DEI out in state government, but remains ingrained in wider culture

The North Carolina House struck a major blow against DEI in state government this week. That’s a very positive development for all those who are true believers in creating a society based on individual rights and merits. But DEI — that vague set of norms and impositions that tries to heal historical wrongs (both real and imagined) by micromanaging words, behaviors, and even the demographic makeup in a variety of settings — isn’t going away soon. It is still entrenched in too many other areas of society, from companies, to private schools, to nonprofits, to entertainment.

First, the good news. President Trump at the federal level has been laser focused on ridding government of DEI.His administration has also made clear to those who take federal loans and grants, including private colleges and universities, that discriminating on race or gender doesn’t suddenly become OK if it’s done for the right reasons.

Now, at the state level, North Carolina has also taken major strides to remedy the situation, as the state House this week overrode three of Gov. Josh Stein’s vetoes of DEI-related bills.

HB 171, “Equality in State Agencies/Prohibition on DEI,” protected North Carolinians in their interactions with state and local agencies from discrimination in hiring, promotion, or contracting and blocked any trainings based on this ideology.

The bill still needs the Senate to override in order to become law, but that will be much easier, since the Senate has a Republican supermajority. The Senate has already overridden the other two bills, so after the House votes, they are now law.

These other two bills make similar efforts, but in education.

SB 227, “Eliminating ‘DEI’ in Public Education,” prevents promotion of DEI in policies, trainings, and hiring practices, among other things, in the state’s K-12 education system.

SB 558, “Eliminating ‘DEI’ in Public Higher Ed,” does much the same in the University of North Carolina System and community colleges. These campuses cannot maintain DEI offices or have policies aligning with that mission.

For those who believe DEI makes the state a more just place, especially for groups that were disadvantaged and oppressed in the past, I can understand that they’ll be disappointed. But we are a nation, and a state, that guarantees rights to individuals, not groups. Individual members of those groups should be given the same rights as others, but this must be done without trying to tear anybody else down to even the cosmic score. And now, our government will align much closer to that vision.

Unfortunately, there are many areas of our society that will continue the DEI mission. Where certain elements of it are legal and they are likely well-intentioned, I believe they miss the mark and should end. In other areas, it’s hard for me to see how they do not violate the protections granted under the 1964 Civil Rights Act preventing discrimination based on one’s immutable characteristics in circumstances like employment, education, and public accommodations.

Someone I know who works in computer coding, and who tends to lean to the left politically, said that a “Contributor Covenant” many tech companies voluntarily sign onto ends up acting as a strict speech code that targets those with disfavored political views, especially socially conservative ones. He said there have been examples he knows of where people had their own projects taken from them and given to others for violating the covenant, which can be enforced in a subjective way at administrators’ discretion. The wording of the pledge is below.

The entertainment industry also has DEI logic embedded within it. One notable example is that in order for a film to win an Academy Award for Best Picture, it must comply with the RAISE (Representation and Inclusion) standards. Two of the following four diversity standards must be met to be eligible: on-screen representation, creative leadership, industry access and opportunities, and audience development.

In at least two of these categories, the film must hit benchmarks based on the following demographics.

Notice that it is perfectly fine for a story to be told with no white people, no men, no straight people, and no Americans.

The lead actor and director of recent movie “The Promised Land” were asked if they were worried about being ineligible for the top award by a journalist, because their movie about Denmark in the 1700s was a mostly Nordic cast. They said they tried to include a plot line about the racism that was experienced by possibly the only person of color in their country at that time, but they mostly seemed to accept that their movie would not be considered.

I could go on with many other industries, nonprofits, and private groups. But this dynamic is fairly ubiquitous. Getting DEI out of government was a legal necessity. But it’d be great to get to a point where the culture at large also doesn’t feel the need to micromanage the demographics of movie characters, the opinions of software engineers, or any other example of an individual trying to pursue the American dream.

“DEI out in state government, but remains ingrained in wider culture” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.