Beyond Inclusion: Rethinking DEI and the Structures of Power
In recent years, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives have gained significant traction across public and private institutions. DEI was envisioned as a means to correct systemic injustices, expand opportunities for marginalized groups, and foster more equitable workplaces and communities. Yet, despite its aspirational goals, DEI has proven surprisingly brittle—vulnerable to political backlash and institutional reversal.
The recent efforts to dismantle DEI, particularly in political and corporate spheres, have been met with concern and resistance. But this moment also invites deeper reflection. Why has DEI been so easily rolled back? Why have its gains been vulnerable, and in some cases, superficial? And most importantly, did DEI ever have the transformative capacity to challenge the structures of power it sought to reform?
The Promise and Limits of DEI
DEI initiatives undoubtedly achieved some meaningful victories. They increased representation in workplaces, brought attention to systemic discrimination, and opened doors for many who had long been excluded. However, DEI's very design limited its potential for deep, structural change.
Most DEI efforts focused on tweaking the processes of inclusion—altering hiring practices, broadening admissions criteria, or expanding representation in leadership. But these efforts rarely interrogated the deeper structures of power that determine what “merit,” “success,” or “achievement” mean in the first place. Marginalized individuals were offered access to existing systems but were expected to conform to the values and norms of those systems. The structures remained largely intact, and “inclusion” often meant being assimilated into processes shaped by dominant (and often exclusionary) logics.
The Hegemony of Merit and Success
At its core, DEI operated within the frameworks of capitalist, Western, and often residual theological ideas about merit and success. These frameworks prioritized:
- Productivity and Profit: Value was measured by individual contributions to economic outcomes.
- Competition and Individualism: Success was framed as a personal achievement, often at the expense of others.
- Moral Worthiness: Effort and sacrifice were seen as indicators of who “deserved” success, often echoing deep cultural narratives of salvation and redemption.
In this context, DEI provided access without rethinking these values. It tweaked the gates but left the castle standing. The result was a brittle structure that could be easily dismantled once political winds shifted—because it never fundamentally questioned the architecture of power that determined who belonged and why.
The Problem of Elite Capture
This dynamic reflects a broader phenomenon that philosopher Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò terms elite capture: when movements for justice and equity are co-opted by those in power, who reshape them to serve their own interests. DEI, in many institutions, became precisely this—a way to give the appearance of progress without altering deeper structures of exploitation and hierarchy.
By accepting the terms of dominant systems, DEI initiatives inadvertently reinforced the very hierarchies they aimed to challenge. They provided marginalized individuals with a seat at the table but rarely questioned who set the table, who chose the menu, or who reaped the profits. In this sense, DEI became more about managing diversity than transforming systems.
Why DEI Was Easily Reversible
Because DEI operated on the terms of existing systems, it lacked true structural resilience. When political pressures mounted, DEI could be framed as an “extra”—a bonus or concession rather than a foundational rethinking of how institutions function. Institutions could simply remove DEI initiatives without fundamentally disrupting their operations. The deeper structures remained intact, and the cycle of exclusion resumed.
This raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: What kind of inclusion are we fighting for? If inclusion only offers access to systems that continue to exploit, extract, and marginalize, is it truly progress? Or does it merely extend the reach of those systems by incorporating new participants into old frameworks of domination?
Moving Beyond Inclusion: Toward Structural Transformation
If DEI has failed to produce deep change, it is not because inclusion is a flawed goal but because inclusion without transformation is insufficient. True justice requires more than access—it requires questioning the terms of participation, the definitions of value, and the structures that shape who benefits and who loses.
This means asking harder questions:
- What counts as “merit,” and who defines it?
- Who benefits from existing structures of success, and who is excluded?
- What would it mean to create systems where inclusion doesn't require assimilation to dominant values?
- How do we build structures that prioritize collective well-being over individual competition?
Building Counter-Infrastructures
One path forward is to focus on building counter-infrastructures—systems and spaces that don't just replicate dominant structures but offer real alternatives. These might include:
- Community-owned platforms that resist data extraction and surveillance.
- Cooperative enterprises that prioritize mutual benefit over profit maximization.
- Decentralized networks that empower marginalized voices without requiring assimilation to corporate or state agendas.
- Alternative systems of value that emphasize care, reciprocity, and communal thriving over individual success.
Such counter-infrastructures don't just seek to diversify who participates in existing systems; they aim to reshape the very terms of participation and belonging. They recognize that justice is not just about who gets in but about what kind of system they're entering.
The Challenge and the Possibility
The dismantling of DEI initiatives is a loss, but it is also an opportunity—to rethink the foundations of inclusion and to ask what kind of world we are working to build. If we can move beyond the surface-level inclusion that DEI often represented, we can begin the harder, deeper work of creating systems where justice, dignity, and flourishing are not privileges granted by existing power but fundamental conditions of collective life.
This requires patience, creativity, and solidarity. But it also requires a refusal to be satisfied with representation alone. Instead, we must commit to building structures where inclusion is not an act of charity or assimilation but the natural result of systems designed for shared thriving.
That is the deeper challenge—and the greater hope—beyond DEI.