Trump was typically emphatic at Thursday’s National Prayer Breakfast. With 50 executive orders as of Friday, Trump has signed more in his first 10 days than any recent president has in 100. And many of these relate to “woke”, or more formally, Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DEI).
Trump views the terms synonymously. Others argue woke is the radical, moralistic wing with DEI as its corporate, institutional cousin. But both prioritise identity over merit and rely on sweeping sociological assumptions to justify that approach.
DEI has captured politics, business and culture across the Anglophone world for the best part of twenty years. So its sudden reversal feels like whiplash. Trump’s orders recognise only two genders, abandon government DEI schemes and affirm the necessity of merit-based hiring.
But the sea change isn’t the initiative of one man and his cabal. Trump is fulfilling the campaign promises that helped him win such a convincing majority. Politicos credit Trump’s campaign tagline – “Kamala Harris is for they / them. Trump is for You” as one of the most effective of the presidential race.
DEI was always a preoccupation of elites and vulnerable to such a backlash. A popular thinker in Trumpland, Curtis Yarvin, argues that real power is held by ‘the Cathedral’—an informal alliance of the media, academia and bureaucratic elites that enforce progressive orthodoxy.
Its ideology stems from obscure and abstract sociological theories. Judith Butler is one of the most influential thinkers in this space. Her impenetrable prose dismisses objectivity and merit in favour of “lived experience”. One example here from Undoing Gender:
“The question of who and what is considered real and true is a question of power, for what counts as the ‘real’ is established through discourse and sustained through social practices. The distinction between the real and the unreal presumes and enforces a certain ontology, one that determines in advance what will and will not be a recognizable and legitimate subject of experience.”
This jargon seeped into the mainstream through concepts like “my truth”. Oprah says “Speaking your truth is the most powerful tool we all have.” This language became a status symbol of cultural and political elites, and soon filtered into the corporate world. DEI initiatives encourage employees to bring their “whole selves” rather than just focus on the job at hand.
DEI’s imposition was always precarious because the one invalid lived experience was that of the majority. On the first day of a graduate scheme, we were told the leadership was too “male, pale and stale”.
And soon DEI had high-performing immigrants in its sights too. It preached racial equality until one minority group succeeded too much. They were labelled “white adjacent” because their success threatened the narrative of systemic oppression. The 2018 Harvard admissions lawsuit exposed that Asian applicants needed significantly higher SAT scores than black, hispanic, or even white applicants to be admitted.
DEI undermined the aspirational ethos of first and second generation immigrants. It punished success.
For years, DEI silenced dissent with its greatest weapon: cancel culture. Woe betide the executive who questioned whether the company really needed to hold a session on intersectionality.
Its grip on the narrative was weakened by the emergence of alternative media, which exposed DEI’s contradictions. Podcasts like Joe Rogan’s (originally a Bernie Sanders voter) lament DEI’s capture of left-wing parties. The “Luxury Beliefs” (H / T Rob Henderson) of wealthy elites are prioritised above pressing economic realities.
Even politically neutral podcasts like The Rest is History have been significant in dismantling the idea that the Anglosphere has a uniquely shameful history. It presents history in context. The show is only possible outside of traditional media. The BBC would never have commissioned a show with two middle-aged white men.
And conservative figures like Jordan Peterson have inspired young people (particularly men). DEI’s doctrine decrees that we inherit the sins of our fathers, an obvious parallel with Christianity’s original sin. It fills a spiritual void in atheistic societies. Figures like Peterson, Andrew Huberman, Chris Williamson have offered an alternative aspirational framework. Stoicism and graft are valued over victimhood.
This revival of merit spurred Silicon Valley’s u-turn. Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover was about progress over progressivism. True human ingenuity and prosperity needs a free exchange of ideas and objective truth. We need to test ideas and measure success by doing things. Judge people on ability rather than identity.
Other corporations are quickly embracing this cultural sea change. Accenture recently followed Meta, Alphabet and Amazon in phasing out diversity goals.
Cynics argue this is corporate pragmatism, an attempt to curry favour with the new administration. But it’s telling how little principled opposition we’ve heard from the same companies that once professed their deep commitment to DEI. Perhaps their passion was always performative. More likely, DEI has simply become an unaffordable luxury. As the era of free money ends, so too does the indulgence of identity politics.
DEI’s last defenders will insist this is nothing more than a racist, xenophobic backlash against demographic change
But it is the DEI brigade that fosters division. By prioritising identity over ability, DEI segregates society and pits groups against one another. Jettisoning DEI does not mean ignoring real disadvantages. It means addressing them objectively, rather than through an artificial hierarchy of oppression.
JD Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy recounts his struggle of growing up with a drug-addicted mother in an unstable home. His path was more difficult than Kamala Harris’s, who was raised by a Stanford professor and a renowned cancer researcher. Yet under DEI’s framework, Harris is inherently marginalised, while Vance is privileged.
We must address disparities objectively, rather than through obscure academic jargon.
The Anglosphere should strive for genuine equality of opportunity, not rigid diversity quotas. Universities and businesses should focus on identifying high-potential candidates whose circumstances may limit their credentials—not lowering standards to meet arbitrary demographic targets.
After all, even the most progressive San Franciscan liberal would not select a surgeon or pilot on DEI criteria. As the Anglosphere faces economic headwinds and rising global challenges, it must instead select the best and brightest.
