by Missy Maceyko, Co-Director, AAUW CA State Public Policy Committee
It is January 2025. Populous, beloved, and well-known neighborhoods in Los Angeles, one of the biggest metropolitan areas in the world, are on fire. For days, residents have been evacuating, firefighters have been going without sleep, and homes and iconic landmarks have been burning. Even those that are not in immediate danger are breathing in toxic air that can create diseases for generations. It seems like everyone in the city is grieving something or someone.
And yet, as the disaster unfolds, people in LA are engaging in a massive outpouring of collective mutual aid and community support for the people and animals who are displaced and suffering.
On the other hand, as Angelinos are left to cope with displacement, property damage, and loss, leading figures in national politics have seized the moment, not to offer support, but to immediately go on the attack. They are placing blame on who they felt was the most likely culprit for these horrific fires and their aftermath: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).
These accusations about DEI would be laughable were they not so problematic. Blaming DEI shows a lack of understanding of what DEI is and does while also simplifying a large and complex problem related to a multitude of factors such as weather, infrastructure, and climate change.
In sum, DEI experts say that diversity is valuable for many reasons – for addressing historical marginalization, yes, but also for increasing our problem-solving capacity and leading to innovation. Both inside and outside of the business world, diversity is associated with higher engagement, reduced turnover, and improved, and more objective, decision-making and problem-solving. Diversity of thought in inclusive teams has been found to lead to more innovation and better, higher-impact ideas. Indeed, as University of Michigan professor of Complexity, Social Science, and Management, Scott Brown notes, to solve complex problems in the 21st century, like climate change, we need diverse teams who can communicate across difference: “groups of experts, at least as we’re accustomed to thinking about them, are going to have a hard time competing with talented teams of people with relevant diverse perspectives.”
We need to truly understand this problem in order to prevent future loss. Rather than vilifying DEI, we need to acknowledge that DEI is one of the best tools that we have to solve such a problem. We need to come together to leverage a diversity of experiences and perspectives.
In the case of the LA fires, DEI has also been singled out as the primary culprit due to the assumption that “DEI hiring” impacts competent leadership. Certain leaders have been targeted for what was labeled as inadequate planning, resourcing, and response, such as Mayor Karen Bass and Fire Chief Kristin Crowley. These leaders have not only been labeled as incompetent, but also as “DEI hires.”
The labeling of these leaders as “DEI hires” is likely because they are a woman of color and a woman who is a member of the LGBTQIA+ community, respectively. They are holding positions that have historically been held by, and associated with, cisgender (1) and heterosexual (cis-het) white men. Given the leadership positions that they hold, alongside their gender, sexuality, and race, any potential fallibility in their decision-making is not only labeled as incompetence, but is also tacitly attributed to their “DEI” status.
As in this case, any association of DEI with hiring is assumed to be the antithesis of meritocracy. In other words, DEI considerations in hiring are assumed to unfairly divert jobs and benefits to "minority” candidates, who are positioned as an undeserving majority that get an opportunity because of who they are instead of being considered for their skill sets, experiences, and past accomplishments. This narrative about “DEI” and hiring clearly overlooks the fact that women like Mayor Karen Bass and Fire Chief Kristin Crowley are hired based on merit, regardless of their identity, even as they often have to overcome additional hurdles to enter into historically masculine fields and gain the qualifications and experiences to succeed.
Accusations about the harms of DEI proliferate in the current political environment, rife with threats of increased regulation and retribution. It is absolutely necessary to scrutinize the policy and planning of all leaders and decision-makers in LA in order to fully answer questions about fire mitigation and response. However, to pin the blame on DEI is to tacitly pin the blame on only those decision makers who are not cis-het white men and/or on those who are supportive of the kind of work that is needed to engage a range of perspectives.
Over the last few years, and accelerating after January 20, 2025, state and federal level policy changes and pronouncements in the United States have not only (seemingly) forced DEI from federally funded programs, but also created a chilling effect, leading some large corporations and public universities to (seemingly) pull back from DEI initiatives (2). However, given the well-known benefits of business-integrated DEI strategies in a globalized economy, DEI work will—and must—continue in order to solve big problems.
TO READ A LONGER VERSION OF THIS ARTICLE, CLICK
HERE.
1 Cisgender is a term that means that the sex/gender you were assigned at birth aligns with your internal sense of a gendered self (gender identity) and your external gender expression. Heterosexual is a term that means that you believe that there are only two genders and that you are sexually, physically, and romantically attracted to someone of the opposite gender.
2 Because the work is so important to solving complex problems and maintaining functional organizations in a diverse society, where possible, it will continue under other names and initiatives.
