NY Times publishes guest essay arguing against DEI effectiveness, following up on previous essay promoting its benefits.

Stanford professors published a New York Times guest essay six months after Harvard Business School professors published one stating that D.E.I. works, admitting it doesn't.

As time has passed, some leftwing academics are no longer satisfied with the outcomes of diversity, equity, and inclusivity initiatives.

The first headline stated: "D.E.I. Critics Overlook Its Effectiveness." The second, however, argued: "D.E.I. Fails on College Campuses; We Need a Different Strategy."

The August essay admitted that some D.E.I. programs are too ideological and exacerbate the problems they aim to solve, while the January essay argued that they are worth pursuing.

The benefits of D.E.I. initiatives, which are used by companies, schools, and other institutions to reward or benefit individuals based on their racial and gender identities, were highlighted in a piece written by Harvard professors Dr. Caroline Elkins and Dr. Frances Frei, as well as author Anne Morriss.

The essay maintained that true inclusion fosters an environment where individuals can flourish and where diversity is not only accepted but celebrated. By embracing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), organizations can achieve greater success than if they were to operate as homogeneous groups.

D.E.I. proponents should not be discouraged by the challenges they face while pursuing these initiatives, as urged by Harvard professors.

Our experiences suggest that abandoning the objectives of D.E.I. is detrimental to individuals, organizations, and American society as a whole, particularly during a time when some organizations are at risk of doing so due to the politicized ripple effects of affirmative action's repeal.

D.E.I. is not effective, according to a guest essay by former Stanford Law School dean Paul Brest and Stanford associate professor of education and history Emily J. Levine, who argued that better approaches to dealing with diverse groups of students should be explored.

While some programs may aim to promote inclusivity and student engagement, we worry that others may be too politically driven, intensify the issues they aim to address, and conflict with higher education's traditional objective of fostering critical thinking.

Instead of institutions adjusting institutional conditions based on students' diverse identities, the authors suggested providing tips on navigating a politically and socially diverse world.

"An alternative approach to D.E.I. that promotes pluralism and empowers students to tackle complex social and political issues is proposed."

Brest and Levine found that diversity training on campus can increase resentment among groups.

Instead of challenging stereotypes, diversity training often perpetuates them and creates resentment, hindering students' social growth. An overemphasis on identity can be as detrimental as the assumption that identity is irrelevant.

The scholars warned that these programs could harm the groups they aim to help by fostering a victim mentality and encouraging competition among students.