Trump and the dismantling of DEI policies

DEI policies refer to strategies and practices that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion within organizations, institutions, and society at large. The goal of these policies is to foster environments that are more representative of today's society, where all people have equal opportunities for participation and development, regardless of their personal, social, or cultural characteristics. These initiatives have been implemented for years in work and educational settings, and have been a cross-cutting element in the design of public policies.

Since returning to the United States presidency last January, the Donald Trump administration has taken several actions to dismantle DEI policies, impacting both the public and private sectors. At the federal level, executive orders have been signed prohibiting their use in public contracts, affirmative action programs have been eliminated, and merit has been strengthened as the sole hiring criterion. Furthermore, all DEI-related offices have been closed, and references to these policies have been removed from official websites.

At the university level, executive orders have been passed increasing state oversight of universities, demanding the removal of DEI mandates under threat of withdrawal of federal funding for noncompliance. Some of these orders go further and represent a shift in civil rights. For example, the order 14168 establishes that gender It is defined exclusively by the biological sex assigned at birth, which entails the withdrawal of federal recognition of transgender people and the elimination of self-definition of gender on official documents.

In light of these changes, I thought it appropriate to compile some studies from the academic literature, in the fields of economics and industrial organization, that analyze both the positive and negative effects of these policies.

One of the main arguments against DEI policies is the generation of backlash -adverse reactions- from majority social groups, who often do not feel included in these measures and perceive them as discriminatory. Although the evidence empirical that supports this phenomenon is broad, recent studies show that the threat to social identity Majority participation can also foster interaction and mutual understanding, facilitating new alliances, complicity and, ultimately, promoting business growth.

Aside from internal processes, external investors also positively value companies with high gender diversity in their workforce. One recent study, based on data of the major US technology and financial companies shows significant increases in share price when these companies publicize a good gender balance among workers, as is the case with eBay.

Finally, there are indications that the Trump administration's obsession with eliminating DEI policies is driven by the preferences of its voters and the goal of consolidating its electoral base. A survey conducted on 700 American citizens shows that white Republicans rate a (generic) university as "low quality" if it promotes diversity-friendly curricula. This association is not found among white Democrats.

Along the same lines, among the students from predominantly white school districts, those with greater exposure to minority students are less likely to identify as Republicans in adulthood. Specifically, for every 10% increase in exposure to these minorities, the likelihood of identifying with the Republican Party decreases by 2 percentage points. Thus, all indications are that Trump's approach to DEI policies is partly driven by a desire to preserve and expand his current and future electoral base.

The Trump administration's withdrawal of DEI policies not only ignores evidence of their positive effects, but also exploits diversity as a tool for political confrontation. Some aspects of these policies may need to be reformulated or adapted to minimize backlash, but their complete elimination could have significant costs for organizations and long-term social cohesion.