Cutting the cord: Good riddance to ineffective DEI programs

As scholars who belong to multiple categories of the minority classes described by Follmer et al. (2024), we acknowledge the importance and the value of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in the workplace and education.We concur with the overarching sentiments of Follmer et al.In fact, we are cognizant that previous scholarship on DEI programs in organizations has generally shown support for increased positive outcomes, such as reduced hiring bias and reduced workplace discrimination (Bateh et al., 2023).Therefore, we are entering this conversation not to contradict the focal article or to minimize the threat of ongoing anti-DEI legislation but rather to suggest areas of further consideration and future research to industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists.A primary argument of Follmer et al. is that the dissolution of DEI programs poses significant threats to providing representation for minorities.As a slew of state legislation is being passed to restrict DEI efforts, training and programs are facing increased scrutiny in the United States (U.S.).Prasad and liwa (2024) indicate that the "war on woke" (p. 1) has moved beyond the political sphere to also enter academia, with faculty members increasing their backlash against DEI efforts.In a similar vein, the focal article presents anti-DEI legislation as an attack on woke while also devoting time to expand on the concept of being woke.The "anti-woke agenda" presents fragmented argumentation by excluding a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of the efforts that have emerged from the woke era.There is no disagreement that a legislative "war on woke" (Prasad & liwa, 2024) exists, targeting organizations perceived as "woke" that Foss and Klein (2023) define as socially progressive companies focusing on DEI.Popular press outlets are furthering this "war on woke" discourse by citing organizational DEI efforts as divisive to America (e.g., CNN U.S. [Ellis, 2024]).We suggest that the anti-DEI legislation, although largely pushed by legislators, does indicate that a specific subset of Americans do not discern the value of DEI training, programming, and initiatives.In fact, the focal article leverages a Gallup poll to suggest that only about half of Americans support DEI initiatives in businesses (Gallup, 2022).Substantiating our argument, it can be assumed that the remainder of Americans are either not supportive, neutral, or have mixed feelings about these efforts.Therefore, based on the statistics presented by Follmer et al., legislators are not unaccompanied in the progression of the anti-DEI movement.Presumably, up to 166 million American civilians share similar perspectives.Scholars, such as Kulik et al. (2007), have previously highlighted how DEI training may only be valuable to those who are already appreciative of diversity.As a result, we are inclined to question the impact organizations are making on individuals who are not predisposed to support DEI policies, platforms, and mindsets.Criticism of DEI initiatives is not siloed to legislative sessions and popular press outlets.This is evidenced through an escalation of scholarship toward the anti-DEI movement (e.g.,