In his first week in office, President Trump issued a series of executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs across federal agencies, contractors, and, by extension, the private sector, framing them as "illegal discrimination.”
Executive orders terminated DEI offices, mandated "merit-based" hiring, and removed DEI, DEIA, and gender-inclusive language from federal, foreign service, and education policies, with enforcement impacting grants and contracts.
The debate over DEI has become one of the sharpest cultural and political conflicts in the United States, touching universities, corporations, the military and federal agencies.
Trump has described DEI initiatives as "absolute nonsense," and argued they constitute “illegal” and “immoral” discrimination. He suggested that people who deserved to get into college or get a job were unable to because of DEI, calling it "a reverse discrimination." He also expressed the belief that "there is a definite anti-white feeling in this country."
Diversity, equity, and inclusion comprise an idea that is designed to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly those from underrepresented or marginalized groups. It aims to create environments where diverse backgrounds—including race, gender, and ability—are valued and structural barriers are removed to ensure equal opportunities.
There is ample evidence that one of America’s greatest strengths is its diversity. And DEI programs have made the nation richer, more just, stronger, more politically stable and smarter.
Proponents of DEI cite a large body of research suggesting that diverse classrooms can strengthen critical thinking, diverse teams can improve innovation, and organizations that draw from broader talent pools can be more competitive.
Opponents, however, contend that DEI programs can veer into ideological enforcement or unfairness, particularly when race or gender is explicitly considered in hiring, admissions or contracting. They argue that equal treatment should mean “color-blind” policies, and that some DEI initiatives risk stigmatizing employees as “diversity hires” or sorting people by identity rather than merit.
Supporters argue DEI is rooted in what some scholars call the “Diversity Principle”: the idea that institutions perform better when they engage people with different backgrounds, identities and lived experiences. In this view, diversity is not only a moral aspiration but a practical requirement for excellence because knowledge and problem-solving improve when ideas collide, assumptions are challenged and blind spots are exposed.
The lineage of that argument, proponents say, stretches back more than two centuries. They point to early models of the modern research university, including reforms associated with German educator Wilhelm von Humboldt in the early 1800s, which emphasized learning through inquiry and intellectual exchange.
Political philosophers John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor Mill later extended the case into democratic theory, arguing that societies learn by grappling with perspectives that differ from their own.
Guest:
David Oppenheimer is a clinical professor of law at the University of Berkley. He is the author of "The Diversity Principle, The Story of a Transformative Idea."
"The Source" is a live call-in program airing Monday through Thursday from 12-1 p.m.
Leave a message before the program at (210) 615-8982. During the live show, call 833-877-8255, email thesource@tpr.org.
This episode will be recorded on Wednesday, February 18, 2026, at noon.
