DEI: THE ILLUSION OF EQUALITY

Last week, DEI was the buzzword of the moment, dominating left-leaning media outlets and podcasts. Now that Trump is issuing executive orders, the term has become a key talking point for the Democraticy Party to highlight supposed progress while avoiding discussions of real structural failures, including corporate policies that have failed to uplift ADOS.

But the conversation took an unexpected turn when Donald Trump made a bold distinction between American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS) and Black immigrants. His statement forced an uncomfortable but necessary question:

Who actually benefits from diversity initiatives?

As we witness the dismantling of programs that supposedly cater to ADOS, the reality remains unchanged: these policies have historically offered ADOS the least benefits (Brookings, 2023).

Mainstream media figures like CNN’s Abby Phillip framed DEI discussions in ways that obscure the real impact of DEI policies. In a recent discussion, Phillip posed the question:

What if Trump supporters are scapegoating the Black community?

This framing diverts attention from a critical truth: ADOS (American Descendants of Slavery) have historically received the least benefits from DEI initiatives. Rather than acknowledging these structural failures, Phillip’s approach shifts the conversation away from the corporations that implement these policies and their ineffectiveness.

DEI’s Corporate Illusion

Where ADOS excel? In arts, entertainment, sports, and fashion—we do so through talent and resilience, not corporate handouts.

Yet, Phillip’s framing reinforces a misleading narrative, stoking fears instead of addressing the fundamental shortcomings of DEI itself. The real issue isn’t whether Black communities are being scapegoated—it’s that these policies have failed to create the opportunities they claim to provide.

A 2023 report by Revelio Labs found that DEI positions have been cut at a rate faster than any other sector, with major firms like Meta, Amazon, and Twitter slashing entire DEI teams (Revelio Labs, 2023).

It is also important to recognize that many organizations that promote DEI have a track record of being on the wrong side of history—whether in their response to Black Lives Matter after George Floyd, their stance on abortion, or their implementation of DEI itself.

When corporations claim to champion diversity while pushing policies that contradict the needs of the very communities they claim to serve, it raises serious concerns about their true intentions.

The Reality of Corporate Climbing

At seventeen, I took my first job at First Fidelity Bank, working in the basement counting checks after school. My manager, a Black woman with a firm but loving spirit, ran the department with excellence. Many of my colleagues in that basement were Black women, but there were white women as well—some of whom I got along with.

I was even invited once to a white co-worker’s house party, an experience that opened my eyes to cultural differences and racial realities between blacks and whites.

That night, I heard the word crank for the first time. Drugs were a big part of my upbringing—I knew many who used them—but I had never seen them, nor used them and they were certainly not allowed in our apartment. The experience of going into a home for a party and seeing people openly using drugs was jarring.

But more than anything, it opened my eyes. Drugs were no respecter of person. White or Black, the reality was the same. That night, I realized two things:

✔ That co-worker was not my friend.
✔ I didn’t want to work in a basement at the bank forever.

I left that job for a better one, pursued my college degree, and steadily climbed the corporate ladder. Affirmative Action was never my safety net. I had skills, worked hard, and sought out opportunities. I saw countless Black professionals like me doing the same—pushing forward despite systemic barriers. We weren’t looking for handouts. We were simply working harder, overcoming challenges, and finding our way.

Yet, there was always a quiet stigma attached to Black professionals who attended elite universities like Harvard or Columbia. The assumption was that their success came from Affirmative Action, not their hard work. While everyone believed all whites were in the positions they deserved. For whites merit meant everything.

The higher I climbed, the fewer Black faces I saw. As I gained more experience, honed my skills, and expanded my knowledge, the pattern became clear—there was a bottleneck at the top. Plenty of Black employees were stuck in entry-level or mid-level roles, but leadership remained overwhelmingly white.

I worked at First Fidelity Bank, where I learned hard lessons, and later transitioned to major corporations. Over the years, as I moved through roles in banking and corporate settings, I saw how limited the opportunities were for ADOS professionals—especially in leadership positions.

For years, we were led to believe that Affirmative Action was opening doors for Black professionals, but in reality, it wasn’t lifting ADOS up. Instead, DEI programs expanded beyond Black Americans to include other minorities—many of whom had not faced the same generational barriers in this country.

The idea of “helping Black people” became so broad that it diluted any specific focus on the unique struggles of ADOS.

Misinformation on Reparations

Meanwhile, conservative figures like Charlie Kirk push the falsehood that ADOS have already received reparations through social programs like housing assistance, food stamps, and Section 8.

This claim is deliberately misleading. Social programs provide temporary assistance but do not build generational wealth. Also, there is something he leaves out: social programs benefit poor whites and farmers just as much as they benefit poor Blacks. Reparations must involve direct economic compensation for stolen labor, not short-term aid that ultimately benefits white landlords, financial institutions, and corporations more than the Black community

The real beneficiaries of public assistance programs are often white developers, social service agencies, and government institutions—not Black families. These programs have allowed corporations and white property owners to profit, while ADOS remain at the bottom of every economic index.

Where Do We Go From Here?

If Affirmative Action didn’t significantly improve economic outcomes for ADOS, and DEI has been more symbolic than transformative, what should our next move be?

Corporate America isn’t going to hand us a seat at the table. Instead, we must take control of our own economic destiny.

✔ Invest in ADOS-owned businesses—direct funding and mentorship for Black entrepreneurs.

✔ Push for policy changes—enforce economic protections and demand transparency in DEI spending.

✔ Expand reparations advocacy—support national efforts to demand federal recognition of past injustices.

ADOS do not need handouts. We need access, ownership, and economic control.

The dismantling of DEI could be a setback, or it could be a wake-up call.

The choice is ours.