Holding the Line: Strategies for Sustaining DEI Amid the Rising Tide of Opposition

Over the last 3 years, the United States has experienced a stark increase in legislation aimed at curbing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, a trend that is likely to accelerate under President-Elect Donald Trump’s administration. Currently, 10 states have enacted laws banning DEI-related practices and positions, and nearly half of all states have proposed similar DEI-restrictive legislation (Alfonseca, 2024). Anti-DEI laws have also been proposed at the federal level, with Republican senate members recently introducing a bill that would eliminate federal DEI programs and funding (Knox, 2024). This poses a significant threat to federal and state DEI initiatives, especially considering Republicans won a majority of the House and Senate in the 2024 election and may seek to expand current DEI restrictions. Even at the time of this writing, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would remove the federal tax exemption for nonprofit organizations that support terrorism, which could be used to unfairly and selectively target human rights organizations and political opponents of Donald Trump, without due process (Beaty & Amiri, 2024). Amid these mounting political and legal threats, DEI groups and their advocates face an urgent need to act. It is crucial to enshrine and safeguard DEI-related policies and integrate DEI-focused programming into organizational frameworks before new federal and state measures make such efforts more difficult. Moreover, now is also the time to mobilize efforts to communicate the empirical evidence on DEI and its impacts for employees, particularly minoritized employees, to help combat the legislation as it is being heard.

We recognize that the challenge of addressing these threats may seem daunting or even overwhelming. However, we also argue that it is too important an issue to go unaddressed. That is because empirical evidence indicates that DEI initiatives have broad benefits for organizations, such as improved innovation, employee engagement, and financial performance (Dixon-Fyle et al., 2020), and employees alike (Holmes et al., 2021; Shore et al., 2011). These benefits are particularly pronounced for minoritized employees (McKay et al., 2008), suggesting that DEI bans stand to worsen existing disparities among groups. Moreover, although public opinion has been swayed by recent political efforts, there remains widespread support among the public for DEI initiatives (Minkin, 2023).

We, therefore, urge SIOP members to take action when and where they can to help protect our ability to engage in DEI initiatives. In the sections below, we build on existing calls to action that broadly explicate ways to resist DEI bans (Follmer et al., 2024) to outline more specific practical steps that SIOP members can implement in their teaching, research, and practice. Additionally, we highlight initiatives that SIOP leadership can undertake to protect and support the rights of all employees at this fraught time. Together, these efforts can help create a more equitable and inclusive future, even in the face of significant challenges.

Recommendations for Preserving DEI Initiatives

Below we provide specific, actionable measures that SIOP members and SIOP leadership can take to help protect our ability to engage in DEI initiatives in organizations and educational institutions.

Pedagogy

We begin with recommendations related to teaching, and our first suggestion is for instructors to actively incorporate DEI-related content and values across all courses—not just those explicitly focused on DEI topics. It is important to recognize that much of the science informing our teaching is systematically biased (e.g., Roberts et al., 2020; Ruggs et al., 2023; Sue, 1999). As such, the responsibility to address how science has often ignored or perpetuated disadvantages for systematically marginalized groups rests on all instructors, not just those teaching DEI-focused courses. This approach would also help to preserve DEI content if and when courses with DEI-focused titles are prohibited, redistribute the responsibility for engaging in difficult and sensitive conversations in the classroom away from just a small number of instructors, and demonstrate that DEI is not a fringe topic but is instead core to our understanding of workplaces. For example, in undergraduate I-O psychology classes, this might include integrating discussions on the impact of systemic bias in hiring practices or examining how organizational culture can either hinder or promote equity. Practical activities, such as case studies or simulations that address these issues, can help students meaningfully engage with DEI principles.

It is also essential to stay informed about current federal, state, and local laws, policies, and restrictions, as these may influence the way in which one incorporates DEI-related content. For instance, in Florida, recent legislation such as Senate Bill 266 prohibits public universities from using state or federal funds for DEI programs and mandates the removal of certain DEI-focused courses from general education curricula. This has led universities to consider adjusting their offerings, with institutions like the University of Florida proposing removing courses on gender and sexuality from their general education requirements (Atterbury, 2024) and Florida International University similarly removing classes on race and ethnicity (Moody, 2024). It is first important to ensure you understand these restrictions to design course content that is legally compliant. At the same time, it is equally important to thoroughly explore ways to continue presenting evidence-based practices that support organizational functioning—practices that, although aligned with shifting legal expectations, still reflect the underlying principles of equity and inclusion, even if not labeled as such. Collaborating with your institution’s faculty resource center may help you navigate these challenges and ensure your teaching aligns with legal and institutional requirements. For example, if a state law restricts specific DEI terminology, faculty resource centers may provide alternative frameworks or language to address the same critical concepts without violating regulations.

