Understanding advantaged groups' opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies: The role of perceived threat

Abstract

To combat social inequality, organizations develop and implement initiatives that seek to improve the status of disadvantaged groups (e.g., women, racial/ethnic minority groups). Such diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies are controversial, because people disagree about whether they are necessary and what their (positive and negative) consequences may be. Opposition can be particularly fierce from people who belong to advantaged groups that benefit from the status quo (e.g., men, racial/ethnic majority groups). Given the power wielded by advantaged groups, their opposition can undermine the successful implementation of DEI policies, thus resulting in continued inequality, wasted resources, and potential for tension in the organization. In this paper, I draw on theory and research to consider three types of threat that can explain advantaged groups' opposition to DEI policies: (1) resource threat, or concern about losing access to outcomes and opportunities; (2) symbolic threat, or concern about the introduction of new values, culture, and expectations; and (3) ingroup morality threat, or concern about their group's role in perpetuating inequality. I review strategies identified by the literature to

Taking a “multiple forms” approach to diversity: An introduction, policy implications, and legal recommendations

“…The above findings suggest that dominant group members generally see multiculturalism as a greater threat than do non‐dominant group members (Iyer, 2022; Rios, 2022). Nevertheless, people of color may also experience threats from multicultural ideologies in some contexts.…”

“…For instance, Whites in North America and Western Europe tend to perceive multicultural ideologies as threatening and hence exhibit greater prejudice against people of color when they consider their race or ethnicity important to their self‐concept (Morrison et al., 2010) or are high in right‐wing authoritarianism (i.e., support for social order and traditional values; Kauff et al., 2013); when they view group differences as unchangeable rather than malleable (Kung et al., 2022); when they are induced to construe multiculturalism in more concrete than abstract terms (e.g., how to implement multiculturalism as opposed to why multiculturalism is important; Yogeeswaran & Dasgupta, 2014); and when they are reminded of society's increasing racial/ethnic diversity (Osborn et al., 2020). The results of experiments that have directly manipulated the multicultural (vs. colorblind) content of policies, such as in organizational diversity statements, also point to some unintended negative consequences of multiculturalism for dominant group members (for reviews, see Brannon et al., 2018; Dover et al., 2020; Iyer, 2022). In two representative sets of studies, White American participants felt more threatened and a reduced sense of belonging in an organization whose mission statement highlighted the importance of diversity, relative to an organization whose mission statement did not reference diversity (Dover et al., 2016; Kaiser et al., 2022; but see Ballinger & Crocker, 2021).…”

“…In sum, both multiculturalism and the equality‐oriented components of colorblindness are meant to maximize intergroup harmony; this is also the case for gender awareness and gender blindness (Hahn et al., 2015). However, each ideology has potential unintended consequences when implemented in practice, for dominant as well as non‐dominant group members (e.g., Brannon et al., 2018; Cundiff et al., 2018; Dover et al., 2020; Iyer, 2022). It is thus critical to consider how policymakers can draw from multicultural and colorblind ideologies to create inclusive environments for members of non‐dominant groups, while minimizing resistance and backlash among members of dominant groups.…”

Contributive Justice: An Invisible Barrier to Workplace Inclusion

“…As demonstrated by ubiquitous references within the field to diversity, equity, and inclusion as an amalgamation, or DEI (Kraus, Torrez, & Hollie, 2022), fairness is seen as the mechanism through which the diversity–inclusion relationship works. While not well-articulated within the diversity literature, equity is intended to represent policies and practices to eliminate bias that diminishes equal opportunities across all social groups and to improve the statuses of historically disadvantaged groups (Iyer, 2022; Mor Barak & & Cherin, 1998; Nishii, 2013). This is somewhat consistent with classical conceptualizations of equity, which infer the treatment of people across groups as equals with commensurate opportunities to compete without prejudice or discrimination and corresponding to their abilities, motivations, efforts, and accomplishments (Leventhal & Michaels, 1969, 1971).…”

“Where do I even start?” Recommendations for faculty diversifying syllabi in ecology, evolution, and the life sciences

“…The benefits of diversity to academia and research have been acknowledged (Dasgupta & Stout, 2014; Swartz et al, 2019) but many postsecondary educators' still struggle to adapt curricula and pedagogy to the increasingly diverse population of students in our classrooms (Padayachee et al, 2018). There are also educators who resist diversity, equity, inclusivity, and justice (DEIJ) initiatives in the life sciences (Iyer, 2022). Both the lack of experience and resistance hinders universities in meeting their mission to prepare students to meet the needs of an ever‐changing world (Griesel et al, 2009).…”