Published on January 16, 2024, 1:46 am

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is a term that has become widespread across multiple sectors including corporations, educational institutions, and churches. While DEI might denote an emphasis on societal restructuring, some recent findings reveal that significant financial resources are being directed towards these initiatives, eliciting both debate and concern.

Data from the 2022 – 2023 academic year show that the State University System of Florida allocated a considerable budget–$28 million – towards critical race theory and DEI initiatives. Of note is the fact that over half of this funding was via taxpayer dollars. A closer look reveals that the University of Florida maintained 43 roles specific to DEI efforts, resulting in expenditure close to $5.3 million; $3.4 million out of which came directly from state coffers.

The figure denotes a larger trend in investments towards DEI programs across various universities within Florida’s realm of influence—a pattern observed not just in academia but also within governmental agencies like Pentagon. The defense department requested an impressive sum—$114.7 million —for funding DEI efforts for fiscal year 2024, indicating a consistent increase in their spending on such programs.

American corporate entities exhibited similar behavior: companies spent approximately $3.4 billion on DEI initiatives in 2020 alone despite questions around their effectiveness.

Such financial commitment hints at extensive resources mobilized for DEI programs across public institutions and private businesses alike. However, it raises crucial questions regarding the motives behind these mandates amidst inquiries about their impact and efficiency.

From an on-the-ground perspective, evidence of DEI’s influence is perceivable especially inside academic circles in the United States with distinct pointers like Claudine Gay scandal at Harvard University underlining issues linked with policies associated with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Gay’s resignation as Harvard’s president emerged as a vivid expose of how these agendas can adversely affect fundamental values such as meritocracy and academic standards.

Backing these policies often results in transforming universities into bureaucratic fortresses, swapping intellectual merit with race-based, gender-based, and sexual preference quotas. Ironically, while conservative voices criticize these actions for undermining principles of educational leadership and intellectual integrity, DEI proponents like civil rights personalities including Al Sharpton dismiss these criticisms as racially-charged attacks on black leadership.

A concern arises when DEI strategies shift from ideologically-driven to the practical domain. Consider a life-or-death situation where a candidate gets chosen based on their gender, race or sexual orientation instead of concrete skills and expertise needed for critical roles such as heart surgeons or airline pilots—this is a potential outcome of DEI initiatives played out to their full extent.

Evangelical institutions too are yielding—“Kingdom Diversity” program at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary for example deviates from traditional doctrines and promotes concepts like ‘white privilege’ and prioritizing racial identity over theological qualifications in multi-ethnic church leadership.

The implications of DEI are far-reaching than being well-intentioned efforts towards societal restructuring; it seems more like a calculated assault on the social fabric—with academia being just one avenue—under the veiled semblance of progressiveness. This movement undermines individual merit and fosters an environment counterproductive to traditional sensibilities; by extension diluting America’s global influence.

As this narrative gains traction within even religious circles testifying to its widespread reach, upholding Christian worldviews take precedence now more than ever before. Christian doctrine emphasizes comprehending individuals through their character and faith rather than external attributes; an approach diametrically opposite to what proponents of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion advocate for. Such initiatives result in fracturing unity within a faith-based community setting or societal levels–rallying further resistance against them becomes inevitable especially amongst fervently-practicing Christians who might perceive this as a time-warped crusade—a renewed commitment—to uphold foundations of faith, integrity and individual excellence.