The Anti-Christian Trojan Horse of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Programs

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)—a phrase that has echoed through the halls of corporations, academic institutions, and even churches, has become a topic of significant debate and concern. The roots of DEI programs are indeed deeply entrenched in ideologies that prioritize societal restructuring, and several recent findings shed light on the substantial financial resources being funneled into these initiatives.

For example, in the 2022 to 2023 school year, the State University System of Florida spent a significant amount - $28 million - on critical race theory and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Notably, over half of this funding was taxpayer-funded. The University of Florida alone staffed 43 positions related to DEI initiatives and spent nearly $5.3 million, with $3.4 million of that total provided by the state. The expenditure on these programs across various universities in Florida reflects a broader trend of substantial investment in DEI initiatives​​.

Further illustrating the scale of funding, the Pentagon requested a remarkable $114.7 million to fund DEI initiatives for the fiscal year 2024. This request marked a significant increase from previous years, with the department's DEI spending consistently rising. This move by the Pentagon underscores the growing financial commitment of government agencies to DEI initiatives​​.

And in 2020 alone, American companies spent approximately $3.4 billion on DEI programs. This massive expenditure came despite questions about the actual effectiveness of these programs. The figure not only indicates the scale of investment by private entities but also raises concerns about the lack of clear evidence supporting the efficacy of these DEI initiatives​​.

Just these few examples highlight the extensive financial resources being directed towards DEI programs, encompassing both public institutions and private corporations. The significant investment in these programs, despite questions about their effectiveness and impact, should raise serious concerns about the motives and outcomes of such widespread adoption of DEI initiatives.

In the United States, the influence of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies has been more and more evident, particularly in academia, with the Claudine Gay scandal at Harvard University serving as a glaring indictment of these policies. Gay's resignation as Harvard's president, under the pressure of mounting scandals and scrutiny, is a definitive expose of the pernicious effects of the DEI agenda on higher education—an agenda that has systematically eroded academic standards and meritocracy in favor of a divisive and ideologically driven focus on identity politics​​.

Thankfully, a few conservative voices have trenchantly criticized DEI policies and affirmative action, arguing that they have warped the principles of academic leadership and intellectual integrity. These policies have transformed universities into citadels of bureaucratic overreach that prioritize racial, gender, and sexual preference quotas over intellectual merit and academic excellence.

In the face of this censure, supporters of Claudine Gay, including civil rights political harlequins like Al Sharpton, have rallied to her defense, framing the criticism as a racially motivated assault on black leadership and an attempt to dismantle the gains made in promoting diversity in academia. They absurdly contend that the opposition to Gay and DEI initiatives is emblematic of a broader conservative agenda to roll back progress on racial and gender equality. Sharpton’s characterization of Gay's resignation as an attack on every black woman who has achieved professional success highlights the ideologically charged nature of the DEI movement.

The danger of this approach becomes even more evident in hypothetical yet highly plausible scenarios. Imagine a heart surgeon selected not for his exceptional skills in life-saving procedures but rather for his sexual preference. Or consider an airline pilot hired not for her proven ability to navigate emergency situations but for her gender and skin color. These scenarios, hypothetical or not, demonstrate a terrifying reality where DEI policies could pummel the very foundations of professionalism and expertise, especially in real-world life-or-death situations.

Alarmingly, this DEI narrative is not confined to secular realms. Evangelical churches, which historically championed biblical truth and spiritual discernment, are increasingly succumbing to this trend.