The “Woke” Dilemma: Progress or Reverse Discrimination

For most things, the answer is never singularly defined. 

There's always history, stories, and the context which plague these not-so-simple ideologies, which we constantly try to simplify. In various ways, this mirrors the debates surrounding diversity and its quantitative need in our lives as well as its adaptability to modern-day standards. As a byproduct, it gives life to a new-term, brought forward recently to court, about the inverse attack on majority groups based of racial and prejudiced ideals; also known as reverse discrimination. Particularly, in the case of Ames vs. Ohio Department of Youth Services. Ames, a heterosexual woman, joined the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2004, later securing the role of Administrator for the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) after a decade. But change arrived in 2017 with a new supervisor, Ginine Trim, a gay woman, and with it, a shift in the department’s leadership. By 2019, Ames was demoted, replaced by a younger gay man, and watched as staffing decisions increasingly favored LGBTQ+ candidates. In court, Ames alleged discrimination was not just on the basis of sex, but also sexual orientation, pushing the courts to once again define the boundaries of equity, fairness, and what it truly means to be discriminated against[1]. Now with the rise of “reverse discrimination” it becomes incredibly important to remind public practices why diversity is a crucial part of identity within workplace culture. It's the same reason why organizations harbor DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs throughout hiring processes, yet even become convoluted as the Supreme Court further complicates this issue through the change of collegial processes, rejecting the inclusion of race as an option. But despite whatever terms, claims, or adjustments are made in this humanitarian discussion, it doesn’t exempt the absolute necessity of diversification within our lives, as it is exponentially beneficial on the basis of not just work, but character. 

With Donald Trump's involvement in campaigning the abolishment of these programs, labelling it as “illegal discrimination,” it goes without saying that these claims lack true validity for what diversity inclusion does on its own, program or not [2]. As DEI programs aim to address the systemic inequalities within the historically disadvantaged minority groups. While some critics label these initiatives as reverse discrimination, this perspective oversimplifies a complex issue. The reality is that minority groups face significant barriers that require interventions throughout life, as you can not ignore this crucial part of one’s identity, where majority groups, though they may express concerns about perceived inequities, do not encounter the same level of systemic disadvantage. Rather than being a form of reverse discrimination, DEI programs are essential to fostering an equal society and addressing the imbalances that persist. If these programs were to be dismantled, it is absolutely necessary to establish alternative strategies that will effectively bridge the existing gaps in equity and opportunity. 

Donald J. Trump declares, “We have ended the tyranny of so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion policies all across the entire federal government and, indeed, the private sector and our military. And our country will be woke no longer.” 

But what does being woke truly mean? Is it an unnecessary overcorrection resulting in reverse discrimination, or is it the advocacy for those historically pushed to the margins of society?

Before a topic of this controversy is addressed it’s important to be aware of what exactly systematic inequalities are. In simple terms, they are prevalent disparities embedded within societal structures, institutions, and policies, often leading to unequal opportunities and outcomes for particularly marginalized communities. It's often not blatant or face forward but indefinitely exists because it's impossible to erase every single flaw within these categories in a system built within a period where that exclusion was normalized. Where every institution, structure, policy was made in mind of societies detestation or neglected those specific groups. Although one may argue that DEI programs overcompensate due to this aspect, creating inequality for all workers on a merit-scale which contradicts their original goal. Though the point may seem reasonable in hindsight, it essentially implies that minority hires are undeserving and lack merit. In reality, the opposite is true—how long have we overlooked qualified minority candidates in favor of mediocre majority hires? 

That brings us to the clarification of the purpose of DEI, because from face value it can be interpreted as a scheme of diversity hires and double-edged sword, which disadvantages both spectrums. However, DEI’s impact speaks for itself. Take, for example, the progress made for women in the workplace; initiatives ensuring comfortable lactation rooms for breastfeeding mothers have been a direct result of DEI efforts, as noted by Rafael Fantauzzi, an executive with years of experience in the field[3]. The LGBTQ+ community has also seen tangible benefits, with increased corporate recognition of Pride Month and protections for LGBTQ+ employees. Additionally, DEI initiatives have defended workplace protections for disabled individuals and provided training to help integrate them into the workforce. As DEI advocate Hawkins points out, marginalized communities have historically been sidelined with little access to inclusive opportunities until these efforts took shape. Not to mention that a majority of employed U.S. adults (56%) view a focus on increasing DEI at work as a positive impact[4].

In a fair recent court case, the Supreme Court ruled that Harvard and UNC can’t consider race in college admissions because it violates the Constitution. Which means many schools will have to change how they try to create diverse student bodies, possibly focusing on things like family income instead of race[5]. This action was deliberately made as a method of dismantling DEI yet its ignorance is evident as it disregards the purpose of education, a right which was fought for for an extended time. Education has long been a gateway to social mobility, yet without intentional efforts to level the playing field, the same cycles of exclusion will continue, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. A decline in minority graduates not only shrinks the diversity of thought and experience in professional fields but also stifles economic progress and representation within leadership. If DEI programs are dismantled without robust, effective alternatives, like in this case, we risk reinforcing the very disparities these initiatives sought to dismantle, essentially allowing privilege to pose as merit and erasing the hard-won progress toward an impartial society. 

Trump’s new bill to dismantle DEI policies loses purpose by failing to recognize that true fairness requires addressing those deep-rooted inequalities, which aren’t always blatant, and that merit is often shaped by biases that DEI initiatives aim to correct. Especially on an opportunity scale where $17,600 was the Median wealth of black families in 2016 while for white families it's $171,000[6]. Additionally, continuous labor market discrimination and segregation also force blacks into fewer and less advantageous employment opportunities than their white counterparts[7]. By eliminating DEI training and banning the consideration of race and gender in hiring, the bill risks reinforcing privilege and creating exclusive environments that leave marginalized voices behind, rather than advancing equality. 

To claim that the country will be “woke no longer” is to ignore the reality that true progress comes from actively working to correct these imbalances that continue to shape our world, rather than ignoring them in the name of comfort or a false sense of “equality” formed within ignorance.