What Comes After DEI? A Different Future For Race, Work, And Policy
As a scholar focused on racial and gender inequality in professional occupations, much of my research examines the experiences of Black workers and the challenges they encounter in these environments. These challenges range from overt issues—such as stereotyping, discrimination, and barriers to advancement—to more subtle dynamics, including isolation from other Black colleagues, alienation within organizations, and the pressure of overextension both inside and outside the workplace.
Given this focus, I have also spent considerable time thinking about policies that might effectively address these inequities. In a recent paper, I argue that, despite widespread adoption, many diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in their current form have not been as effective as commonly assumed.
This conclusion may seem counterintuitive. DEI became a multi-billion-dollar enterprise and, particularly around 2020, received strong public commitments from corporations across industries. Many organizations pledged resources, announced partnerships, and articulated ambitious goals aimed at combating systemic racism and increasing equity. Yet, several years later, leadership across sectors such as technology, education, and healthcare remains strikingly homogeneous, still dominated by white men.
This disconnect raises an important question: how did such visible commitments yield so little structural change?
Part of the answer lies in how DEI has been framed and contested. Critics often argue that DEI lowers standards by promoting unqualified candidates, a claim that distorts its purpose and undermines its legitimacy. In some cases, DEI has even been invoked as a scapegoat for unrelated failures, allowing organizations and policymakers to deflect attention from deeper structural issues such as weakened regulatory systems, underinvestment in public infrastructure, and broader economic and environmental challenges. When DEI becomes a catchall explanation for complex problems, it becomes easier for institutions to abandon it under pressure.
Equally important is how organizations have implemented DEI. Research suggests that many firms have engaged in what can be described as “symbolic compliance.” That is, they adopt the formal structures and language required to signal adherence to diversity-related regulations, but fail to implement substantive changes that would produce meaningful outcomes. In this context, DEI functions more as a legal protection and public relations strategy than as a mechanism for transformation.
This helps explain the persistent reliance on popular but limited tools such as mandatory bias training. While highly visible, these interventions have shown minimal impact on increasing representation in leadership or reducing structural inequalities. When organizations prioritize what is visible and defensible over what is effective, the result is predictable: limited progress and fragile commitment.
If current DEI approaches have fallen short, what might a more effective framework look like?
One possibility is to shift focus from narrowly defined diversity initiatives toward broader transformations like work itself. Across the labor market, workers increasingly report burnout, insecurity, and dissatisfaction. High earners face overwork and instability, while low-wage workers contend with unpredictable schedules, inadequate benefits, and constant financial strain. These conditions disproportionately affect marginalized groups, but they are not limited to them.
Policies such as paid leave, shorter workweeks, stronger labor protections, and expanded support for collective bargaining could improve conditions across the board. When combined with targeted anti-discrimination measures, these reforms have the potential to address both general workplace precarity and the specific barriers faced by underrepresented groups.
Such an approach would require rethinking work at a structural level. While my research centers on Black professionals, it is clear that many groups—including women, other racial and ethnic minorities, veterans, LGBTQ individuals, and neurodivergent workers—face overlapping forms of exclusion. Policies designed with these experiences in mind can help counteract the subtle biases and institutional practices that marginalize them.
Concrete steps might include strengthening enforcement agencies, expanding anti-discrimination protections to cover contract and gig workers, promoting cross-training and internal mobility, and normalizing flexible scheduling. These measures not only address inequality directly but also contribute to more stable, inclusive, and humane workplaces overall.
In this sense, the limitations of DEI may offer an opportunity. Rather than abandoning the goal of equity, organizations and policymakers can use this moment to pursue more substantive reforms—ones that improve working conditions broadly while also addressing the specific challenges faced by marginalized workers.