The Trump administration’s jihad against Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs has metastasized into the most unexpected corners of American life. Yet, before examining this policy “incursion,” it’s worthwhile to examine the roots of DEI which reach back more than 60 years.

Following the success of civil rights legislation then, Congress created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Its function was to enforce even-handed hiring on the part of major corporations. There was little doubt African Americans, Hispanics and women were underrepresented at many of these firms. And even if hired, they were often paid less, received fewer promotions and found themselves excluded from premium assignments seemingly reserved for white males.

Whether these inequities were intentional or consciously malicious was and remains debated to this day. The discrimination was evident to any observer and few immediate remedies recommended themselves. The EEOC and corporate employers settled on affirmative action programs with a goal of achieving approximate parity between workforce diversity and demographic distribution in the adjoining labor pool. It wasn’t a perfect solution but lent itself to measurement. Although both employers and the EEOC tried to avoid the mention of quotas in their compliance agreements, the concept of “targets” functioned as an equivalent. Did this legal imposition mean the competition for jobs became keener for white men? Only slightly, but for a handful equal treatment felt like discrimination.

It wasn’t long before lawsuits were filed objecting to affirmative action programs as a form of “reverse discrimination” against white applicants. Surprisingly, these complaints first arose challenging higher-education admissions policies. By the mid-1970s an aspiring white medical school applicant in California, Alan Bakke, had been rejected twice for admission to the CU-Davis medical school. He filed a lawsuit alleging his selection had been denied because of the university’s need to meet quotas imposed by its admissions office. It would take several years for him to prevail. By 1980 most large companies were beginning to achieve the parities sought by the federal government and the EEOC was becoming more of a complaint agency that investigated individual grievances.

The gradual transformation of affirmative-action programs into DEI offices came in response to continued prodding from the Supreme Court. Many corporations, particularly retailers, discovered a diverse workforce, once expanded to include veterans, the disabled and hires from the LGBTQ community, actually improved their bottom-line results. Diversity was proving profitable. It wasn’t until 2023 that the Supremes formally squashed affirmative-action targets for higher-education institutions. Little noted was the fact our military academies were specifically exempted from this prohibition. Why, you may ask? Aside from offering the most successful socialist experiment in the nation — providing housing, medical care, generous retirements and other employment allowances, the Pentagon concluded troop readiness was strengthened when its officer ranks reflected the diversity of their enlisted volunteers.

It is no secret minority, as well as immigrant and, increasingly, female recruits are flocking into the military services. The American military may be the most merit-based organization in our society. Advancement is strictly tied to job performance for both enlisted and officer personnel. This is a matter of considerable pride within the military. Ed Rapp, a former Clear Creek County commissioner and retired Army Corps of Engineers colonel, served on the board of the initial Interstate-70 Monorail Study, which I managed some years ago. I distinctly recall his bragging, “We only promote the very best. If Congress asks for a left-handed, lesbian Native American, we will find her and pin a star on her collar.” This was said, of course, in jest, but it spoke to a commitment to excellence.

Colonel Rapp served with Colin Powell and spoke highly of his competence and wisdom. Both Republicans, they shared careers of public service. Ed was an accomplished leader and spokesperson for our monorail project, speaking eloquently of our national need for a “fourth transportation grid” to complement highways, railroads and airports — one 25 feet in the sky that could parallel interstate highways and enter into dense urban centers. His engineering credentials made him a compelling advocate. Sadly, in a TABOR-constrained state, supporters are still searching for a funding mechanism that can fund the advanced guideway system Colorado needs.

I recount this friendship because of the recent rejection of a Pentagon promotion list for flag officers (generals and admirals) by the Secretary of Defense (War) which jettisoned all but two of the recommended black and female candidates. This came as a sequel to his firing of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the female Chief of Naval Operations, immediately upon being appointed. White House rumors claim President Donald Trump didn’t want to be seen standing next to an African American or even more embarrassing still, a woman, while briefing the press. He apparently didn’t want his supporters to see him relying on advice from either. The rejected Naval admirals, all women, were reportedly eliminated because they served in DEI offices earlier in their careers. Anyone who knows anything about corporate hierarchies is aware human resource departments and their DEI offices are a traditional steppingstone for female executives. I’m certain the same was true for these women during their naval careers.

I happened to catch an interview with the best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell, who is himself of mixed-race, mentioning the case of CQ Brown, the four-star former fighter pilot who rose to command the U. S. Air Force, and who was then selected to chair the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Gladwell described the rigorous, merit-based selection process that elevated Brown to this position. Recently speaking to an audience in a red state where he knew most of them voted for Trump, he asked, “Was this the right thing to do — to fire a man simply because he’s black? Is that the America we want?” They didn’t cheer, but Gladwell noted he saw a lot of heads nodding in agreement. Undoubtedly, there are individuals who have missed out on desired opportunities due to DEI priorities. Personally, I was offered a promotion at Mountain Bell to transfer to AT&T headquarters in New Jersey, when Mountain Bell was informed it needed to select a woman. Instead, I ran successfully for the legislature, retired early and got to spend the remainder of my career in Colorado — not a disappointing outcome.

Another White House policy atrocity is its announcement all scientific research grants will receive political scrutiny to insure they won’t promote DEI objectives. No more peer review. During DOGE last year, Musk’s minions went after any federal function using the word diversity, scuttling a scientific survey of mollusk diversity along coral reefs. This kind of stupidity beggars belief. Melissa Finukane, a scientist teaching at Stony Brook University, reports the Office of Management and Budget asserts such a change is necessary because it discovered there is a “lack of transparency, accountability and proper oversight” of federal funds. What are they afraid of: bureaucratic promotion of a “woke” scientific policy agenda (presumably advanced by an equally fictitious “deep state”)? As Neil Degrasse Tyson advises us, “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” Much like DEI, I suspect.

Miller Hudson is a public affairs consultant and a former Colorado legislator.