The DEI Debate and the Illusion of Just Two Sides

A Yale psychologist criticizes false "absolutist" thinking

Discussions around Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and other identity politics issues have become increasingly polarized, with some people irrationally supporting DEI initiatives without critique, while others irrationally reject them outright. This binary or false-dichotomy thinking mischaracterizes complex issues, preventing productive dialogue, nuanced understanding, and effective policies.

A False Binary

In his recent article “The False Binary of the DEI Debate”, Yale University psychiatry professor and education expert Michael Strambler explains how people on both sides regularly make strawman arguments about their opponents. He argues that both sides create false "boogeyman" narratives, misrepresenting the other’s positions rather than engaging with the actual facts and complexities of the issue. In reality, most people hold nuanced views that do not fit neatly into an all-or-nothing framework.

Strambler states:

"One of the problems with a highly polarized society is that it pushes people to adopt absolutist, black-and-white positions that contain kernels of truth but largely misrepresent reality. And when people in power commit these fallacies of reason, their faulty logic can have major real-world consequences."

He points to how President Trump’s onslaught against DEI has led to chaotic policies, such as withholding federal funds from scientific agencies and educational institutions. Strambler writes:

"Apparently, (to Trump) DEI is an omnipresent boogeyman responsible for all of society’s ills, and the Trump administration is intent on slaying it even if it means censoring science, defying judicial rulings and potentially throwing our country into a constitutional crisis."

At the same time, he criticizes the left for similar binary thinking:

"The left is also guilty of absolutist thinking on this topic. In fact, there’s good reason to believe that a substantial reason Trump is in power now is because of the left’s overreach on cultural issues that flow from such thinking. By now, it should be obvious that many progressive DEI efforts went too far. There are just too many examples of alarming DEI practices to deny it—training that oversold implicit bias, overemphasized the dangers of microaggressions, treated individuals like group representatives, expected individuals to make amends for the crimes of others who look like them, demeaned white people, and condescendingly treated Black people like fragile creatures who can only succeed when white people like us. I’ve attended a few DEI trainings and have witnessed all these things firsthand."

I see regular examples of such absolutist and false dichotomy arguments in social media about DEI and other political and social topics

The below was a recent widely circulated meme on Facebook:

The below was one of many Facebook user replies objecting to the meme’s false dichotomy argument:

“Once again this formulation is over simplistic. It also serves to divide people into for and against camps and makes no attempt at genuinely engaging with differences of opinion. As such it in itself denies diversity and inclusion. I have always valued the idea and practice of welcoming difference, treating people with respect regardless of their differences and challenging the ways in which, both individually and systemically, discrimination and prejudice arise. But formal systems for enforcing this can tend to become formulaic and limited in usefulness and nuance. And they become problematic as a result.”

The Problem of Binary Thinking

Binary thinking—the tendency to view issues in black-and-white or all-or-nothing terms—dominates many contemporary debates. Those who fully embrace DEI often see any opposition as rooted in racism, while those who reject it outright perceive it as a threat to meritocracy and fairness. This false dichotomy obscures the reality that DEI initiatives, like any social policies, have both strengths and weaknesses that merit discussion.

Similar binary arguments are prevalent in gender debates, where someone who supports equality and rights for the LGBTQ+ community but offers different perspectives on specific policies or medical treatments is ad hominem attacked by identitarian progressives as “transphobic” and “bigoted.”

Moreover, the strident, moralizing approach taken by some on the left—where disagreement is met with name-calling and demands for conformity—has contributed to political backlash. This kind of binary thinking has fueled the rise of figures like Donald Trump and bolstered Republican electoral success. A lack of nuance in discourse is ultimately harmful to the left.

The Complexity of DEI Policies

DEI initiatives aim to address systemic inequalities, but their implementation and effectiveness vary widely. Some programs successfully create opportunities for minorities without diminishing fairness, while others create unfairness, resentment or reinforce division. Rather than blindly accepting or rejecting DEI policies, a more productive approach involves analyzing their real-world impacts, assessing their effectiveness, listening to diverse viewpoints, and making adjustments as needed.

Moving Beyond the False Binary

A more nuanced discussion of DEI recognizes that:

• Equity and meritocracy are not necessarily at odds. Thoughtfully designed policies can enhance both fairness and opportunity without compromising excellence.

• Good intentions do not guarantee good outcomes. Efforts should be evaluated based on their effectiveness rather than ideological commitment.

• Criticism of DEI is not inherently racist or regressive. As Strambler points out, some criticisms raise valid concerns about fairness, implementation, and unintended consequences.

Reference

“The False Binary of the DEI Debate" by Michael Strambler Ph.D.