Vince Phillips
I’m not here to pretend I’m neutral on this. I’ve watched DEI go from something that sounded reasonable on paper to what it is today: a constantly shifting, taxpayer-funded ideological machine that feels less like civil rights and more like a cudgel used to enforce compliance. And the more I dig into it, the more it bothers me, not just because of what it does, but because of how it came to be and why it’s allowed to keep going.
Back in the 1960s we actually won legal equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, the 14th Amendment enforcement through Brown v. Board and later cases, by the time the term “DEI” even existed in the 2010s, the law already said no one could be discriminated against because of race, sex, religion, or national origin. Equal protection under the law was on the books. You couldn’t legally treat people differently based on those protected categories. That was the victory.
So why didn’t we just focus on making sure those laws were actually enforced? Why did we need a whole new parallel structure with ever-changing rules that nobody fully understands, set by unelected consultants and NGO staffers, and backed by the threat of HR investigations or public shaming if you step out of line?
The honest answer is that once legal equality was achieved, the old narrative of systemic oppression started losing its urgency for fundraising and institutional power. If the laws were working and disparities were shrinking, the case for endless new programs, trainings, grants, and offices weakened. So the goalposts moved, from equality of opportunity (what the law demands) to equity of outcomes (what DEI demands). Disparities that remained were reframed not as complex, multi-cause problems, but as proof that the system is still fundamentally racist/sexist/whatever-ist, and therefore needs constant intervention.
DEI keeps the grants flowing, the consultants employed, and the NGOs in business.
And here’s the part that really gets under my skin: most of the people pushing DEI hardest are running or working for nonprofits that receive my tax dollars, your tax dollars, through federal grants, contracts, or awards. No conflict of interest there! The Biden administration supercharged this in 2021 with Executive Order 13985 and follow-ups, mandating “racial equity” across every agency and funneling billions into DEI-related work. The Department of Education alone spent over a billion on DEI in public schools. The NSF handed out hundreds of millions for “antiracist” programs. USAID and HHS routed money to NGOs that baked DEI into everything from foreign aid to domestic refugee services.
DOGE (the Department of Government Efficiency) under Trump and Musk shone a light on this in 2025. They terminated over $1 billion in DEI contracts in the first wave, canceled 402 DEI grants at NSF worth $233 million, and clawed back hundreds of millions more from NGOs and programs that had become vehicles for ideological enforcement. They called it what it is: waste, fraud, and abuse, taxpayer money sustaining a bureaucracy that outlived its original justification.
But here’s the unfairness at the heart of it: I’m not allowed to enforce my personal beliefs on anyone else. If I tried to make my religious or political views mandatory in my workplace or school, I’d be sued, fired, or canceled under Title VII or free-speech protections. Yet DEI proponents get to enforce their worldview, often through mandatory trainings, affinity groups, bias reporting systems, and hiring preferences, because it’s dressed up as “equity” and “inclusion.” Their beliefs get institutional power and taxpayer backing; mine get told to stay private.
How is that not a double standard? How is it fair that one side can use government-funded NGOs to push an ever-evolving set of rules, rules that can change tomorrow based on whoever’s loudest on Twitter, while the rest of us are threatened with consequences if we don’t comply?
DEI didn’t come out of nowhere, but its explosion did feel sudden after 2020. One day we had laws against discrimination; the next we had mandatory pronoun policies, “privilege” confessions, and equity audits in every corner of public life. And if you questioned any of it, you risked being labeled a bigot or a threat.
I believe in equal rights. I believe in enforcing the laws we already have. I believe parents should have the final say in their children’s education, not unelected bureaucrats, teachers or NGO consultants. And I believe no one’s worldview, mine, yours, or DEI’s, should get special taxpayer-backed enforcement power over the others.
Until we get back to that principle, we’re not talking about civil rights anymore. We’re talking about dictatorial control that is the opposite of progress. DEI can only survive if it does not allow itself to be challenged-which is exactly why DEI must be challenged.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
— Martin Luther King Jr.
“Equity, on the other hand, sounds non-threatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. But the distinction is vast and important… equality… is explicitly rejected by critical race theorists.”
— Christopher F. Rufo
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 