Justice Is Blind. Charity Sees.

The concept of diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) is starting to feel a bit awkward. Many institutions are retreating from its programs, while many of the very human problems it was meant to address stubbornly remain.

Americans haven’t stopped caring about fairness, interpersonal charity, or genuine belonging. 2020s-era DEI programs have lost ground in part because many Americans have stopped believing they were accomplishing those goals.

One of the major problems with the way many of these programs were instituted is that they required dividing people into demographic in-groups and out-groups. The programs accomplished this not simply by looking at which demographics were in the minority, but by determining which demographics mattered and in what contexts.

For example, people from rural backgrounds can face real disadvantages and are numerically a minority, yet rural background was rarely a category DEI programs considered. Asian Americans might receive DEI consideration in one context, but they were famously excluded and even disadvantaged in some academic contexts. Women were considered a DEI category in education, even though they are now a clear majority (57.9%) of undergraduate students, because historically they had not been.

The category was never simply “minority,” or even “those who are being treated unequally.” It required a judgment about which differences mattered, in which institutions, and for how long. This is why the words diversity, equity, and inclusion, which seemed open, welcoming, and fair, became, in practice, completely partial and exclusive.

So what comes next? How can Americans continue pursuing fairness and belonging, even as the DEI project fades into oblivion?

Individuals and the Law

Lady Justice is often portrayed as blind, symbolizing impartiality. The blindfold meant that it wasn’t the law’s place to decide who is a friend and who isn’t before hearing a case. But DEI does not act this way. Under DEI programs, designated in-groups are treated differently under the law than the out-groups, leaving Lady Justice with eyes wide open.

The law should remain blind. But that does not mean that individuals need to do the same. The constraints that we place on the law should provide room for personal charity. Neighbors can provide the kind of individualized noticing that governments simply cannot.

What Individuals Can Do

Because the concept of DEI is so integrally connected to politics and law, it often runs up against some Americans’ conceptions of fairness.

But that doesn’t mean the underlying intention should be discarded.

We can all strive to be an inclusive people and say hello to someone who looks lonely. We can strive to meet people who look and think differently than us, even when it pushes us beyond what we’re comfortable with. 

We can give freely to those who are less fortunate and need help. And we can do all of those things without judging people on the basis of race, gender, or sexual identity.

It’s important to remember that institutions are not somehow disconnected from individuals. Leaders of institutions can similarly strive to act in ways that take advantage of the great diversity of the United States without forcing anyone to view the world the same way they do. 

But ultimately, belonging cannot be produced by counting demographic heads. I’m sure we have all felt very alone in rooms of people very similar to us. Belonging grows through trust, shared work, and friendship. These are the kinds of traits that grow in families, businesses, churches, schools, neighborhoods, or voluntary organizations. And it’s within these groups that we can begin to build the trust necessary for belonging. It happens when we learn names, notice absences, share meals, and forgive awkwardness. 

President Dallin H. Oaks outlines these ideas well. “The pure love of Christ,” he said, quoting President Howard W. Hunter, “encourages [a] diverse people to live together in Christian love regardless of religious belief, race, nationality, financial standing, education, or culture.”

President Oaks further clarified that this does not mean “surrendering our values,” and that we must “balance our various responsibilities,” which he says is not easy. But “as followers of Christ, we should seek to live peaceably and lovingly with other children of God who do not share our values. In a democratic government we should seek fairness for all.”

While privately harboring racist, sexist, or hateful feelings in your heart might not be illegal, it is antithetical to the pure love of Christ—for both DEI promoters and DEI opponents. 

The way to move beyond the failed programs of the past is to foster a Christlike heart. No list, and certainly not one that only looks on the outside, will ever be able to tell us everyone who is lonely, poor, overlooked, or carrying more than they can handle. Charity requires looking and seeing.

What Governments Can Do

The United States, which is still the number one country people want to immigrate to, is home to remarkably diverse people. Its history is similar to that of many other nations, marked by both dark periods of exclusion and bright periods of outstanding contributions from very different types of people.

The dark periods are not to be forgotten. The Jim Crow policies of the 1870s to 1960s, redlining policies of the 1930s to 1960s, and internment camp policies of the 1940s enforced extreme exclusion, inequality under the law, and irreparable harm.

Lawmakers and government leaders should continue to seek out and dismantle discriminatory policies, including DEI policies that violate equal-treatment protections. Governments can and should investigate discrimination, protect equal access, and apply rules consistently. 

Demographic information can help identify patterns worth investigating, but it cannot determine the merits of an individual application. Governments should protect the right to life, equal treatment, free speech, religious exercise, and association. Protecting these rights creates the environment where individuals and institutions can live in harmony with one another even when they are very different. 

In other words, government should be working to put the blindfold securely back on Lady Justice.

The answer to the failure of DEI is not to deny that there are lonely, excluded, and mistreated people in the world, or to conclude that nothing can be done. Nor is it to restore the same basic programs under a rebranded acronym. It is to recognize that while good-intentioned laws have limits, charity does not. 

Justice is blind. But Christians should keep their eyes open, along with all other Americans of good faith. Let’s look to the lonely, the overlooked, the impoverished, the weighed down, and let’s lift them. 

“Wherefore, men are free … to choose liberty and eternal life .. . or to choose captivity and death.” (2 Nephi 2:27).