Earlier this year, I was invited to moderate a panel for an industry event. Among the options presented, I opted for “Diversity, Equity and the Impact on Opportunity” within the Workforce Development track. As someone who’s been invested in the area for the entirety of my adult life — both in and out of official DEI teams — I consider it a vital discussion. But, as it turns out, the conference did not share that same conviction.
Flash forward three months, I received info for a panel under a completely different name — with no mention of diversity or equity. What could have possibly changed in just a few short months?
Ah yes, that’s right: a returning U.S. administration making every effort to dismantle democracy, cut public safety-net programs, push tax cuts for the rich and threaten all organizations opposing its goals — including these three, hot-button words: diversity, equity and inclusion.
Despite an email asking to confirm commitment to the topic in the wake of these attacks (which I was assured remained), the new panel was instead a look at how businesses could make sure their services were used effectively by newly connected customers.
I certainly acknowledge digital literacy is an important discussion to be had under the new panel topic, particularly in empowering those who have been historically robbed of resources and opportunity. And while I make no effort to villainize their choice, I deeply disagree with shying away from DEI language right now.
BEAD without equity is BAD
The real function of Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) is really all about DEI. It's even built into the name.
Closing the digital divide will come down to low-income, underserved areas, where communities are disproportionally of marginalized backgrounds. These are all central factors within DEI, but Trump and his cronies seem to have forgotten that — and maybe that's intentional.
“The president, his administration, and Republicans generally would likely argue that BEAD is not a DEI program. The history and purposes of the program argue otherwise,” New Street Research Policy Analyst Blair Leven wrote.
As Congress found during the appropriation phase of the program, “The digital divide disproportionately affects communities of color, lower-income areas and rural areas, and the benefits of broadband should be broadly enjoyed by all.”
Enjoyed by all... So in a word: inclusion?
Why it has not yet been threatened like the Digital Equity Act is up for debate — Levin contends it could be because it serves to benefit Republican constituents in targeted rural areas.
Whatever the reason, the shifting focus away from diversity, equity and inclusion within the program will drain it of much of its original intended purpose.
Let’s not forget, BEAD without Equity is just BAD.
“Indeed, the current failure to see the DEI roots of BEAD foretells difficulties ahead in achieving inclusive and equitable access to essential services,” wrote Levin, “a goal that in the past has enjoyed wide bipartisan support.”
Levin ultimately argues that “we should be willing to abandon the language of problematic DEI initiatives” while holding up the foundations of what lead to it. I would add that it is important who ultimately leads the charge in changing any language.
DEI leaders and practitioners have swiftly been assessing whether they can continue under different names — or focus on different ones like belonging — as a strategic move to keep the work alive. After-all, terminology changes constantly to sooth semantic burnout, to recycle itself in time and culture.
Well, “in the parlance of our times,” this is a real bummer. While DEI leaders and consultants must indeed strategize on how to keep the work going, I believe now is not the time for the private sector to suddenly switch up its terminology — or lose it all together — in fear of business repercussions.
Bottom-line mindsets without a backbone
After George Floyd’s murder, DEI blew up across industries — tech included. Within my time covering it as a reporter, the gap between public commitment and internal follow-through became hard to ignore.
In 2023, I had just finished an investigative article on the massive tech layoffs’ impacts on DEI — layoffs that were, in large part, HR and DEI cuts masquerading as ‘tech layoffs due to automation and AI.’
The great irony of my own situation? Days before the story was to be published, I was suddenly laid off due to “uncertain economic times.” It effectively cut the site’s predominant coverage on digital divide and DEI in tech — a hard beat to justify in the eyes of money men in panic.
And those hollow commitments continue to plague the telecom industry — Verizon being the latest to ditch its DEI work for the sake of getting its Frontier deal approved.
It all echoes the same worn-out story — people in power are only investing in this issue when it's convenient, trendy or, most of all, profitable for them to do so. But there's a major contradiction in that.
In all my countless interviews with C-suite execs in the tech space and the DEI leaders pushing the work forward, I kept hearing how it wasn’t just the right thing to do for people, but it was also “good for business.”
From diverse ideas and problem solving to representing the communities you serve, the positive impacts of this work have been well established.
Why then, is a businessman like Trump so afraid of it if research only shows positive business outcomes and profitability? Perhaps a fear of what the wealthy class — and his own agenda — might look like if everyone really did have representation and a shot for a seat at the table.
Related:
What the SPEED for BEAD Act could mean for the broadband workforce
The predominant argument against DEI accuses it of excessively focusing on race and — with the utmost tragic irony — that it leads an “anti-white” agenda. Alongside the misuse of the word “woke," Trump has federally fueled a bizarre warning cry for white men who mistake equity for personal attack.
But the practice is and has always been an intersectional look at how we all come from multiple different backgrounds that directly affect our ability to be accepted and thrive in spaces. A single, white father on Medicaid is just as much a part of DEI as a Queer veteran of color — as is someone in a wheelchair with specific accessibility needs.
Yet to foster a space for everyone means confronting the power dynamics of our past and present in a real way. We can’t really have inclusion without mention of diversity, and underrepresented demographics are rarely going to be meaningfully included without an intersectional acknowledgement of equity — that scary E in BEAD.
These three words interoperate and support each other. And, like the acronym of DEI, this administration’s attacks also deserve context. They come alongside executive attempts to silence press organizations. This is why choosing to use (or not use) specific language in critical moments like these is so important.
Should there be a strategic move to adopt new rhetoric, let it come from DEI leaders. But there has never been a good time to tuck our tail between our legs on this issue — now is no exception. The opposite of these terms is homogeny, inequity and exclusion.
"But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought," as George Orwell wrote in his cautionary tale, 1984. If this industry paints a picture that diversity, equity and inclusion isn't the language it wants to use in its future, what then is it really fighting for?
Op-eds from industry experts, analysts or our editorial staff are opinion pieces that do not represent the opinions of Fierce Network.