As a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and communications practitioner, I often use metaphors to reframe complex issues. Employing metaphors can create space for empathy, encourage creative problem-solving, and center asset-framing communication. All three of these benefits are crucial parts of establishing understanding and advancing equity.
Unfortunately, there is a tumultuous backlash unfolding against DEI work, characterized by misconceptions of what DEI efforts seek to accomplish. Some perceive DEI as a threat to established norms, while others argue it falls short of pushing the boundaries of change far enough.
Here are some of the common arguments against DEI and responses to these misconceptions. By using metaphors in their responses, employees can navigate criticisms of DEI jargon and reframe DEI as a tool that builds everyone up rather than tearing some down.
A perceived threat to meritocracy
At the forefront of the DEI backlash is the accusation that DEI threatens meritocracy. Critics fear that affirmative action or diversity goals compromise the evaluation of individuals. Some argue that hiring or distributing promotions based on demographic characteristics rather than abilities and qualifications is a threat to meritocracy.
We can, and should, reframe that argument by emphasizing that DEI efforts actually enhance meritocracy by actively seeking diverse talent pools, expanding opportunities to individuals from varied backgrounds, and challenging the notion that merit and diversity are mutually exclusive. To argue against that is to say that you believe people from diverse backgrounds couldn’t possibly be the most qualified.
Consider the backlash we witnessed surrounding the bridge collapse in Baltimore. Conservatives decried the “DEI mayor” for the tragedy. Of course, the mayor wasn’t selected because of affirmative action. He was elected—with over 70% of the vote. Conservatives also lashed out at Karenthia Barber, one of six members of the Baltimore Port Commission, which serves to create policy and does not oversee the daily operations of the port. Four members are white, and the commission is chaired by a white man, Maryland’s Secretary of Transportation. Interestingly, these white members were not blamed. Furthermore, neither the mayor nor Ms. Barber was driving the vessel that ran into the bridge. In this case, we see that what DEI critics really mean when they refer to someone as a “DEI hire” is that a Black person is in the job instead of a white person.
If you’ve been scrolling through social media lately, you may have encountered an illustration by Emanu that vividly portrays the fallacy of meritocracy. In this image, a striking contrast is drawn between a white man and a Black woman, both poised to start a race. The white man stands on a track with minimal obstacles, while the Black woman, with a ball and chain attached to her ankle, faces myriad challenges, including barbed wire, an alligator, and a pit adorned with javelins. The white man dismissively inquires, “What’s the matter? It’s the same distance!” It’s a sobering commentary on the structural inequities ingrained in our society, highlighting the urgent need for meaningful change.
Fears of reverse discrimination
Some opponents of DEI initiatives express fears about the possibility of “reverse discrimination.” They claim that efforts to address historical inequities will result in unfair treatment or disadvantages for specific individuals, particularly those who belong to majority groups. These critics view society as a zero-sum game—lifting someone up must mean bringing someone else down. However, this is simply not the case. The purpose of DEI is to level the playing field—not by taking things away—but by rectifying historical imbalances while ensuring fair treatment for all.
The “curb cut effect” can help reframe this argument against DEI. A curb cut is a sloped section of pavement at a street corner or along a sidewalk designed to allow for a smooth transition between a sidewalk and the road. In the 1940s, these sidewalk modifications were designed so that war veterans and soldiers with disabilities could better access walking paths. While initially an effort to support a specific community, people with strollers, bikes, and many more found sidewalk curb cuts beneficial to their mobility and access, creating unexpected but welcome positive externalities. In short, curb cuts created more inclusive environments that benefited everyone and became standard practice for U.S. civil engineering. DEI initiatives strive to do the same.
Political ideology and correctness
In the political battleground, DEI initiatives are entangled in ideological debates. Conservative states like Kentucky and Alabama have recently joined Florida and Texas, among others, in banning DEI initiatives in public schools, colleges, and government offices. Such actions undermine the quality of the education received at these institutions and the student experience. Critics argue that diversity initiatives are a radical invention of left-leaning politics and pundits, creating resistance from those with more conservative views. Meanwhile, proponents emphasize that embracing the wholeness of humanity should not be limited by partisanship. Instead, visible and vocal leadership support for DEI as a core value and strategic priority is paramount at every level within an organization. Leaders should emphasize the benefits of diverse perspectives and clearly express that these benefits extend beyond political lines.
I recently spoke with a colleague, Sharon Cho, vice president of DEI at Edelman. She shared a metaphor from her experience in education that can help us reframe resistance to DEI: mirrors and windows.
The mirrors and windows framework asks, ”What are you creating so that others can see themselves represented in the spaces they’re in with you?” These are mirrors. It also asks, “What are you doing to create meaningful opportunities where people can look into and learn from the lived experiences of others?” These are windows. Both mirrors and windows are needed to create inclusive spaces.
As Cho explains, inclusion is not merely the hiring of an Asian person, for example, but rather an opportunity for all employees to see themselves reflected and seen in the spaces they share with you. This metaphor underscores the importance of reflecting diverse perspectives and providing opportunities for understanding and learning through the lived experiences of others.
Misinformation and misunderstandings
Of course, many misconceptions about DEI stem from misinformation. Misinformation and misunderstandings about the goals and methods of DEI often drive opposition to DEI initiatives. These efforts—specifically framing DEI as anti-white—attempt to create a narrative of preferential treatment or enforcement of ideological conformity. It is also common for people to misunderstand or conflate three key elements of DEI: equality, equity, and systemic change.
Cho recommends using a monkey bar metaphor for explaining the distinction between DEI aims:
- Equality: A child falls off the monkey bars and scrapes their knee. An adult goes over, assesses the wound, and puts a Band-Aid on the knee. A second child falls off the monkey bars and hits their head. An adult goes over, assesses the wound, and puts a Band-Aid on the knee. The support was the same, but it wasn’t helpful to the second child.
- Equity: A child falls off the monkey bars and scrapes their knee. An adult goes over, assesses the wound, and puts a Band-Aid on the knee. A second child falls off the monkey bars and hits their head. An adult goes over, assesses the wound, and gets an ice pack for the head. The support was different, based on the need, and was helpful to mitigate the symptoms.
- Systemic Change: Several children fall off the monkey bars, each with different wounds. The adults gather, thinking, “The monkey bars set keeps hurting our children. We should do something so that it doesn’t continue to hurt them.” The monkey bars has been dismantled, and a new one has been built. The source of the issue is addressed, the monkey bar set is redesigned, and the environment is changed.
By addressing these common arguments against DEI, you can help reframe your colleagues’ understandings of the need for, and benefits of, DEI work.