DEI and Getting Back on Track

Dialogue with Dignity

I’ve been thinking about issues of racial justice since I was a teenager. I’m not claiming to have done anything particularly significant or to have any impact, but the topic has been on my mind for a long time. This weekend, my reflections were sharpened by attending the Dalton Diversity Conference, an event that prompted me to consider both the progress we’ve made and the troubling ideological shifts within diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in schools.

The theme of the conference was “Dialogue with Dignity.” Sounds good although in one of the groups we had a hard time defining quite what we all meant by dignity. And of course it is good to be considering dialogue now that the era of “No debate” appears to be over. 

Basically, the conference was a lot of very good people coming together to try and do good things. I ran into former colleagues and two former students and that felt good. 

Seen and Heard

A phrase I kept hearing was that students should “be seen and heard for who they are”.  That idea would have been completely alien to my school years. Invisibility was the norm. If someone had told me in primary and secondary school that I deserved to be seen and heard, I would have laughed them out of the room. I worked very hard not to be seen or heard. Being called on in class was something to dread. When my father died, no one at school said a word to me—perhaps they didn’t know. I gouged my desk with my knife. (How else were we supposed to keep our pencils sharp?) Different times.

When people go into education as a career they sometimes seek to replicate the good experiences of their own schooling. Others dedicate themselves to making sure that students don’t have to endure what they went through.

I belong mostly in that latter category and it shaped much of what I did. 

This is what Peter Gow has called  “restitutional teaching”.

Circles

One of the techniques demonstrated at the conference was the circle—a structured way to enable participation, manage engagement, and avoid controversy.

The premise is that when people share their “lived experience” by means of personal stories dispute is taken out of the equation. We learn from each other’s stories, gain empathy and understanding, and make connections. This is not new—many teachers have been doing versions of this forever. I remember it from my kindergarten long ago in another century. But all structured techniques have limitations. Circles can foster empathy and inclusion, but they can also create an illusion of consensus by sidestepping real debate.  Circles can be both liberating and stifling. They’re a good start, but not a cure-all. And sometimes they can drive you bonkers. 

Schools, Diversity, and Me

I am on record as being skeptical about aspects of how DEI operates in many schools today. I speak as someone who was fairly immersed in aspects of it for decades and made it a priority. (Again, I claim no virtue or lasting impact here. I am not saying I was effective or made a difference; it’s just a historical fact dating back to the early 1970s.) What started as a moral imperative to create fairer schools has been co-opted by ideology. And not just any ideology, but one that replaces open discussion with orthodoxy, prioritizes feelings over facts, creates an atmosphere where disagreement is dangerous; replaces meaningful expression with clichés, neologisms, and therapy babble; and at its absolute worst – denies biology and teaches children to dissociate from their sexed bodies 

Change Happens

A personal example: In the 1990s, I helped arrange for Kevin Jennings (founder of GLSEN) to speak at my school. At the time, GLSEN sought to end discrimination, harassment, and bullying based on sexual orientation—a cause I fully supported. Today, I would not want that organization anywhere near schools and students. GLSEN has since adopted gender ideology and now promotes contested and scientifically unfounded theories to students and schools. No thanks.

The problem is that, in too many cases, the focus has shifted from core values that most of us endorse—fairness, justice, and inclusion—toward a brittle and borrowed ideology that punishes dissent and forces compliance. This shift has sparked backlash—not because all critics are bigots, but because DEI has, in many instances, strayed from its foundational mission. Too often, the letters could be said to stand for Divide, Exclude, and Impose.

A Toxic Mix 

A toxic mix of critical race theory, gender identity theory, and therapy-speak has led to a situation where everyone is expected to sing from the same song sheet. This is neither diversity nor authenticity. And it glides past the awful truth that, when it comes to gender ideology, children have been lied to and misled—sometimes with dire and irreparable consequences.

Progress

That said, we have made progress in many ways. Schools today feature better representation, a more diverse curriculum, and pay greater attention to voices that were once silenced. There is heightened awareness of historical wrongs and a genuine effort to establish more equitable institutions. These are positive developments that should be celebrated. Clumsy micro-aggressions can be annoying, but institutional macro-aggressions are far worse.

