In 1988, Scottish philosopher, Alasdair MacIntyre published a book titled “Whose Justice? Which Rationality?” In this book, MacIntyre argued that human rationality is grounded in some foundational source-tradition of thought or inquiry. These foundational traditions of rationality (whether we are aware of them) are the soil that our values, ethics and moral frameworks grow out.

One of the results of this philosophical reality is that humans can end up with vastly divergent viewpoints regarding various ethical concerns. One group understands “justice” as having one particular definition, while another group ends up with a very different definition. MacIntyre would argue that at a foundational level, these groups are not disagreeing about justice, but rather they have “rationalities” grounded in different source-traditions which lead to the result of differing views of justice.

Though written over 35 years ago, I have found myself returning to MacIntyre’s argument many times over the last several years when considering a contemporary hot button issue: diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). The DEI movement has historical roots that some would trace back to the 1960s civil rights movement (though this link is contested), but its most recent iterations have exploded into American consciousness as a result of what some have called the “racial reckoning of 2020,” and the death of George Floyd.

After these events, experts in the DEI field sold their training services to companies around the country, and institutions (from local government to public universities) have sought to “embed” DEI values within their operations.

For example, here in Colorado, Gov. Jared Polis signed an executive order in 2020 establishing DEI protocols across state agencies. The goal of these efforts has been similar across the board: to identify and eliminate institutional racism and to provide more opportunities for leadership and representation for individuals from “marginalized groups” within these organizations.

Our state government now houses a Statewide Equity Office, and many local and county governments have similar offices. You will also find a DEI department within almost every public university in the state, including CU, CSU and DU.

Now, the issue is back at center stage — having heated up anew this month after executive orders by the Trump administration rolling back DEI on a number of fronts.

Negative results

The results of DEI efforts have been largely negative in many of the contexts in which they have been implemented and have led to greater division and loss of institutional trust. In April, a senior editor at NPR published a strong critique of his employer’s failings in this area which he, at least in part, attributed to their hyperfocus on issues related to race and identity.

This heightened focus came with a $1 million grant meant to help strengthen the institutional efforts towards diversity but in spite of these goals, the result was a readership that was “overwhelmingly white and progressive, and clustered around coastal cities and college towns.” The editor was eventually suspended for voicing this critique.

But this is not the only story of prominent DEI failures. Recently, the New York Times published a story of the University of Michigan’s DEI efforts, where over the last several years they have spent a quarter of a billion dollars on diversity, equity and inclusion programs, but the result has been a campus where students and faculty feel less welcome and less likely to engage with people who have differing racial, religious or political backgrounds.

A recent study conducted by the Social Perception Lab at Rutgers University shared similar findings regarding certain types of DEI training, noting that, “Taken together, the limited evidence suggests that some DEI programs not only fail to achieve their goals but can actively undermine diversity efforts… And diversity initiatives aimed at managing bias can fail, sometimes resulting in decreased representation and triggering negativity among employees. In other words, some DEI programs appear to backfire.”

The report went on to argue that further in-depth study is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of DEI pedagogy, but that these particular trainings often did lead to increased hostility and heightened racial suspicions among participants.

Concerns also have been raised here in Colorado. In late 2023, the University of Colorado was contacted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and urged to reconsider their requirement that job applicants submit DEI statements and express support for DEI if hired at the university.

The concern, of course, was that potential applicants or employees might face undesirable consequences for failing to express ideological agreement with CU’s specific views relating to DEI. This concern is similar to the ones expressed regarding HB 24-1260, which was passed in Colorado last year and protected Colorado workers from being subjected to work meetings that were politically or religiously charged.

Unfortunately, this bill specifically excluded DEI training from this protective measure even though DEI has been shown to be politically and ideologically slanted in nature.

In addition to the well-documented concerns and notable failures of these DEI initiatives, American perception of DEI programs has also shifted.

Walmart and McDonalds recently have become some of the most notable corporations in a long line of others that have rolled back DEI efforts as a result of public pressure and revelations of the extent of their organization’s social justice activism.

At a broader level, some have argued that the 2024 presidential election was another example of the rejection of DEI, as record numbers of individuals from diverse voter demographics came out to vote against the party that championed diversity, equity and inclusion as one of its leading causes.

DEI’s failures

How might we account for this seemingly comprehensive failure and rejection of DEI efforts in the United States? How might organizations move forward with future justice efforts in a way that is productive rather than detrimental to their goals?

This is where MacIntyre’s insights, even at a surface level, become quite helpful as we trace the ideological roots of contemporary DEI efforts. While there are many who argue that the United States is simply not ready to move past its racist history, or that minorities who voted against Kamala Harris are simply complicit in white supremacy, the reality might actually be far less fatalistic.

As MacIntyre would argue, when we discuss morally significant issues like “diversity, equity and inclusion,” we are not necessarily using shared definitions of what these concepts mean, nor are we participating in the same rational frameworks that establish these definitions.

