DEI and disaster capitalism
Both the cheerleaders and detractors capitalized on disaster
Critics of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives are rightly raising concerns about how entrenched and bureaucratic they have become, without much proof that they work to make places more inclusive, for example. The number of businesses and consultancies that have emerged offering DEI services since the death of George Floyd is staggering. The swelling DEI Industrial Complex looks like disaster capitalism.
Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans but was a boom for charter school operators. Following the disaster, the city's education officials saw an opportunity to remake education—against a backdrop of failure—by turning the existing public school system into one with greater choice for families. This shake-up brought in much philanthropic support from within and outside of Louisiana and drummed up national interest from high-profile education reformers.
Anyone with an interest in education reform and school choice knows, or at least has heard of, the story of New Orleans. It's the shiniest example of disaster capitalism in formal K-12 education. Hurricane Katrina quite literally devastated schools and charter school advocates, funders, and operators capitalized on that. DEI initiatives following the summer of 2020 capitalized on a different disaster: a death catapulted into the national spotlight.
Those engaged in progressive politics view efforts to increase school choice and other perceived capitalistic ventures as a conspiratorial project of the right (even though many prominent Democrats, such as Barack Obama and Cory Booker, have supported charter schools). Now, DEI initiatives, efforts of the left, have proved to be capitalistic in nature and are booming in the wake of a racial reckoning. Teachers' unions making demands of states in how they spend their money during COVID, while halting efforts to re-open schools until their demands were met, serves as another example of capitalizing on disaster.
But amid the growing backlash against how DEI initiatives are executed, particularly their hyper focus on identity (race, gender, ethnicity, etc.) as the most important attribute of a person or group, anti-DEI initiatives, if you will, have emerged. Are they just capitalizing on the disaster that is DEI? Are they not just using frustration with how DEI efforts are executed to make money for their own ventures.
I am in favor of more humanistic approaches to inclusion efforts to counter the approaches that say only race and gender matter when broadening the umbrella, or increasing the size of the proverbial tent. Certainly, thoughtful organizations and well-planned professional development and curriculum with more humanistic approaches have emerged and are much-needed. But many people who are speaking out against DEI as it's currently structured are using their opposition as a means for financial gain, rather than providing goods and services that will solve the problem. Cultural wars are profitable, and they too are capitalizing on disaster.Â
Content creators with YouTube channels and podcasts position themselves against DEI to gain an audience, which often does result in financial gain, including by shedding light on Ibram X. Kendi's profits from public school speaking engagements. They are saying, "this man is bad for making so much money" to increase the audience and amount of money they make.
When a problem arises, solutions are needed. And that's what pro- and anti-DEI organizations and individuals see themselves as doing: being innovative, solving a pressing problems. But, just like I am skeptical of many DEI initiatives, I am skeptical of the anti-DEI pop-up shops. Those with shiny objects and a lot to say but not a lot to offer. The ones that seemed to emerge out of thin air, with talking heads that are more against something than they are for an alternative.Â
Disasters bring the vultures out. The shiny objects can lure you in, but we must look past them to the find the helpers, as Mister Rogers would say.