Recently, the conversation around Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) has intensified, often sparking controversy and misinformation. The debate, while necessary, frequently lacks the depth, nuance and expertise the topic deserves. A prime example was Stephen Bartlett’s Diary of a CEO Emergency Debate, which, despite reaching millions, failed to include a single DEI expert. Worse still, the discussion was entirely imbalanced – to start it was a conversation amongst only men and included inflammatory, misleading statements that did nothing to advance the conversation in a meaningful way. People of influence should have a responsibility to provide the masses with fair and balanced views. Men need a forum to share their feelings and experiences of DEI but this isn’t what the debate was focused on.

The bigger issue at hand, is the growing wave of criticism against DEI itself. High-profile figures, including U.S. President Donald Trump, have attacked the principles of inclusion and diversity, even going so far as to blame a tragic plane crash on DEI initiatives—without any factual basis to support the claim. This kind of rhetoric fuels division rather than nurturing the progress that DEI is designed to achieve.

The Business Case for DEI

DEI initiatives did not emerge in a vacuum. They were introduced to address systemic inequalities and their benefits are well-documented. Studies have shown that companies with diverse leadership teams see increased innovation, productivity and profitability. Diverse teams bring fresh perspectives, challenge blind spots and create more inclusive, forward-thinking solutions.

Yet, despite this, the narrative that DEI is unnecessary or even harmful is gaining traction in some circles. We need to ask: Why are so many eager to dismiss what has been proven to work?

Trump’s Contradictory Approach to DEI

Trump’s recent comments on DEI got me thinking. If we take a closer look at his cabinet, it is actually one of the more diverse leadership teams in modern U.S. politics. About one-third of the cabinet members are women. Marco Rubio is set to become the first Latino Secretary of State, Scott Turner will serve as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development as a Black leader and Scott Bessent will be the first openly gay man to lead the Treasury Department. Susie Wiles is set to be the first woman to serve as White House Chief of Staff.

If anything, these appointments highlight why diversity matters. When leadership teams are more balanced, hiring practices improve, bias is reduced and meritocracy can function as it should. And yet, most leadership teams do not look like this. In the UK’s FTSE 100, there are only nine (soon to be ten) female CEOs. There are still more CEOs named David than there are female CEOs—a fact that is both amusing and deeply concerning.

DEI in the UK vs. the US

One of the challenges in discussing DEI on a global scale is that different countries emphasize different aspects of diversity. In the U.S., race remains the primary focus, whereas in Europe, DEI efforts encompass a broader range of diversity factors, including disability, age and neurodiversity.

There are also distinct policy differences. For example, in the UK, parents are typically more involved in decisions regarding their child’s gender identity, whereas in the U.S., the emphasis is often placed on the student’s autonomy and rights. This has sparked controversy among parents who feel sidelined in critical decisions affecting their children. However, Trump’s approach—stating that the U.S. government will only recognise two genders—fails to acknowledge the reality of intersex individuals and the natural biological variations that exist in human bodies. Approximately 1.7% of the population does not fit neatly into the traditional male-female binary, making rigid gender definitions problematic.

The Danger of Turning Diversity into a ‘Dirty Word’

Trump’s recent actions have further politicised DEI, turning what should be a conversation about fairness and opportunity into a divisive issue. His executive orders limiting DEI initiatives under the guise of promoting ‘meritocracy’ ignore the fact that a truly fair system can only exist when barriers to entry are addressed.

Critics of DEI often claim that these initiatives promote tokenism, but in reality, they aim to create a level playing field where talent and merit can thrive without bias. The irony, of course, is that cronyism—where personal connections and loyalty often trump qualifications—is far more damaging to the idea of meritocracy than any DEI initiative.

Moving Forward: Keeping DEI a Force for Positive Change

While the current backlash against DEI is frustrating, it also serves as a reminder of why these initiatives exist in the first place. We cannot afford to step backward. The conversation should not be about whether DEI is necessary—it is. The question should be about how we can refine and evolve DEI efforts to ensure they continue to serve their purpose effectively.

What we need now is a commitment to balanced discussions, informed by experts who understand the complexities of inclusion. DEI is not a political agenda—it is a commitment to fairness, innovation and building better workplaces and societies.

Together, we can build workplaces where everyone belongs, contributes and thrives.