THE SET-UP: Discussions of Ronald Reagan’s Presidency miss one of his most indelible political achievements … and it’s something that is still with us today.
Ronald Reagan transformed the term “Liberal” into an epithet.
And that, in turn, made the Liberal brand “toxic.”
By the mid-1980s, the word was a euphemism for weakness and for permissiveness. It implied being soft on crime, squishy on morality and unwilling to stand up to the Soviets. Liberals were unpatriotic and against “traditional values.” And in a fundamental visceral sense “Liberal” became a euphemism for “pussy.”
It worked like a charm, too.
“Liberal” became increasingly radioactive throughout the 80s. The phase “too Liberal” drove attack ads (as it would for decades to come). It came to a head in 1988 when Michael Dukakis lost a huge lead coming out of the Democratic National Convention … and then lost the election. His perceived “Liberal” weakness—on defense, on crime and on patriotism—was driven home by the Willie Horton ad and a dispassionate response to a hypothetical about his wife being raped. Being “too Liberal” cost him the election.
It also scarred the Democratic Party.
So, they made a right turn toward the GOP. The centrist Democratic Leadership Council triangulated against the “Liberal" label. In fact, the DLC’s Bill Clinton triangulated all the way to the White House. Instead of being “Liberal,” Clinton passed GOP priorities like NAFTA and welfare reform and began the Democrats’ transformation into the party of National Security.
I’d argue that much of what we’ve seen over the last forty years is a party that consistently overcompensates to avoid being seen as “weak.”
After 9/11 they were loathe to look “weak” or “unpatriotic,” so they voted for a war Donald Trump now hangs around their neck like a burning tire. Obama embraced double-tap drones strikes and regime change in Libya. And now they’ve inherited Liz Cheney.
At this point they’ve abandoned the term “Liberal.” That leaves the party without a handy brand identity like “conservative.” They don’t have a calling card. Some have adopted “Progressive” as an alternative. Republicans (of course) use it as an epithet, but the word doesn’t convey “weakness.” Quite to the contrary. Progressive isn’t toxic like “Liberal.” At least not yet.
But DEI? CRT? Woke?
All politically toxic … and, thanks social media’s algorithmically-directed reach, it happened almost overnight. That’s why today’s TRIFECTA gets back to basics. It was tempting to hone-in on Pete Hegseth’s Christian Nationalist perspective on DEI or Trump flipping the DEI script to advantage White Evangelicals. Trump finished the processes of turning DEI into a epithet (code-word?) and a powerful source of grievance. The GOP is winning one for the Gipper … by using his playbook.
If “Liberal” is any guide, it’ll pay political dividends in future elections.
The irony is that DEI really wasn’t about politics. It’s mostly been a market-based strategy for long-term growth. It’s a rational business decision. Yeah, academics ran with it on college campuses. Instead, take a look at the bottom line for people who work for the bottom line. And take note of who profits from DEI’s loss. - jp
TITLE: How 'DEI' replaced 'structural racism' in the national conversation
https://abcnews.go.com/538/national-conversation-shifted-structural-racism-dei/story?id=119014222
EXCERPTS: Almost five years ago, in the immediate aftermath of the murder of George Floyd, there was a brief window in which Americans seemed committed to opposing racism in all its forms. Individuals bought books to educate themselves about past injustices; companies pledged hundreds of billions of dollars to efforts to address those injustices; even the federal government pledged to use its powers to advance equity for all. Multiple surveys at the time found a dramatic increase in support for racial justice movements and overwhelming agreement that racism and discrimination were a "big problem."
Those efforts and sentiments did not last. Instead, the brief wave of racial progress in the early 2020s has been countered by successive waves of counter-messaging starting in 2021 that has escalated into a tsunami of policy backlash in 2025. A plurality of voters in the last presidential election supported the candidate who openly campaigned on racial animus (particularly in his unscripted messaging); companies and other organizations have reversed course on their commitments to advancing diversity, equity and inclusion; and President Donald Trump has even issued an executive order to ban such efforts in the federal government.
We have been tracking this shift in public discourse toward racial equity as it has unfolded over time. Our research team has been monitoring not only (anti-)DEI efforts, but also how the media has been covering those efforts. As social scientists interested in the role that media plays in public discourse as well as social policy, we have spent the past five years — from January 2020 to January 2025 — carefully studying how television news stations have been covering stories about racial equity in the U.S.
Utilizing data from TVEyes available to us through the Wesleyan Media Project, our team was able to analyze five years' worth of news coverage to determine how news stations were covering racial equity issues.
We found that the way news stations reported on racial equity issues has changed multiple times over the past five years. [I]n the summer of 2020, media coverage placed a lot of emphasis on the role of structural racism in society. That initial framing of the issue lasted from summer 2020 to the summer of 2021.
