Questioning 60 Years of DEI Assumptions
- Jessica Clark
- Jan 20
- 3 min read
Are We Asking the Wrong Questions About Workplace Diversity?
What if the diversity trainings that have dominated workplaces for decades are not only ineffective, but are actually quietly making things worse? A September 2025 article in The Atlantic, “How Diversity Can Be Truly Profitable” by Arthur C. Brooks examines this question, challenging whether we're even asking the right questions about DEI initiatives.
Historical Context of DEI Skepticism
In examining the effectiveness of diversity initiatives or DEI programs, Brooks raises an important point: most programs account for a particular kind of diversity—what he calls diversity of “innate or inherited characteristics” such as race, gender, and ethnicity. This emphasis stems from Civil Rights laws in the 1960s and intensified through cultural trends, including the heightened focus on social justice beginning around 2020. Yet substantial research suggests that an emphasis on this type of diversity often yields only modest gains in representation—at best—and can produce unintended negative consequences.
A widely cited Harvard Business Review analysis by Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev (drawing on studies from the 1980s through 2016) shows that mandatory diversity training, job testing, and heavy emphasis on grievance systems frequently backfire: they fail to meaningfully improve racial or gender diversity and, in many cases, activate bias, spark resentment, or increase the very behaviors they aim to reduce.
More recent research echoes these concerns. For example, studies and reviews from 2024–2025 (including those referenced in Brooks's piece) indicate that while some DEI initiatives increase representation in targeted groups, they can also heighten perceptions of workplace unfairness, amplify views that members of those historically marginalized groups benefit from favoritism rather than merit, or foster greater suspicion across teams.
A Second Category of Diversity
While research on “innate” diversity accumulates evidence of limited success or even backlash, far less attention has been paid to a second, often overlooked category: diversity of “acquired attributes,” like education, skills, experiences, opinions, and political perspectives. This is what is commonly known as viewpoint diversity or diversity of thought.
Though the research on this type of diversity is more limited, it points to two key benefits. Brooks highlights emerging evidence that ideological and viewpoint diversity promotes better decision-making and innovation in business models. Unfortunately, such diversity is becoming increasingly rare in workplaces amid rising political polarization on both sides.
Worldview Roundup
While Brooks draws unique conclusions from the limited available research on viewpoint diversity, it is telling that the most extensive and longstanding focus of both academic study and prevailing business practices continues to focus on “innate characteristics,” even as that body of evidence highlights significant pitfalls.
One thing is clear: the reason the research focuses so heavily in one direction rests on a particular premise: that implicit bias related to innate characteristics is rampant and must be directly countered. When that is the operating assumption, it seems logical to address biases from that angle. However, this disproportionate focus makes it difficult to verify whether the premise itself holds true in all contexts.
One particularly important question arises: When the available evidence suggests that viewpoint diversity fosters innovation and better outcomes, while the more extensive research on innate characteristic-focused initiatives point to modest gains at best and potentially stoke suspicion at worst, why are we not more willing to question the foundational premise?
If we want to implement noble initiatives that truly promote diverse perspectives, we must ground them in verifiable truth rather than unexamined assumptions. At the Center for Biblical Unity, we believe true workplace unity flows from a shared commitment to God’s truth rather than from mandates that inadvertently deepen suspicion. By thoughtfully embracing acquired diversity grounded in biblical principles, we can build work environments that reflect God’s design for the body of Christ: many parts, one unified purpose, working together for innovation and the common good. In order to do that, however, we have to make some new, honest observations about the premise that has guided workplace practice for 60 years.
Related Resources:
DEI Playlist on YouTube
Long article: “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Diversity Hiring”
