As the 2024 Presidential Election approaches, the stakes for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are high. DEI initiatives, which promote the fair treatment, representation, and full participation of historically marginalized groups, have increasingly become a focal point of both policy and public discourse. The election’s outcome could significantly impact the future of DEI, particularly in education, workplace policies, and federal involvement in these areas.
Diverging Visions for DEI: Harris vs. Trump
Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump present starkly different visions for the role of the federal government in addressing systemic inequality and promoting DEI. Harris has consistently advocated for expanding federal programs that support disadvantaged communities, emphasizing the need for government intervention to address persistent inequities. She supports increasing funding for programs like Title I, which provides financial support to schools serving low-income students, and has pushed for early childhood education programs aimed at leveling the playing field for all children.
In contrast, Trump’s platform focuses on reducing federal involvement in state and local matters, including education policy. His administration previously cut funding for the U.S. Department of Education, and current Republican proposals, such as those found in Project 2025, even suggest abolishing the Department altogether. Trump’s vision prioritizes empowering states to make their own decisions regarding education, including how to handle issues related to DEI. This could lead to a rollback of federal protections and funding for programs that support historically underrepresented groups.
Education Policy: The Future of DEI in Schools
One of the most significant areas where DEI may be affected by the 2024 election is in education policy. Under a Harris presidency, we would likely see a continuation and expansion of federal programs that promote equity in education. Harris has voiced support for initiatives that target systemic inequality, such as increasing federal funding to schools in underserved areas and protecting DEI efforts in school curriculums, particularly around issues of race, gender, and sexual orientation.
Trump, on the other hand, has backed efforts to restrict discussions of DEI-related topics in schools. During his presidency, several states passed laws banning discussions of critical race theory, gender identity, and sexual orientation in classrooms. A return to Trump’s leadership could result in further state-level restrictions on DEI education, potentially widening the gap between states that support inclusive education and those that do not.
The Workplace: Federal Support for DEI Initiatives
DEI has also become a major point of contention in the corporate world. Many companies have adopted DEI programs to create more inclusive work environments, offering training to reduce bias and creating pathways for underrepresented groups to advance. Harris’s platform would likely encourage these efforts, building on federal support for workplace equity initiatives, particularly for women and minorities.
However, DEI programs have faced growing opposition, especially from conservatives who argue that such initiatives promote division rather than unity. Trump’s administration took steps to limit DEI training in federal agencies, and his return to office could embolden states and businesses to scale back their own DEI initiatives. Some Republican leaders have even proposed legislation to ban DEI programs in certain sectors, framing them as discriminatory or politically biased.
Higher Education and DEI
In higher education, the battle over DEI is perhaps most pronounced. DEI initiatives at universities have come under increasing scrutiny, with some state legislatures attempting to restrict funding for programs that promote diversity or mandate the inclusion of DEI content in curricula. A Harris administration would likely continue to support federal funding for higher education programs that promote DEI, as well as protect these programs from state interference.
Conversely, Trump and his Republican allies have openly criticized higher education’s emphasis on DEI, particularly in public universities. If elected, Trump could push for federal policies that further limit DEI initiatives in colleges, emboldening states to take similar actions. This could lead to a reduction in resources and support for students from historically marginalized groups, potentially exacerbating disparities in higher education.
Voter Behavior and DEI
DEI is not just a policy issue; it’s also influencing voter behavior. Voters who prioritize equity, representation, and inclusion are increasingly looking at candidates’ stances on DEI when making their decisions. This election could be a turning point in how the nation addresses inequality across various sectors, from education to the workplace.
While Harris has been framed by some commentators as the “DEI candidate,” her approach is more deeply rooted in the Democratic Party’s traditional commitment to social justice and equity. Trump, however, has positioned himself as an opponent of what he and many in his party see as an overreach of DEI programs, particularly in education and the federal workforce. For voters, this stark contrast may be a key factor in deciding which candidate to support.
The Future of DEI Post-Election
No matter the outcome of the 2024 election, DEI will remain a contentious issue. A Harris presidency would likely lead to an expansion of federal support for DEI programs and protections, while a Trump presidency could mean the continued erosion of such initiatives, leaving decisions up to states. The election is, therefore, not just a decision about who will lead the country—it’s a referendum on the role of diversity, equity, and inclusion in American society.
The future of DEI in the United States may hinge on the direction voters choose in November, and the implications will be felt in schools, workplaces, and communities across the country. The election will determine whether the federal government remains an active participant in promoting inclusion or takes a step back, leaving DEI efforts to be shaped by state and local governments. In either case, the debate over DEI is far from over.