Then, media coverage took a turn and began focusing on strategic counternarratives that undermined those racial equity initiatives. From early 2021 through early 2023, instead of focusing on structural racism, coverage shifted to criticisms of "critical race theory."
To be clear, critical race theory has a specific meaning in academic discourse — it is a body of scholarship that examines the role of racism in the American legal system. But that meaning is not what the media was covering. Instead, coverage focused on critical race theory as Republicans redefined it — in the words of conservative activist Christopher Rufo, "the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans."
The final frame that took over media coverage was DEI. Although some of this coverage described positive initiatives in local communities to increase diversity and belonging especially early in the timeline, the bulk of the coverage in 2023 and 2024 revolved around attention to bans and other rollbacks or closures of DEI programs and hiring activities in state agencies and universities.
As the attacks on DEI initiatives have increased over the last few years in an attempt to decrease support, there is some evidence that those messages may be meaningfully changing public opinion. For instance, the share of U.S. workers saying that focusing on DEI at work is a good thing has declined. That decline is important to put into its proper context, however: The majority of Americans still favored such initiatives, and fewer than one-third of Americans in a late January 2025 YouGov survey said they had an unfavorable view of DEI programs.
TITLE: Attacks on DEI assume a level playing field where none exists—and threaten America’s future prosperity
https://fortune.com/2025/02/25/dei-attacks-diversity-inclusion-equity-economy/
EXCERPTS: Over the past year, we’ve witnessed a coordinated retreat from DEI commitments. Legislative actions in multiple states have restricted race-conscious education and targeted corporate DEI programs, framing equity as a divisive concept rather than an economic imperative. While some companies have resisted, others, wary of political backlash or shifting public sentiment, have quietly scaled back diversity efforts, relegating them from boardroom priorities to peripheral projects.
This trend is not just a moral failure—it’s an economic miscalculation.
Equity is not charity. It is not a feel-good initiative or a public relations strategy. Equity is a growth strategy. When we dismantle barriers to opportunity, we unlock human potential and expand economic productivity.
Consider the figure $3.1 trillion. That’s the potential U.S. GDP increase if we closed gender gaps in labor force participation, wages, and leadership, according to my research
Such numbers aren’t just statistics—they represent missed economic opportunities. When we sideline equity, we sideline economic growth.
Nowhere is this issue more urgent than at the intersection of race and gender—specifically for Black breadwinner mothers.
Since 1982, more than 51% of all Black American households with children under the age of 18 have been headed by breadwinner moms. This means Black women are supporting themselves and future generations. Yet, despite their crucial role in economic stability, they are disproportionately affected by pay gaps, workplace bias, and the erosion of DEI initiatives.
Black women already face a double wage gap, earning just 66 cents for every dollar earned by white, non-Hispanic men. But Black breadwinner moms have the largest gender pay gap of any women in the labor force: 44 cents on the dollar of breadwinner dads.
Black mothers face higher unemployment rates than white mothers, even when they have the same qualifications. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, Black women lost jobs at a higher rate and have faced slower employment recovery. As of the Jan. 10 jobs report, there are still 246,000 Black women missing from the labor force since the beginning of the pandemic.
Occupational segregation channels many Black mothers into lower-paying industries with limited access to benefits like paid leave, health care, and retirement savings. These are structural barriers, not personal failings.
$30,000—that’s the median household income for Black moms who are the sole breadwinners
If we fail to address such disparities, we are actively suppressing economic progress. A society where Black breadwinner moms thrive is a society where the economy thrives.
Consider the racial wealth gap: The median wealth of white families in the U.S. is 10 times that of Black families. This disparity isn’t the result of individual choices but of systemic inequities—redlining, discriminatory lending practices, unequal access to education—that continue to shape economic outcomes today.
Black Americans hold just 4.7% of total U.S. wealth, despite making up 13.6% of the population—an almost 9 percentage point gap. The disparities deepen when factoring in gender: Black women with bachelor’s degrees earn less than white men with some college but no degree, underscoring how race and gender continue to shape economic outcomes.
The rollback of DEI initiatives under the guise of “colorblindness” or “meritocracy” ignores the very real structural barriers that persist. It assumes a level playing field where none exists.
When we allow DEI to be framed as divisive, we concede the false premise that equity is optional. But equity is not optional. It’s fundamental to democracy and capitalism. Without it, we limit our labor force and undermine global competitiveness.
In this climate, the easy choice is to retreat—to quietly deprioritize DEI in the face of legal challenges or political pressure. But leadership isn’t about ease; it’s about courage. Business leaders must step up—not just for moral reasons, but because our economic future depends on it.
TITLE: A practical guide to doing DEI work in a hostile era
https://www.fastcompany.com/91282124/a-practical-guide-to-doing-dei-work-in-a-hostile-era
EXCERPTS: The current political climate is undeniably hostile toward DEI. From executive orders dismantling federal DEI programs to legislative efforts like the “Dismantle DEI Act,” the message is clear: DEI initiatives are under attack.
