DEI for Whom?

List of companies curated by Dr Ella F Washington Linked In Post, Feb, 2025.

Multiculturalism, social studies, anti-oppression, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)—along with its Canadian counterpart, equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI)—have undergone numerous rebranding over the years. Having worked in this field for over a decade, I’ve witnessed the shifts in popularity and the inevitable backlash, often influenced by the prevailing political climate. Whether in nonprofit, government, educational, or corporate settings, many of us enter this work with the genuine hope of creating change. Yet, we often find ourselves unintentionally upholding the very systems we once sought to challenge.

In recent years, many companies have proudly proclaimed their commitment to DEI through diverse hiring practices, inclusive environments, and equitable opportunities for all. However, a deeper examination of these initiatives reveals a troubling reality: DEI often becomes little more than a corporate checkbox—an image booster that fails to tackle the root causes of oppression. Rather than being a solution to systemic inequality, DEI programs frequently tokenize marginalized individuals, perpetuate the myth of meritocracy, and redirect revolutionary energy into preserving the status quo. In the end, DEI often reinforces the very systems it claims to dismantle, making it, at best, counterproductive.

 Tokenism and the Myth of Meritocracy

DEI often tokenizes diverse people by hyper-fixating on a select few who have risen to the top of company hierarchies. These individuals are held up as examples of meritocracy—proof that anyone, regardless of systemic oppression, can overcome adversity if they work hard enough (the boot strap myth). We see this with marketing campaigns that amplify government officials, CEOs, and presidents by hyper-focusing on their diversity as markers of progress. Don’t get me wrong, diversity is something worth celebrating, but when overemphasized, it can also be misleading and harmful as it obscures the reality of systemic oppression and inequality that persists for the majority of marginalized individuals. By hyper focusing on diverse individuals who have managed to rise above systemic barriers - corporations end up reinforcing the false belief that success is simply a matter of individual effort, ignoring the structures that have been designed to systemically hold people back. As Olufemi O. Taiwo explains in Elite Capture, “Identity politics has been co-opted by the powerful to protect the…system,” meaning that even efforts to amplify diversity can become tools for maintaining the existing power structures. DEI initiatives that center on individual success stories only perpetuate this cycle of tokenism, turning the focus away from the systemic issues that require collective action. This raises an important question:

Are companies that present themselves as champions of DEI truly interested in dismantling hierarchies, or are they simply seeking to flip them, placing a few diverse faces at the top while leaving the oppressive system intact?

l’ll admit that these superficial markers of progress have given me some hope in the past, but if false hope is all we have, it leaves little room for channeling our collective frustration into real, transformative change.

The First Budget Cut: DEI as an Afterthought

One of the most glaring contradictions of corporate DEI efforts is how easily they are thrown away during times of financial difficulty. When corporations face budget cuts, DEI initiatives are often the first to go. This reveals that, for many companies, DEI is little more than a short-term marketing tool to appease funders and public opinion. If these DEI programs were truly seen as integral to creating a more just society or workplace, they would be protected even in the toughest of times. Instead, they are viewed as expendable, showing just how little companies prioritize true diversity and equity. As The Revolution Will Not Be Funded by INCITE argues, companies who use DEI as a strategy often tend to “neutralize radical movements by channeling them into charitable endeavors that don’t actually disrupt the…system.” In much the same way, DEI in corporate settings redirect efforts toward superficial inclusivity, without addressing the deeper issues of inequality, exploitation, and injustice, further exposing DEI is just another tool for managing inequality, not dismantling it.

 Corporate Allies and Their Contradictions

It's ironic that many companies praised for their DEI commitments during Trump’s executive order debacle are often the very ones upholding the systems of exploitation and inequality that DEI claims to address. For instance, despite promoting DEI initiatives within their workforce Shell Oil is one of the largest multinational corporations with a long history of environmental destruction, particularly in Indigenous and African communities. Shell’s oil extraction practices in Nigeria, for example, have caused massive environmental damage, contaminating the land, water, and air, and putting the health and livelihood of local communities at severe risk. According to Amnesty International, between 2007 and 2015, Shell's own records documented 1,693 oil spills in the Niger Delta, though the actual number is likely higher and continues to this present day. Yet, the company continues to showcase its commitment to DEI, conveniently ignoring the harm it causes to marginalized communities across the globe.

