DEI in the Age of Trump: A Roadmap on How to Build More Just Communities in the Next Four Years

PUBLISHED 1/18/2025 by Nilanjana Dasgupta

With Trump’s second presidential administration looming before us, Americans who care deeply about equality and social justice are asking ourselves: What now? How do we move forward in this dramatically changed political and legislative climate? What actions will have a fighting chance of getting traction? What is the most effective sphere of influence for individuals?

A high priority of Trump’s agenda for his second presidential term is to eliminate diversity equity and inclusion (DEI) programs in federal agencies and to also take away federal funding from agencies, contractors and organizations that have DEI programs. This, together with the repeal of affirmative action in college admissions by the U.S Supreme Court, makes many initiatives related to diversity and civil rights a target for the second Trump administration.

The truth is some diversity, equity and inclusion programs, like training, haven’t worked. Research shows that while DEI trainings increase attendees’ awareness and knowledge about bias, there’s little evidence of changes in attendees’ behavior, nor increased diversity in the types of people hired, promoted, retained or more inclusive climate in the organizations where such training is implemented. Sometimes DEI training backfires, creating resentment and resistance when people feel coerced.

In my new book, Change the Wallpaper: Transforming Cultural Patterns to Build More Just Communities, I explain why.

DEI training tries to change individuals’ beliefs, hoping it will change their future behavior. But individuals’ beliefs often don’t shift behavior because human behavior is buffeted by multiple situational forces. These include the social roles individuals occupy and their accompanying behavioral etiquette, what others around them are saying or doing, and norms and rules that constrain their actions, all of which guide people’s behavior no matter what their personal beliefs.

Another situational force is the physical design of places where people live and work, which influences whether casual interactions with others of diverse backgrounds are easy or not. Such interactions, when pleasant and repeated, morph into familiarity and friendliness that are an essential building block for trust.  

Like wallpaper, these situational forces are in the background, barely noticed. Yet they subtly nudge people’s thoughts and actions in small ways, accumulating over time in one of two directions. They either pull us apart based on initial differences, increasing unfamiliarity, mistrust and polarization, or they push us together, increasing familiarity, trust and inclusion.

We need to notice the wallpaper that silently pulls and pushes our own behavior. To do that, we must step out of our bubble and mix with people different from ourselves.

Even if individuals’ behavior were to be changed by DEI training, they would be quickly overwhelmed by the wallpaper when they returned to their workplace, stepped into their old roles, surrounded by unchanged norms, rules and colleagues, and in buildings with limited physical arrangements for cross-group mixing and relationship building.

Here is an alternative roadmap to social justice backed by scientific research simplified in the form of five steps.

First, we need to notice the wallpaper that silently pulls and pushes our own behavior. To do that, we must step out of our bubble and mix with people different from ourselves. Have real conversations, be curious and learn about the material conditions of others’ lives that may not be visible from the outside. Repeated interactions start a virtuous cycle of growing familiarity, understanding, trust, cross-group relationships and a sense of belonging in a shared community. These interactions reveal stories about people’s material conditions, highlighting inequality or vulnerability in a personal way, and grow solidarity and momentum for change.

Know that inequalities often hide in the “3 Rs” where we live and work: rules, resources and recognition. Do the rules in the place where you live or organization where you work exclude some people’s voices from decision-making, especially people with less power? Are there transparent and reasonable processes to change these rules? Are resources distributed to individuals based on need, merit, effort, seniority, or a combination? Are the criteria and processes for resource distribution open and transparent? Are people recognized for their contribution fairly?

If you see inequalities in the 3 Rs where you live or work, don’t be silent. Talk to others, see what they think, and explore ways to act collectively for change.

Second, actions make more of a difference if they attempt to change the material conditions of people’s lives—access to high quality education, healthcare, housing and employment—than if they are mostly symbolic—mission statements, lawn signs or imagery of diverse people on websites and marketing materials.

Third, acting collectively with other people will get more traction rather than acting alone because individuals quickly get swept away by situational forces. In acting together, the goal is not to limit ourselves to gather with people who are all the same. Rather, when we are not afraid to mix with people different from ourselves, we are able to discover and develop new allies across the spectrum instead of being caught in old identity traps that haven’t served us well.

Because the wallpaper is old and sticky, collective action is needed over and over again in different ways. It’s not one and done. That’s the fourth step.

Finally, actions get more traction if they are local. That’s the Goldilocks space. That’s our call for action in the next four years and the hope for change.

==============================================================

Ms. Classroom wants to hear from educators and students being impacted by legislation attacking public education, higher education, gender, race and sexuality studies, activism and social justice in education, and diversity, equity and inclusion programs for our series, ‘Banned! Voices from the Classroom.’ Submit pitches and/or op-eds and reflections (between 500-800 words) to Ms. contributing editor Aviva Dove-Viebahn at adove-viebahn@msmagazine.com. Posts will be accepted on a rolling basis.