Across the country, state legislatures are considering or enacting bans on state-funded diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. National leaders have broadly criticized DEI efforts, with the current administration working to dismantle decades of federal programs. Businesses that once championed diversity after the deaths of George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery are retreating from prior commitments.
But what is fueling this backlash? Is it simply blind opposition to the now toxic terms “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion”? A lack of clear goals for program implementation? Is it an ideological push for meritocracy? Is it racism or anger about perceived reverse racism? Regardless, hasty policymaking often leads to unintended consequences.
The truth is, it’s complicated — but as a longtime policymaker and former U.S. surgeon general, I believe our country deserves a far better discourse on DEI.
Every one of us embodies diversity in some form — be it gender, age, disability, geography, military status, or socioeconomic background. These differences make our nation stronger but also expose disparities, particularly in health care. Should we stop collecting data on breast or prostate cancer because it means directing resources based on gender? Should we ignore rural health care disparities or the unique medical challenges veterans face? Acknowledging and exploring our diversity helps address disparities, ultimately improving the overall health care system.
Equity means ensuring that everyone, regardless of background, has a fair opportunity to succeed. Rural communities struggle with telehealth access due to broadband limitations and often can’t get timely cardiac, stroke, trauma, and obstetric care due to provider shortages and lack of facilities. Should addressing these gaps be outlawed? for Ever been stuck sitting in a health clinic or emergency department waiting room? Well, providing interpreter services for non-English-speaking patients improves health care efficiency for everyone, reducing wait times and improving outcomes. Equity-focused policies make the U.S. health care system more effective and affordable for all.
Inclusion means ensuring that everyone can fully participate in society. Should we stop enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act? Eliminate wheelchair accessibility in public buildings? Should we abandon efforts to prevent age discrimination in the workforce? Research shows that inclusive workplaces aren’t just a moral imperative — they improve employee retention, innovation, and morale, benefiting both individuals and organizations at a time when workforce is one of the biggest limiting factors to economic growth.
Critics of DEI often advocate for “meritocracy,” particularly in debates over affirmative action. But if U.S. colleges admitted students based solely on test scores, they would be filled by coastal students and international applicants from higher-ranking education systems abroad. Is that really the desired outcome?
Moreover, merit is not just about test scores — empathy, teamwork, and communication are crucial skills that standardized tests fail to measure but are essential for success, especially in fields like health care. How we define merit, who defines it, and what our actual shared goals are (beyond test scores) matter greatly.
America has a complicated history with race relations, and racism and bias are real issues that cannot be ignored. However, labeling all DEI critics as bigots or dismissing concerns about reverse discrimination prevents meaningful discussion. Moreover, research shows implicit biases affect hiring decisions, health care delivery, and educational opportunities — for both majority and minority populations. Acknowledging these biases can help organizations reduce discrimination in all directions and at all levels.
My work in health equity has often focused on rural and economic barriers, which are frequently overlooked. In a recent visit to Yale, for example, I was told they actively recruit students from the Midwest and South, noting that it increases geographic diversity and enriches campus discourse. In other words, they examine the diversity of their student body and engage in equity initiatives so they can create a more inclusive environment, which can disproportionately benefit lower-income rural white people. Eliminating such efforts could paradoxically suppress conservative, Christian, and rural perspectives at elite institutions, even as critics claim such views are underrepresented.
Companies that embrace DEI perform better. Businesses focusing on diversity and inclusion benefit from stronger workforce recruitment and more effective marketing strategies. For instance, Hispanics are the largest minority group in the U.S., and companies that fail to engage this demographic risk missing out on workforce talent and consumer spending. Diverse teams better connect with varied consumer bases, gaining a competitive edge. According to the World Economic Forum, companies with diverse management teams report 19% higher revenues. Thoughtful, data-driven, and non-discriminatory DEI initiatives aren’t “woke,” but a business imperative.
DEI is also critical for national security. Our military and intelligence services require officers “to work, study, and socialize in diverse environments to confront a complex global security environment” and therefore must recruit and retain personnel who understand different cultures, speak multiple languages, and can relate to diverse populations. A lack of attention to diversity and inclusion therefore weakens our ability to respond to global threats. Diverse national security teams make better decisions, improving diplomatic and military effectiveness in an increasingly interconnected world. Simply put, DEI in this context makes us all safer.
America is experiencing a significant pendulum swing in the DEI debate. Our political and cultural landscape is polarized, and DEI programs are caught in the crossfire, having recently been blamed for everything from wildfires, to tragic plane crashes, to why someone’s kid didn’t get into Harvard.
To move forward, we must clearly articulate the goals of DEI initiatives, assess their effectiveness, and ensure they do not inadvertently discriminate against deserving individuals. However, poorly crafted anti-DEI legislation, regulations, and corporate policies will harm our nation in countless ways, as diversity, equity, and inclusion are fundamental to America’s success in health, economic, and national security arenas.
At the same time, we must improve how we implement these principles. What’s clear is that blunt, politicized attacks on DEI are counterproductive and harmful to America. Future discussions must be rooted in evidence and empathy, not fearmongering and scapegoating. We need a shared commitment to a better, more inclusive future for all Americans, and that must start with better and more inclusive discourse. Our nation deserves — and is depending on — better from our leaders.
Jerome Adams was the 20th U.S. surgeon general. He is a distinguished professor and the executive director of the Center for Health Enhancement and Learning at Purdue University.