Similarly, Uber—often portrayed as a progressive, inclusive company—has a troubling record when it comes to labor practices. Uber drivers, many of whom come from marginalized communities, are subject to low wages, precarious working conditions, and a lack of job security. For instance, in an article published by the National Employment Law Project, Uber driver Ted Parks, who has done more than 15,000 trips over the past 6 years, says, “Uber slashed our pay by 60 to 70 percent. Since then, I’ve seen a 20-minute ride for $3.91, a 45-minute ride for just $11. That’s less than minimum wage. The only way to earn as much as we used to is to work 60 to 70 hours a week. It feels like we’re at Uber’s mercy when it comes to these low-paid fares. If we turn down the low-paying rides that pay less than minimum wage, Uber will penalize us by not sending us rides for a while.” This is simply one example of how despite Uber’s public commitment to DEI, it has failed to address the exploitation that its workers face, something ramped within the gig economy. Which by the way if you’re reading this in an uber or ordering food delivery, do the right thing and tip what you can.

Apple is another company on the corporate ally to DEI list for its public commitment to DEI, boasting about its diverse workforce and inclusive initiatives. However, this commitment comes into question when you examine the company’s supply chain and its role in the exploitation of mineral resources in The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Apple, like many tech giants, sources cobalt—an essential component for batteries in devices like iPhones—from the DRC where mining conditions are notoriously dangerous and exploitative. The mining of cobalt in the DRC is linked to human rights abuses, including child labor and unsafe working conditions.

According to a report by Amnesty International, more than 40,000 children working in these hazardous cobalt mines are often exposed to toxic chemicals and working in dangerous, unstable tunnels. Ultimately this perpetuates a cycle of poverty and conflict, where the economic interests of wealthy nations and corporations continue to exploit Indigenous populations globally.

Such contradictions from Shell Oil, Uber and Apple, expose the superficial nature of corporate DEI, which seeks to mask harmful practices behind a veneer of inclusivity.

Co-optation of Radical Energy

Perhaps one of the most insidious aspects of DEI is its ability to co-opt grassroots movements and reframe activism within the corporate structure. Many activists who have been involved in grassroots organizing are hired on into DEI roles within companies. While their intentions may be to try to change systems from the inside, the corporate environment often redirects their efforts toward non-disruptive initiatives that reinforce, rather than challenge the status quo. This redirection of energy away from revolutionary organizing is a key feature of what some scholars have termed elite capture.

As Olufemi O. Taiwo writes in Elite Capture, “Identity politics has been co-opted by the powerful to protect the capitalist system,” and nowhere is this more evident within corporate structures.

In this way, DEI functions as a mechanism of co-optation, drawing in those who might otherwise be organizing for revolutionary change and channeling their efforts into incremental, corporatized diversity initiatives that leave the power structures intact. During my time working in DEI, I too found myself overwhelmed by an abundance of busy work that not only felt unproductive but also counterproductive to creating meaningful change.

Conclusion: Liberalism and the Limits of DEI

By offering incremental changes, DEI seeks to manage inequality rather than dismantle it. Far too often, DEI programs focus on inclusion without addressing the deeper structural issues of inequality, such as wealth disparities, and labor exploitation. In a hyper-individualistic society, DEI can appear progressive, but upon closer investigation, we can begin to understand the fundamental contradictions of such reforms. It wasn’t until I joined organizations like United African Diaspora and the All-African People’s Revolutionary Party that I was forced to confront the contradictions I had been exposed to. As long as we live in a capitalist-dominated society, this will be a lifelong endeavor—but it doesn’t have to be done alone. If you haven’t already, I strongly urge you to join an organization committed to truth and justice- not for profit, but for people.

As Frantz Fanon wrote in The Wretched of the Earth,

“The promises of reform, like the reforms themselves, are only there to contain the struggle and make it meaningless.”

To truly confront the contradictions we face, we must work together—honestly, boldly, and in an organized way. Only then can we hold each other accountable and work toward abolishing oppressive systems, once and for all.

Works Cited

Amnesty International. “Time to Recharge: The Dark Side of the Lithium-Ion Battery Supply Chain.” Amnesty International, 2016, www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2016/01/time-to-recharge-the-dark-side-of-the-lithium-ion-battery-supply-chain/.

Amnesty International. “Shell in the Niger Delta: A Decade of Oil Spills.” Amnesty International, 2015, www.amnesty.org/en/documents/afr44/1645/2015/en/.

INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence. The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex. South End Press, 2007, p. 19.

Mutual Aid and the Limits of Liberalism. Mutual Aid: Building Solidarity During This Crisis (and the Next), edited by Dean Spade and Craig Willse, Verso, 2020, p.84.

Taiwo, Olufemi O. Elite Capture: How the Powerful Took Over Identity Politics (and Everything Else). Haymarket Books, 2022, p. 78.

Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. Translated by Richard Philcox, Grove Press, 2004.

National Employment Law Project. “Uber Drivers’ Pay Cuts and Exploitation: ‘We Are At Uber’s Mercy.’” National Employment Law Project, 2019, www.nelp.org.