Finally, even in states that do not have active DEI restrictions affecting course content, instructors may still experience an uptick in negative course evaluations or student reactions as public attitudes toward DEI continue to sour. Instructors may consider finding ways to document and demonstrate student learning outcomes to prepare for potential backlash in course evaluations or institutional reviews. This could involve collecting data on how DEI-focused coursework improves students’ critical thinking, empathy, or readiness for diverse workplaces. Sharing this evidence in course portfolios or during departmental evaluations can help justify the inclusion of DEI content and demonstrate its value to both students and broader institutional goals.

Research

Although scholars have acknowledged the growing backlash to DEI efforts (e.g., Dhanani et al., 2024; Follmer et al., 2024; Nittrouer et al., 2024; Prasad & Śliwa, 2024), recognition alone is insufficient. Scholars must explicitly examine the motivations and rationale for this backlash and prioritize research that mitigates DEI resistance. One critical contributor to DEI resistance is misinformation, which has become pervasive in the public discourse. This phenomenon has been exacerbated by high-profile figures, including Donald Trump, whose fearmongering and propagation of blatant falsehoods have intensified public distrust. Although fact checking efforts have increased in response to this surge of misinformation, they remain hampered by widespread skepticism of fact checkers and major media outlets (Brenan, 2024). This distrust also extends into the sciences, with only 45% of Republicans expressing confidence in science and a mere 33% confident in higher education (Jones, 2021; Parker, 2019). Thus, scholars must act promptly to address public skepticism of science, combat misinformation, and identify other causes of DEI backlash.

Additionally, researchers must be intentional and strategic in their research dissemination to reach a wider audience. Scholars can make their research more accessible to the general public through open-access publishing practices, online business magazines (e.g., Harvard Business Review), social media, podcasts, and books. Despite downsides to some of these practices, the benefits may be far more important for addressing the DEI backlash. For example, books, though sometimes perceived as less rigorous due to the absence of peer review, are often more widely read by audiences outside academia, enabling broader influence (Zinkhan & Clark, 1995). Similarly, podcasts have emerged as a powerful communication medium, with nearly half of U.S. adults (47%) using them as a source of news (St. Aubin, 2023). Researchers could use this growing communication method to counter anti-DEI rhetoric.

Most importantly, scholars must expand upon current research sharing practices by engaging in advocacy work. Researchers can do this at their institution by sharing positive outcomes of DEI research with institutional communication teams, further publicizing the positive outcomes of DEI research and practices to the public. Researchers can also do this at the local, state, and federal levels by sharing research directly with policymakers and political organizations. Policymakers must be informed with recent, rigorous research detailing the strengths of DEI, as well as with research documenting the actual and potential negative impacts of anti-DEI legislation. To do this, researchers can work with local and national social justice groups to share this information with policymakers more quickly and effectively.

Practice

Those involved in the practice of I-O psychology have a significant role to play in preserving and advancing DEI practices, especially as such policies and programs increasingly come under attack in organizations. For example, many companies have disbanded DEI offices or scaled back their commitments in response to public and political pressures (Rubin, 2024; Zilber, 2024). This is occurring despite clear evidence that DEI practices provide substantial benefits to organizations and employees (Dixon-Fyle et al., 2020). To counter these threats, SIOP members who work as practitioners can champion empirically based research to organizational leadership, demonstrating the notable value of DEI initiatives. Using this evidence, practitioners can encourage leadership to make DEI an integral part of their culture and priorities, and actively advocate for lawmakers to protect these efforts. DEI-focused practitioners can also argue for the importance of incorporating DEI practices and personnel into core organizational functions (e.g., leadership development, HR policies), which might help sustain such practices if bans prohibit organizations from having DEI units.

Closely tied to leveraging evidence-based practices is fostering stronger connections with those conducting DEI research. Forging this type of connection has two benefits. First, it can keep practitioners informed of the most cutting-edge findings related to DEI initiatives and ensure that such practices are evidence based. For instance, research on reducing bias in hiring or creating equitable performance evaluations can inform actionable programs tailored to the organization’s needs. Practitioners can leverage pilot programs when translating research findings to their organization, as they are particularly useful for testing and demonstrating the feasibility and impact of these initiatives. Second, practitioners can provide insight to scholars about the most pressing real-world DEI needs, observations about specific points of contention surrounding DEI initiatives, and successful strategies for overcoming resistance, which can better guide subsequent research. Building this bridge can thus unite efforts across the scholar–practitioner gap and best enable us to respond in the face of pressing legal threats.

Finally, outreach beyond the immediate organization is critical. Showcasing the tangible benefits of DEI to news outlets, local communities, and broader audiences can build long-term support and dispel common misconceptions. By sharing first-hand stories of success and demonstrating how DEI initiatives benefit employees and organizational performance, practitioners can influence public opinion and underscore the importance of maintaining these efforts. Such external advocacy can create a lasting impact, fostering environments where DEI practices are not just preserved but celebrated.

