Rebranding DEI?
Nuance almost never goes viral.
If nuance pretty much never goes viral, what does that mean for something that has been framed as inherently good OR irreparably bad, like DEI?
It means, the zeroes ‘0’ and ones ‘1’ win.
And, it doesn’t matter what a zero or one represents.
For those opposed to DEI, zero can equal ‘DEI BAD/DIE/DOA’ or whatever else you click on.
Conversely, those affirming DEI can see anti-DEI influencers like Christopher Rufo or Robby Starbuck as zeroes.
For some pro-DEI people, anti-racism was a signaling ‘1’. For others like me, it was a noisy, ‘0’.
Not because I am against addressing racism. But instead because addressing racism cannot be done with a blunt ideological instrument. It felt right for many, but it wasn’t helpful, and the tradeoffs, well. . .they are more apparent than ever right now.
Those who have emerged as anti-DEI signal ‘1’ (unilaterally) against the above ideology are using a preferred one in its place. Their messages are also noisy. Their approaches, like the recent approaches in the U.S. government, contain no discernable signal. Well, maybe it can be discerned, but it is definitely not clear.
It’s similar to the signal that the character Ye Wenjie, a Chinese astrophysicist, detected after several years of attentive listening in Netflix's The 3 Body Problem.
If I were to find a needle of signal in the respective noisy haystacks of what Helen Pluckrose frames as the woke left and right, the needle would wreak of outrageous ambiguity and a refrain of “believe me because of this anecdote I cherry-picked just for you.”
[And, as I edit, I take that back because of how noisy it felt as I re-read it. The needle isn’t really a needle—it is noise disguised as an exceptionally sharp haystalk.]
Are you optimistic about the future of DEI efforts?
Christopher Rufo and Robby Starbuck, both filmmakers, are part of the right zeitgeist's targeted avatar. They are relatively camera-neutral, 30-something, married men with an above-average number of children (three and four, respectively), decent storytellers, and both were looking for their “thing” to ride like the Paul Reveres of right-leaning politics. “The Wokeish are coming!”
Rufo struck gold first. He can be credited with being the first attack dog against the after-Floyd resurgence of race-centric diversity and inclusion practices.
He stated that after “the left” tried to cancel him (following a political plastering by homeless activists in 2018), he sought out and successfully found a storyline whereby to attack “the left” in a way that allowed him to take revenge and find fame with his landing on critical race theory (CRT) as his thing.
Rufo has cemented himself as the first anti-DEI domino of the many that have been leveled since his first articles gained traction, Fox News fame, and a call from the White House that led to President Trump’s first executive order (a more reasonable one, still with political silly stuff, but actually workable and relatively straightforward, in my opinion).
He encouraged the first Trump Whitehouse, saying to “issue an executive order banning federal agencies from teaching the toxic principles of critical race theory, race essentialism, and neo-segregationism. And finally, the public should brace for a long war against the diversity-industrial complex and its enablers.”
Rid organizations of people touting critical race theory, race essentialism, and neo-segregation?. . .I’m in.
But that was not the real goal. The goal was to forge ammunition for a profitable political battle. Of course, he used the words “long war.” The longer it draws on, the more he benefits.
The irony is that we would not know who Christopher Rufo is without critical race theory. His victories are not about eliminating the ideologies he claims to oppose. His victory is that he is known as the person against something that doesn’t resonate with quite a few Americans.
He might be an excellent writer, a great dad, husband, and a dyed-in-the-wool throwback conservative. But we would not know who he is without what he is known to be against.
Rufo's reality is that he depends on the language of “DEI,” “anti-racism,” “CRT,” etc. to make a living as much as DEI practitioners do. In fact, I would say the stakes are higher.
So, I associate Christopher Rufo with DEI just as much as I do Howard J. Ross, author of several diversity and inclusion books, including the most popular, Everyday Bias.
Howard has been my mentor, former business partner, brother, and friend for 20+ years. He formally introduced me to the corporate diversity and inclusion space before the acronym Olympics, which followed D&I–DEI, DEIB, JEDI, IDEA, and on and on and on. He will be the next guest on the “Reconstructing Inclusion Podcast.”
Now, Howard and I don’t necessarily agree on the 1960s-1970s civil rights/social justice/affirmative action paradigms adhered to by many DEI proponents, especially over the past five years. He is, however, mindfully critical about how many practitioners have approached the work of DEI without the proper tools and skills.
I know and have witnessed Howard care for thousands of people through his paid and unpaid work. He has a heart of gold. Rufo’s attack was one of convenience and was in bad faith.
Rufo’s goal has not been to unearth questionable practices in the DEI space; his goal has been and remains to discredit and reinforce ambiguity about the industry for personal and political gain.
If he were more specific about what he is against, his efforts would be much less fruitful. I imagine, behind closed doors, that he would agree that the extreme approach of his media-experienced, finely tuned narrative has given him a kind of political power that nuance would not.
