Diversity and Inclusion, but Equity?

This is an unpopular opinion and a long read, but it needs to be said. I know that even raising questions about DEI reform may get me labeled, attacked, or dismissed. Silence doesn’t fix broken systems.

This post isn’t about division; it’s about being honest about what’s working, what’s not, and what we owe the next generation of professionals: clarity, capability, and fairness.

I believe in DEI's purpose because I've lived it. I was hired and promoted several times under DEI, and I'll always be grateful to the leaders who gave me a chance.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion evolved from the civil rights movement, affirmative action policies, and workplace equality efforts in the 1960s. Their intent was to remove systemic barriers and ensure equal access to opportunity. Unfortunately, that intent was exploited within the Department of Defense and beyond.

Countless candidates were hired not because they were the most capable but because they met a demographic expectation. Because of the optics, hiring managers and leaders were afraid to make a different choice or hold employees accountable for poor performance.

"More qualified" doesn't always mean "more capable."
Years on a résumé don't always equal strong performance.
Capability should be the standard, regardless of identity.

My opinion doesn't come from the outside. I served in multiple HR-related roles, including mid-level leadership, within the Department of the Air Force. That experience gave me a vertical and horizontal view of DEI, from high-level policy to boots-on-the-ground execution. I didn't only read the memos; I experienced the outcomes.

Let me be clear: Diversity and inclusion matter.

However, equity, as it was implemented, went off track. It became more about forced outcomes and shielding underperformance than creating real opportunity.

Here's the unpopular part:

While I don't agree with President Trump's Executive Order dismantling DEI efforts, I don't oppose it either.

I understand it.

You can hate the man and still respect the office. Many assume the Executive Order was born from a place of privilege or lack of empathy, but few take the time to examine why it was written or what prompted it. Dismissing the messenger without engaging with the message shuts down honest dialogue, and that’s part of what got us here in the first place.

His order, signed in January 2025, directed the elimination of DEI programs across the federal government, calling them divisive, costly, and ineffective.

The administration's scorched-earth approach hurt my heart but forced a much-needed reckoning. It pushed the system to confront the gap between intent and execution, challenging us to ask:

What comes next? What should DEI look like when it's done right?

Let's be honest. DEI was never supposed to create untouchable roles or lower the bar. Its purpose was to open doors for those unfairly kept out without slamming them on everyone else.

If DEI is to survive in any form, it has to evolve.

Back to basics.
Back to substance over symbolism.
Back to people.

We can't have that conversation, can we?

Anyone expressing support for abolishing DEI is often labeled as racist, sexist, culturally insensitive, or tone-deaf, labels that effectively shut down honest conversations.

Many of us are not against inclusion, diversity, or fairness. We're against how those values were distorted into performative, bureaucratic systems lacking accountability and transparency.

We support a reform-over-perform position.

Dismantling flawed DEI structures creates space for efforts to regroup around more purposeful, mission-aligned work. The kind built on trust, integrity, and capability, not checkboxes.

Don't get me wrong. DEI had its great moments. I was one of them! ;)

For those moments to remain meaningful, we must carry the intent forward beyond policy and politics.

Let purpose, not optics, guide the future.
Accountability and capability must lead the way.