Examining 'Reverse Racism' from the Dilemma of DEI in the United States

On January 17th, Nikki Haley, a rival of Trump within the party, said in an interview that the United States has never been a racist country. After the interview aired, it quickly sparked ridicule and questioning from the public.

In the United States, the issue of racial discrimination is a perennial topic, yet it still has the power to stir up the political landscape. The reason is that American society lacks a unified answer on how to address racial discrimination and solutions like DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion).

Recently, Ackman, a Harvard University alumnus and billionaire donor, published a lengthy article criticizing Harvard's DEI system after the resignation of the African American president Guy due to "anti-Semitic issues." In the article, he slammed Harvard's DEI system as a form of "reverse racism" against white people. This lengthy article garnered 28 million views and 73,000 likes on the social media platform X within just one day, and it was shared by figures like Tesla CEO Musk.

DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. It is a program aimed at promoting fair treatment and full participation of all individuals in workplaces and educational institutions, with the goal of increasing the representation of historically marginalized groups such as students or employees on campus or in the workplace. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, passed during the American civil rights movement, became the legal guarantee for the implementation of this program. In fact, since the 1960s, this program has been playing a role in the US government, universities, and businesses, quickly becoming one of the ways American society seeks to address systemic racism and other forms of systemic discrimination. In the 21st century, the abbreviation DEI gradually gained popularity.

In 2020, the deaths of African American youths such as George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery led to waves of protests against the unfair treatment of African Americans, prompting many companies to prioritize active DEI initiatives. According to The Economist, three-quarters of companies in the S&P 500 index have appointed diversity officers, and over 40% of companies have set goals to increase racial diversity among their employees.

However, since 2023, the momentum of DEI, which had been experiencing a surge in development, suddenly lost steam. In June 2023, the US Supreme Court ruled that race-based affirmative action in college admissions was unconstitutional, meaning that colleges would no longer be able to give special consideration to minority students in the admissions process. This ruling had a significant impact, with 40 bills restricting DEI initiatives in public universities being enacted in 22 states by July of the same year.

The hard-won measures for equality were thus evaporated.

At one point, the term "DEI" has been framed by opponents as the culprit behind current economic and social issues in the United States. As Ackman stated in his lengthy article, DEI only pursues "equity of outcomes" rather than "equity of opportunity," resulting in reverse discrimination against white people.

According to Fortune magazine, in just 2023, DEI became the scapegoat for the Ohio train derailment, the bankruptcy of a Silicon Valley bank, and the recent incidents of "anti-Semitism" on college campuses.

Of course, DEI cannot be the root cause of all problems. In reality, the Ohio train derailment exposed issues such as inadequate investment in infrastructure and lack of safety regulation in the United States, the bankruptcy of the Silicon Valley bank is related to the Federal Reserve's aggressive interest rate hike policy last year, and the turmoil in American universities is a microcosm of ethnic hatred and social division in the United States.

If we follow the thinking of DEI opponents, the focus of the problem becomes "equity of outcomes" versus "equity of opportunity" - which one is fairer, truly fair? However, thinking about the problem in this way leads to a paradox: minorities who are accused of having more opportunities than white people actually endure far worse socio-economic conditions than white people.

Even when looking at the "outcomes," racial wealth disparity in the United States continues to widen, with people of color historically facing barriers to employment. According to the Statista Global Statistics Database report, in 2021, 19.5% of African Americans in the United States lived below the poverty line, while the poverty rate for white people was only 8.2%. In May 2022, scholars from Princeton University in the United States and the University of Bonn in Germany jointly published a study pointing out that the largest economic inequality between white people and African Americans in the United States is reflected in the racial wealth gap, which has long remained stable at 6:1.

In recent months, the widespread resistance to DEI has led to a chilling effect, with a further reduction in the availability of diversity officers and similar positions provided by companies. According to statistics, the proportion of venture capital obtained by African American and Latinx female entrepreneurs briefly exceeded the threshold of 1.05% in 2021 but has now fallen back to below 1%.

In this situation, what is the point of discussing the merits of "equity of outcomes" versus "equity of opportunity"?

(This article is contributed by Lin Ziou, correspondent at Guangming Daily)