[Be sure that another political run is in his future.]
Mr. Rufo’s ambiguity is similar to one of the most recent Executive Orders using the branding “illegal DEI.”
If three letters ‘DEI’ or ‘CRT’ didn’t exist, Christopher Rufo would exist, but he would not be a national name profiting off of the fame of being against these things at the right time.
Robby Starbuck is a more recent spectacle. A self-proclaimed former music video producer who supposedly directed many music videos, including those by Akon and Snoop Dogg. (I couldn’t reach Akon and Snoop for comment. . .)
Since last summer (2024), Starbuck has been “discovering” what companies are doing related to DEI, and finding enough “evidence” to accuse them of guilt for practicing what he frames as “toxic” DEI.
In an X quote, he said: “We’re effectively making DEI toxic and we will do the same with the many ridiculous terms these idiots make up to replace it with. It’s DEI’s far-left ideology that we will defeat, not just the term.”
As goes Rufo so goes Starbuck—his quest to eradicate DEI and its related far-left ideology beyond the three letters is what has given him standing. What do I mean by that? I mean, No DEI, No Robby Starbuck (without the ‘s’ at the end), at least as we know his brand.
Going “beyond the [letters ‘DEI’]” and focusing on the “defeat of far-left ideology” is a strategic move. That way, anything he says can be connoted as related to the three letters and is a game for his rhetorical opposition to an industry that he has worked tirelessly to make “toxic”.
And, still, deep down, just like it is not advantageous for anti-racism practitioners to eradicate racism–it is equally beneficial for Starbuck to ensure that the language of DEI and his ability to seek out and destroy it (whatever that means) persist as long as possible–while at the same time, he makes it “toxic.”
Keeping the outrage green for as long as possible paves the way for Starbuck, like Rufo, to run for political office soon if he is not already in the queue, given his past aspirations. Now that he has momentum, I definitely expect it.
The pro and anti-DEI (zeroes and ones) from above are closer ideologically than they can acknowledge because neither is willing to be influenced by the other.
I would laud Rufo and Starbuck as heroes if they spoke with nuance and were willing to be influenced by someone with a perspective or insight they have not engaged with about the pros and cons of DEI, inclusion, diversity, or any of the other limited-use words from the current U.S. administration.
But nuance doesn’t sell. Outrage goes viral; sincere dialogue about what can help a country, community, or company rarely does. At least not in the social mediascape.
Despite the outrage of feigned caring, if one truly wants to acknowledge and operate according to solid, timeless principles, they can’t be disguised as preferences that extensively benefit one’s fixation or “cause.” That’s ideology—a push for self-gain.
Principles don’t exist when one is in that mode–what you are for or against doesn’t matter because you could change “sides,” and the goal remains–to be right.
Rightness has never transformed anything.
Principles require nuance. You cannot dance around them. We must rigorously engage with them. If an individual is not engaging with principles and engaging with others with a principled mindset as they do, then they are not engaging with and/or not interested in principles and thus allergic to nuance.
Whether it be a personality like Jesse Jackson after the civil rights movement or Christoper Rufo after Floyd, universal or even agreed-upon principles were not and respectively currently are not among their prioritized interests. Attention, attraction, and profit were and are.
As Steve QJ said, “The woke Left and Right don’t hate each other because of policy issues or principles or any sense of moral consistency, they hate each other because, in every way that counts, they’re exactly as ridiculous as each other.”
Join us TODAY, April 8th, for the Elevating Your Inclusion Edge free virtual event.
We will discuss concepts adjacent to the above and how inclusion is needed more than ever in today’s ever-shifting climate. In the session, I will discuss the necessity of transcending dated paradigms attached to DEI that have reached an impasse and the direction to move in now–how to skate to where the inclusion and culture puck will be.
In our hour together, I expound on our approach–a pathway leading individuals and organizations to create the conditions for people and organizations to thrive consistently.
I hope to see you there! Tell a friend 😊.
I hope this was helpful. . . Make it a great day! ✌🏿
Great points Amri!
The wokeservatives and wokegressives (Rufo, Starbuck, DiAngelo, et al.) preach a gospel of demolition. What they disagree with must be destroyed, stopped, blocked, or cancelled. Why? Because demolition is simpler and easier than building.
As you point out, demolition ignores detail, subtly and nuance. It's a blunt instrument. Swinging a 20 lb. sledgehammer requires little skill or thought. Demolishing a house is not an accomplishment. It creates a pile of trash that gets hauled away and leaves nothing useful.
Building a house is an accomplishment. It requires detailed thought, judgment, planning, skill, time, and persistent effort. The result gets looked at and judged every day by those who live in it. It creates one of the most enduring and useful things known to humans.
Given the current chaos out there, I'd think that organizations would find a diversity of perspective and experience - writ large, not identity - extremely helpful. But they need a builder, not a demolition crew.