While most Americans would likely agree that (depending on how one defines them) concepts like diversity, equity, and inclusion are worthwhile pursuits, the reality is that the “DEI industry” which informs and influences most of these conversations is grounded in a particular rational and philosophical framework that actually hinders, rather than promotes, the goals that it claims to strive towards achieving.

In short, DEI as it is popularly practiced and taught in most contexts today continues to fail because the rational soil it has grown up within is bent in a particular direction. This rational framework is one committed to principles grounded in contemporary critical theory, queer theory and intersectionality, just to name a few.

Each of these theoretical substructures can stand as their own fields of inquiry, but they share common themes, including a lens that views society through categories of “oppressor vs. oppressed.”

Furthermore, much of contemporary critical theory demands not to exist simply as a theory that informs how we view the world, but also demands that its followers adhere to a lifestyle praxis of deconstruction and transformation of society. This deconstruction involves a rejection of tradition, white supremacy and patriarchy.

Notably, however, the goal of this societal transformation is often left unarticulated. In other words, the rational framework that feeds most contemporary DEI practice is one set on the destruction of inherited understandings “what is good” (due to their roots in “white supremacy” and “colonization”), but it cannot communicate what type of world it seeks to establish.

The irony, of course, is that in its rejection of “Euro-centric white supremacy” and “colonization,” much of this contemporary theory is also grounded in the work of white, European, male philosophers. They have rejected one form of “colonization” only to replace it with another form.

The result is what we now see happening across American society and our state today. A DEI industry grounded in philosophies that seek to deconstruct with no vision for reconstruction, inevitably has led to institutional peril. Students at the University of Michigan feel more divided on campus in spite of hundreds of millions of dollars spent on “diversity and inclusion” efforts. Ethnic minorities voted in historically significant numbers against a presidential candidate who champions DEI because her understanding of “diversity and inclusion” did not offer a sense of belonging for these people groups.

For example, NPR has cultivated a readership that is only more white and more progressive, not in spite of their DEI efforts, but likely in large part because of their implementation of a vision of DEI that only appeals to white progressives.

At a surface level and on an individual basis, the terms “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” are morally ambiguous, and most people would likely agree that they are good goals to pursue in society. Most would agree that the inclusion of people from all backgrounds in society is a good and worthwhile endeavor. Making room for diverse opinions and viewpoints should make our campuses stronger. Removing long-standing barriers that have prevented equitable opportunities for certain people groups would likely only be opposed by a select few today.

The problem is that the contemporary DEI industry does not share these same definitions of terms. Instead of including people from all backgrounds in society, the DEI industry has become increasingly anti-white and hostile toward ethnic minorities who do not fall in line with the ideological zeitgeist.

Rather than creating college campuses where diverse viewpoints are welcome, we have created colleges where ideas that fall outside the “safe” consensus are shouted down and those who hold these ideas are ostracized.

Rather than attempting to provide equitable opportunities for people from disadvantaged backgrounds, contemporary DEI has fought for equitable outcomes, not taking into consideration various other factors that might prevent these outcomes form becoming a reality.

A way forward?

This argument used to be more difficult to make, but the ideological chickens are coming home to roost and it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue in good faith that contemporary DEI initiatives (as they are practiced) are helpful for our society and its institutions.

This does not mean that a more diverse and inclusive future is not possible, but it does mean that if we want to improve on the climate across our nation it is going to require going back to the drawing board on what these terms mean and what philosophical systems undergird them. It will also require a recovery of institutional purpose that situates diversity aspirations as one priority among many in our institutions. Rather than DEI being embedded into every level of our institutions and reimagining our vocations through activist lenses, we ought to hold tightly to institutional purpose and loosely to ideological narratives that steer us away from that purpose.

This is happening in some places. Take, for example, the newly established University of Austin, founded in Texas with the goal of promoting the pursuit of truth and rejecting the identity politics that have defined most college campuses in recent years. Similarly, local and national newspapers that seem to be aware of the ideological capture that has taken place in most newsrooms across the nation and have sought to return to an honest and independent journalism not beholden to either side of the political aisle.

A common theme for both of these institutions is a retrieval of an “institutional telos” that refuses to compromise to ideological extremism. This might be one way forward in our DEI-hijacked society. Our organizations and public institutions serve distinct purposes in society, each with their own teleological “slice of the pie.”

It is time that our schools, newspapers, libraries and local businesses recapture these institutional purposes and reject any ideology that seeks to hyphenate our important vocations with an activist orientation. We do not need more “activist-professors,” “activist-journalists” or “activist librarians.”

We need professors, journalists, and librarians radically aware of the roles they serve in our communities, and ferociously protective against any demand that these vocations be made subservient to a prevailing ideology that is bent on destruction, and that has no vision for reconstruction. This is a vision that seeks to build together, rather than deconstructing into oblivion, and it offers a far better hope than what the DEI of the past has offered.

Ricardo Cárdenas is a pastor and public librarian in Denver. He received his master of divinity degree from Denver Seminary. He is a Ph.D. candidate at Union Theological College (Belfast), and he is an associate fellow at the Kirby Laing Centre for Public Theology in Cambridge (UK), where he is researching the cultural and theological value of public libraries.