Since last year’s SCOTUS affirmative action decision and the closing of the House Office of Diversity and Inclusion, threats to the public sector have had a chilling effect on the private sector.
The social backlash against DEI is just as significant as the political one. Organizations face pressure from all sides, with some stakeholders demanding more aggressive DEI initiatives while others decry them as “woke” or divisive.
Despite these forces, organizations cannot afford to abandon their DEI efforts. DEI is not just a moral imperative; DEI is a business necessity.
Research shows that when leveraged in the best way, diverse teams are more innovative and make better decisions, leading to improved performance and financial outcomes. According to a 2023 survey, inclusive companies are 1.7 times more likely to be innovative, and they achieve 2.3 times more cash flow per employee.
To navigate the current landscape and continue to reap the benefits of DEI, organizations must adopt a strategic and proactive approach, focusing on three key actions:
Organizations must be able to articulate the “why” behind their DEI commitments in a way that resonates with diverse – and sometimes resistant – stakeholders. By articulating the “why,” organizations make DEI compelling, tapping into our intrinsic motivational brain networks. Research shows that adding a “what’s in it for me” allows others to align their own individual goals with those of the initiatives, making it more likely they’ll act upon them. This calls for moving beyond the moral case for DEI to prove its tangible value.
We have developed a science-based framework that outlines the tangible benefits of DEI and provides practical guidance on how to achieve them. It emphasizes the importance of prioritizing diversity and habituating inclusion to drive business success and create a more just, sustainable work environment for everyone. It provides a roadmap for organizations to measure the impact of their DEI initiatives and demonstrate their return on investment. In today’s climate, where DEI is facing increased scrutiny, it is more critical than ever for organizations to articulate the business case for DEI and demonstrate its value.
Debiasing is a powerful tool for building fair and inclusive systems and processes. By removing unconscious bias from decision-making, organizations can create an equitable environment where merit matters. Thus, even those who oppose DEI from a “meritocracy” standpoint cannot reasonably argue against debiasing.
At the individual level, this means understanding and mitigating unconscious bias. Interpersonally, it calls for changing behaviors, adopting habits of inclusion, and enabling psychological safety in teams. At the institutional level, implementing strategies such as blind recruitment, structured interviews, and standardized performance evaluations can sustain individual and interpersonal progress.
Ongoing education and training maintain and increase awareness of unconscious bias and equip individuals with the skills to mitigate its impact. Organizations can move beyond simply acknowledging the existence of unconscious bias to actively addressing it and creating a more inclusive workplace where everyone can deliver value.
Accountability is the backbone of any successful DEI strategy. It’s not enough to simply have policies in place; organizations must ensure that these policies are translated into action, both for their employees and their customers. Not only does organizational accountability boost employee engagement and performance, it is also a predictor of long-term organizational performance. Inclusive leadership calls for accountability, both in modeling and ensuring inclusive behaviors.
Neuroleadership Institute research has revealed two distinct forms of accountability that can apply to how we continue DEI work. Many organizations default to a punitive form of accountability — like withholding bonuses — that focuses on blame and punishment, hindering progress and creating a toxic environment. Fostering a proactive culture of accountability, on the other hand, frames accountability as a challenge and opportunity for growth. For DEI work, this means creating and communicating the “why” behind initiatives, establishing success metrics, and sharing outcomes with employees and customers.
Proactive accountability, supported by neuroscience, drives individuals and organizations to achieve goals and own outcomes. This fosters trust among stakeholders, ultimately leading to improved results.
Inclusive leadership development can create ownership and empowerment by redefining DEI accountability as a necessity for positive business outcomes.
This is a defining moment for DEI. Organizations that rise to the occasion will not only reap the rewards of a diverse and inclusive workforce but also contribute to a more just and equitable society. By weaving DEI into their business goals, eliminating bias from their systems, and fostering cultures of accountability, organizations can navigate the turbulent waters ahead and emerge stronger and more inclusive than ever before.
SEE ALSO:
DEI: Which companies have rolled back their commitments?
https://www.unleash.ai/diversity-equity-inclusion/dei-which-companies-have-rolled-back-their-commitments/
Target has become a piñata on social media after backtracking on DEI
https://www.retailbrew.com/stories/2025/02/25/target-has-become-a-pinata-on-social-media-after-backtracking-on-dei
Apple investors defy Trump to back DEI
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/02/25/apple-investors-defy-trump-to-back-dei/
Apple boss Tim Cook says DEI programmes may have to change
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyjv8e49deo
Delta CEO promotes DEI initiatives as ‘merit-based’ following Trump executive orders
https://www.gmtoday.com/business/delta-ceo-promotes-dei-initiatives-as-merit-based-following-trump-executive-orders/article_f5684ed4-f38a-11ef-9fef-d3ec931a8534.html