SIOP Leadership

We also outline actions that SIOP leadership, including members of the executive board and chairs of relevant committees, can take in response to both the current state-level DEI bans as well as the impending threat of a potential federal ban. SIOP leaders are well positioned to leverage the cumulative knowledge amassed by the field to craft public statements communicating the importance of DEI and the harm of legislation that restricts such initiatives within organizations and educational institutions. Many leading experts within the SIOP community study the positive impacts of DEI and could assist in this endeavor, and we encourage SIOP leadership to issue a call for experts to contribute to crafting, or to sign demonstrating support for, a policy position statement that advocates in favor of protecting DEI initiatives. SIOP leadership can then partner with APA, which has DEI personnel and advocacy teams, to disseminate the statement to relevant lawmakers who are currently hearing state-level DEI bans or who are positioned to advocate against a similar federal ban. In these efforts, SIOP leadership may also convey the importance of DEI in our education and training standards and underscore the impact such bans would have on our ability to adequately train future scholars and practitioners. Doing so in partnership with other professional associations may increase the impact of these arguments on actuating policy changes.

SIOP leadership can also mobilize resources in other ways to support SIOP members who wish to take individual actions to combat current DEI bans. As one example, SIOP leadership can provide advocacy training for members or relevant SIOP committees to better equip individuals to engage in effective conversations with lawmakers. There may be members who wish to communicate their unique expertise to argue for the harm of current legislation aiming to ban DEI initiatives, but who do not have experience translating their work for such an audience. Offering training can help bridge the gap and facilitate better communication flow to those who have the power to stop DEI bans from passing. As stated above, SIOP leadership may also want to tap SIOP committees whose members are likely to hold relevant expertise or work in relevant areas of practice to compile resources and/or craft empirical arguments documenting the harm of DEI bans. If they choose to take this route, we recommend that they provide committees with the necessary resources, including potentially financial resources, to be able to successfully do this work. Finally, SIOP leadership could also offer research grants to scholars who are examining research questions related to DEI backlash to help fund the research necessary to combat the public opinion that is in part leading to the passage of DEI bans.

Engaging in advocacy to protect organizations’ ability to continue to engage in DEI work aligns with SIOP’s strategic goal to collaborate with organizational leaders, communities, and policymakers to understand and confront real-world problems and translate scientific knowledge to promote individual and organizational health and effectiveness. We thus call on SIOP leadership to use the recommendations above or search for additional ways to enact their espoused values for using scientific knowledge to shape policies in ways that are best for organizations and the employees within them. SIOP leadership is uniquely situated, and uniquely powerful, in contributing to this mission, and we hope they feel called to use that power to stand up against the shifting legal tides that threaten the way many of us do our jobs.

SIOP Membership At Large

Finally, we issue recommendations for all SIOP members, even those who do not actively do work related to DEI. The current legislation banning DEI should be of concern to all of us because it sets a precedent for lawmakers who have no expertise in an area to prohibit us from doing work that has long been an accepted part of our field. This also represents a broader trend observed over the last few years of regulating and even criminalizing routine job-related practices that are backed by substantial empirical and clinical evidence, such as what is being observed with reproductive healthcare. As scholars and practitioners who care deeply about work and the experience of employees, we should take note of this trend and consider its long-term impact on employee health, organizational functioning, and society as a whole.

Thus, if there is motivation to combat the current DEI bans and the broader threat they pose to our ability to follow best practice standards when doing our jobs, there are some actions we can each take. As one recommendation, we can each address mis/disinformation about DEI when we encounter it. There are common narratives that are being used to bolster political support for DEI bans that are incongruent with the empirical evidence, and challenging those narratives might help shore up ground support for DEI initiatives. Additionally, SIOP members can use their personal platforms to circulate policy statements or other resources drafted by SIOP leadership to widen their reach. Finally, we urge people to engage in allyship, particularly in the event that a DEI ban is passed that impacts your state or local context. Allyship can be demonstrated through joining employee resource groups, providing support to those most affected by the bans, and speaking out against harmful language being popularized right now (e.g., calling people “DEI hires”), among many other actions. Successfully navigating this time will require more than just the folks already working in DEI spaces to respond, and we call on everyone to do their part.

Conclusion

Though it is currently uncertain whether a federal ban on DEI will be passed or what the scope of such a ban will be, there are clear signs that DEI is under attack in certain states and that public attitudes toward DEI are shifting. In response, we have already seen a number of organizations divest from their DEI offices and practices, including Walmart, which is the largest private employer in the United States (Meyersohn, 2024). The accumulated evidence on DEI practices tells us that these changes will harm organizations and employees, with the most acute effects experienced by minoritized employees. Thus, as the field perhaps best positioned to advocate for the importance of continuing DEI initiatives within organizations and educational institutions, we urge DEI scholars, teachers, and practitioners, as well as SIOP leadership and SIOP members at large, to take action to protect DEI practices, and we hope the above recommendations help identify potential pathways toward doing so. Given the inevitability of diversity within US organizations, DEI bans only restrict our ability to create workplaces that successfully leverage that diversity and promote dignity, respect, and fairness for all employees. Though the scale of these threats may feel overwhelming, it is imperative to recognize that every action—no matter how small—matters. Hence, we call on each of you to use your voice, your expertise, and your platform to defend DEI initiatives and stand firmly for the values that define our field.