Time to Pivot

Schools are at a pivot point when it comes to DEI. Not so long ago I  received a message from an administrator at an NAIS school who said that he agreed with my concerns about gender ideology but could never say so publicly because it would be a “career-ender”.  That is a failure of institutional culture. Schools, which should be havens for intellectual curiosity and rigorous debate, have become places where free expression is stifled and where those who think differently are told they need to be re-educated.

The focus on micro-aggressions and linguistic policing has created a climate of hypersensitivity where grievances are nurtured rather than resolved. Meanwhile, the real injustices—poverty, violence, and systemic discrimination—persist. Yet instead of addressing these pressing issues, schools increasingly fixate on ideological conformity, leaving little room for genuine discussion.

There was little mention at the conference of the current administration’s recent executive orders. That’s understandable as there is much to digest, and – of course – the devil will be in the implementation. It would naive to expect that implementation will  be pursued with compassion.

The event was upbeat and forward-looking, which is admirable. Participants reported finding the day hopeful, inspiring, and renewing. I found it interesting and of course it is always heartening to see so many people – students, faculty, administrators, heads and trustees – come together on a Saturday with the intention of helping their schools become better places for everyone. 

My view is that as long as schools grip tightly to ideology, they will become more defensive, not more effective. A better way forward is to celebrate progress while honestly assessing the criticisms of DEI implementation. Why is it a target? Is it only racists and bigots who have concerns? Or have schools embraced an approach that alienates rather than unites? Have they replaced education with indoctrination? Unfortunately, in too many cases, the answer to the last two questions is yes. It is time to step back and rethink. It is time to ground this work in values, not contested ideology. It is time to stop lying to children. It is time to stop pushing unproven theories as settled fact.

I see this as a moment for course correction—an opportunity for schools to return to core values and abandon the ideological straitjacket.

We need to ask:

• What are we trying to achieve? What is the common ground on which we stand?
• What are the values and aspirations we share and how might we uncover all the ways to set about achieving them? 
• How do we create fairness without fostering resentment?
• How do we educate students about injustice without teaching them to see themselves as perpetual victims?
• How can we contribute solutions to conflicts that pit the rights of one group against those of another?

Some thoughts

• Let’s free our minds and tongues. Let’s try not to offend, but let’s not panic when we do.
• Let’s acknowledge pain, but not weaponize it into grievance politics.
• Let’s assume goodwill rather than constantly seeking to uncover hidden malice.
• Let’s focus on real injustices—poverty, violence, discrimination—rather than manufacturing new ones.
• None of us are responsible for the crimes and injustice of the past and all of us come from cultures that have treated others with cruelty and injustice.
• Let’s not turn every setback into life-changing trauma. Life is messy, and we must muddle through it together as best we can together.

At the conference, I heard stories of personal pain—and although each story is different, people have been telling these stories for decades. Many schools have learned to listen. Institutionalized racism, in the way it once existed, has largely been dismantled in independent schools. This is something to celebrate. Of course, these schools remain tuition-dependent and beyond the financial reach of most families. That’s probably the biggest injustice of all, and no amount of financial aid and school-based DEI initiatives can solve that problem. While there is much to celebrate it is also true that along the way, many schools have adopted gender ideology, which is so extreme and ultimately so bizarre, that it risks creating the very backlash they fear.

DEI should be a force for fairness and actual inclusion, not a mechanism for silencing debate and privileging one group at the expense of another. If schools fail to course correct, they won’t be advancing justice but rather manufacturing resentment and fueling polarization.  And that helps no one. And – as for gender theory as taught in school as fact – make like the Daleks*: “Exterminate”.  

*A totally inept reference, of course, as in Dr.Who it is the Daleks who do the exterminating but should be exterminated and in the epic struggle with the Doctor they inevitably fail. But you get my point. This video is from The New Yorker. 

The featured image is a detail from Composite Picture 3 (Diversified Cultural Worker) 2008  – Iain Hetherington. Arts Council Collection, Southbank Centre.