The New York Times recently unveiled a fascinating shift in the landscape of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) programs. Instead of the overt focus on race and gender representation, a new trend of rebranding is emerging. Now, we see the rise of more innocuous-sounding initiatives like “culture surveys” and “performance training.”

While opponents should rightfully celebrate small yet meaningful victories in blunting the doctrine here and there, one must be somberly reminded that the DEI behemoth is deeply entrenched in our institutions, and its ideological core of dividing our society by group labels stays unchanged.

To stave off public scrutiny, DEI’s snake-oil salesmen constantly reinvent the grift with new terms and euphemisms. Especially after the Supreme Court struck down Harvard’s race-based undergraduate admissions, zealots have engineered innovative vehicles to perpetuate the ideology.

“Neuroinclusion” or “neurodiversity” is an umbrella concept for accommodating individuals with developmental and learning disabilities such as autism and ADHD. The concept describes different ways people’s brains may work, whereas there is no “correct” way and we must encourage these differences.

According to the Harvard Medical School, “neurodiversity advocates encourage inclusive, nonjudgmental language” towards persons with developmental disabilities. Instead of addressing them with “person-first language,” such as “a person with Down syndrome,” neurodiverse folks need to use “identity-first language” and be more sensitive towards their special needs, which should be viewed as differences, not deficits. Employers should make the workplaces more “neurodiversity-friendly” by offering noise-cancelling headphones, allowing modifications to the usual work uniform, allowing the use of fidget toys, and giving extra movement breaks.

In October 2023, the Stanford Neurodiversity Project, an initiative launched by Stanford’s Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, held a three-day summit. The event was organized to “collect views of the community about what research and community-based services should be prioritized and how they can be designed better… [to] build a sanctuary for all who promote and safeguard neurodiversity.” On day 2 of the summit, there was a panel on destigmatizing neurodiverse conditions, during which a self-proclaimed “scholar activist” and a “feminist rabbi” discussed the need to train lawyers on “trauma-informed practices” and ways our legal system “stereotype, penalize, and mistreat neurodivergent people.”

Another panel on day 3 explored “aspects of educational experiences among Black, neurodiverse, graduate students.” Taking on the mantel of intersectionality, panelists offered “insights into how systemic racism / white supremacy and marginalization of neurodivergent individuals may combine to present intersectional challenges.” They argued that a narrative of “Black excellence,” while displacing “racist narratives of Black inferiority,” may inadvertently marginalize Black neurodivergent students further.

In other words, projecting strength, excellence, and resilience has the same effect of harming these students as assuming incompetence. You can’t win either way.

Having lost its legal case for race-based admissions, Harvard, along with its peers in higher education, has rejuvenated the pledge for DEI in another regard. A “multigenerational workforce,” based on the Harvard Business Review, is the answer to the aging U.S. population and increases in longevity. Specifically, the academic consensus on multigenerational diversity calls for measures like offering flexible work arrangements, supporting caregiving employees and offering comprehensive benefits. A Harvard-trained DEI consultant offers an online professional development course called “Diversity Across Generations: Supporting Workplace Inclusion.”

DEI programs are undergoing a rebranding through which the same inflammatory, divisive, and identity-based contents are repackaged under different monikers that are more innocent sounding. As usual, with its ever-growing subsector of grievance studies, the higher education complex lends legitimacy to the re-branding.

But the concept of neurodiversity, a recent offshoot from the DEI ideology, is untested and contentious. A veteran occupational therapist warns that the neurodiversity-affirming movement will cause unintended consequences such as overlooking a generation of children who need interventions to develop play, language, communication and academic skills.

The movement, by stigmatizing severe autism and developmental disabilities as hate speech or biases, also signals a counterproductive refusal to acknowledge said disabilities, and with the refusal, an unwillingness to treat the challenges medically and behaviorally. Other more unforgiving critics point out the ideological nature of the movement, which opposes curing autism and other disabilities:

The reality is that identity politics has become so deranged that there is a group of people who seek to prevent autistic people getting help, on the nonsensical grounds that it’s insulting to suggest they need it.

More importantly, claims for neurodiversity and age diversity are always imbued with notions of intersectionality. For instance, one of the lessons in the multigenerational diversity course—“Multigenerational diversity and anti-racism”—outlines workplace challenges stemming from racial “bias, stereotyping and projection” due to having a mix of baby boomer and Gen Z employees. In the neurodiversity realm, the systemic inequity/racism indictment shows that “[d]ue to biases, Black students are often diagnosed with other disorders such as ADHD or conduct disorders, and even intellectual disabilities when their white peers are diagnosed with autism.”

One way or another, new diversity concepts continue to be racialized. In its latest report entitled “Diversity matters even more,” Mckinsey & Company reinstates the business case for DEI, arguing that more gender, racial, and ethnic representation on corporate executive teams leads to better financial performance “despite a challenging business environment.”

In simple, unambiguous terms, DEI has not died. Its opponents must stay vigilant.

Photo by Vitalii Vodolazskyi — Adobe Stock — Asset ID#: 547796037 — Edited by Jared Gould