often backfire, reinforcing resistance rather than fostering inclusion. However, they also found that structural interventions—such as changes in recruitment, evaluation, and promotion policies—were far more effective at increasing representation and reducing disparities. This underscores the need for DEI to move beyond abstract training sessions and toward actionable policies that can be implemented, measured, and enforced.

2.     Second, DEI should be designed not as a punitive or “gotcha” framework but as a developmental tool for human and professional growth. Research shows that punitive diversity initiatives often alienate rather than engage people, fostering resentment and reluctance to participate (Ely & Thomas, 2020). By contrast, when DEI is framed as an opportunity for professional and social development—helping individuals and organizations improve rather than simply calling out their failures—it is far more effective. For example, Williams (2021) argues that the most successful DEI efforts focus on interrupting bias in structural ways, rather than punishing individuals for implicit prejudices. This means replacing surveillance and fear with mentorship, skill-building, and long-term capacity development.

3.     Third, DEI should serve as an analytical lens for gathering and using data to inform institutional decisions and policymaking. One of the most compelling findings from our research was that data-driven DEI efforts—those that use real institutional data to highlight inequities and propose clear solutions—are more likely to gain traction. When DEI is tied to tangible outcomes, such as student achievement, employee retention, or disparities in disciplinary actions, it shifts from an ideological agenda to an evidence-based strategy for improving institutional effectiveness. Research by Kalev, Dobbin, and Kelly (2006) supports this, showing that organizations that track equity-related data and link it to policy changes see better outcomes than those that rely on training or voluntary compliance. Institutions should integrate DEI into their data analysis practices, using it to assess trends, refine policies, and enact changes that enhance fairness and efficiency.

Ultimately, DEI must evolve into a framework deeply embedded in institutional decision-making, not an external mandate or moral imperative. By focusing on policy, professional development, and data-driven decision-making, DEI can move from controversy to meaningful and lasting change. The goal is not to create cultures of surveillance, but cultures of improvement—where equity is not a political stance but an operational necessity, ensuring that institutions function at their highest capacity for all individuals.

So, was DEI worth it? The answer depends on what one expected it to achieve. If the goal was to instantly and universally transform hearts and minds, then the results are mixed at best. But if the goal was to shift institutional priorities, reshape policies, and create conditions that make equity a structural imperative rather than a discretionary ideal, then yes—DEI has been invaluable. However, DEI must shed its most ineffective performances to continue evolving and serving its original purpose. It must move beyond superficial gestures and punitive approaches and return to its foundational mission: to make institutions more just, more humane, and more responsive to the needs of all people. In this, DEI remains not only necessary but indispensable.

References

Ashikali, T., & Groeneveld, S. (2015). Diversity management in public organizations and its effect on employees' affective commitment: The role of transformational leadership and the inclusiveness of the organizational culture. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35(2), 146-168.

Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016). Why diversity programs fail. Harvard Business Review, 94(7-8), 52-60.

Dover, T. L., Kaiser, C. R., & Major, B. (2020). Mixed signals: The unintended effects of diversity initiatives. Social Issues and Policy Review, 14(1), 152-181.

Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2020). Getting serious about diversity: Enough already with the business case. Harvard Business Review, 98(6), 114-122.

Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 589-617.

Mor Barak, M. E. (2017). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262-1289.

Williams, J. C. (2021). Bias interrupted: Creating inclusion for real and for good. Harvard Business Review Press.

_________________________________________

Suggested citation: Kirkland, D.E. (2025). Was DEI Worth It? In forwardED Perspectives, https://www.forward-ed.com/post/was-dei-worth-it.

David E. Kirkland, PhD, is the founder and CEO of forwardED. He is a nationally renowned scholar and leading expert on education equity. He can be reached via email at: david@forward-ed.com.