Jelani Cobb, a distinguished staff writer at The New Yorker and dean of Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, dives into the political framing of diversity, equity, and inclusion (D.E.I.) under the Trump administration. He discusses how D.E.I. became a scapegoat for societal problems and the impact of recent Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action. Cobb also draws parallels to historical periods of fear, comparing anti-D.E.I. sentiment to the McCarthy era, while addressing the media's role in this contentious landscape.
The Trump administration has reshaped DEI policies, framing them as discriminatory actions that jeopardize federal funding and academic freedom.
Criticism of DEI initiatives reflects a broader societal narrative that portrays discussions on race as divisive, reminiscent of historical political crises.
Deep dives
Impact of Trump's Administration on DEI Programs
The Trump administration's approach to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) has drastically reshaped the landscape of federal funding and institutional policies. DEI programs, originally designed to foster diverse workplaces, have been branded as discriminatory measures against white individuals, leading to widespread fears among academics and organizations reliant on government support. For instance, faculty members expressed concern that researching topics related to race or gender could jeopardize their funding, tenure, or even their professional reputation in an increasingly hostile environment. This environment echoed sentiments reminiscent of the McCarthy era, as contributors to these programs felt pressured to align with the administration's shifting narratives or risk becoming targets for negative scrutiny.
Debate Over the Future of Academia and Journalism
Academics and journalists are grappling with the implications of executive orders aimed at limiting DEI and critical race theory, which could potentially undermine their fields. Faculty and students at institutions like Columbia University are uncertain about the future, particularly regarding funding for research on sensitive topics. The chilling effect of these measures raises questions about the integrity and independence of educational and journalistic practices, as fears grow over public backlash and administrative repercussions. These pressures create a stifling environment where many hesitate to engage in critical discussions, forcing educators and journalists to reassess their roles in advocating for diversity and challenging injustice.
Cultural and Political Ramifications of DEI Criticism
The criticism of DEI initiatives extends beyond academia and affects broader societal perceptions of race and equality. This criticism is often tied to a narrative that paints discussions on race as divisive or unpatriotic, which echoes strategies employed during past political crises, such as the Red Scare. As seen with the heightened political rhetoric around DEI, the current climate is one where any failure or tragedy can be attributed to DEI policies, further entrenching division in national dialogue. Despite the pushback against these initiatives, the evolution of public sentiment reveals a complex landscape where cultural anxieties about race insert themselves into political debates, suggesting that the consequences of these assumptions will likely shape future discussions on inclusion and justice.
Many of the most draconian measures implemented in the first couple weeks of the new Trump Administration have been justified as emergency actions to root out D.E.I.—diversity, equity, and inclusion—including the freeze (currently rescinded) of trillions of dollars in federal grants. The tragic plane crash in Washington, the President baselessly suggested, might also be the result of D.E.I. Typically, D.E.I. describes policies at large companies or institutions to encourage more diverse workplaces. In the Administration’s rhetoric, D.E.I. is discrimination pure and simple, and the root of much of what ails the nation. “D.E.I. is the boogeyman for anything,” Jelani Cobb tells David Remnick. Cobb is a longtime staff writer, and the dean of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism. “If there’s a terrible tragedy . . . if there is something going wrong in any part of your life, if there are fires happening in California, then you can bet that, somehow, another D.E.I. is there.” Although affirmative-action policies in university admissions were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, D.E.I. describes a broad array of actions without a specific definition. “It’s that malleability,” Cobb reflects, that makes D.E.I. a useful target, “one source that you can use to blame every single failing or shortcoming or difficulty in life on.”
Get the Snipd podcast app
Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Save any moment
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Share & Export
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode