When Stanford University displayed promotional banners meant to celebrate its student body, an AI-altered image did the opposite. Hispanic student Billy Ramirez was replaced by a nonexistent Black woman, raising questions about whether institutions value diversity, or simply its appearance.
Diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, is a framework used by schools and workplaces to ensure that everybody is given equal opportunities to succeed. Yet, it has recently become entangled with public relations. Identity has become a weapon rather than a tool for genuine progress, allowing public figures to shield themselves from public criticism by pointing out that they are completing diversity milestones.
“I would define [DEI] as measures that are set in place to prevent companies from only choosing people who aren’t part of oppressed groups in the past,” said junior Emma Sakai. “Like making sure those people aren’t overlooked just because they’re part of an oppressed group.”
This has caused a major divide. On one end, hyper-sensitive DEI supporters see any creative choice as a targeted attack upon minority groups. They push inclusion and representation to the point that it becomes a “checklist.” This can then cause complaints about ideological conformity and reverse discrimination, but expanding access does not need to mean prioritizing demographics over ability.
“People say there’s danger because they see it as ‘get the quota filled or else,’” Sakai said. “[But] it’s more like we need to focus on outreach so that we get more people from these groups interested so they want to apply.”
On the other hand, DEI critics treat almost any form of representation or diversity as a threat. They use that to deny real opportunities to the less privileged.
“Companies that advertise DEI are trying to fill the workspace up with people who have been secluded in the past,” said junior Elias Hybl. “That comes with a consequence, though, of prioritizing people’s backgrounds over their actual skill level. Because, for me, whoever can perform the job the best should be hired.”
This fear has caused scandals like the Stanford University dining hall banner incident. Terrified of facing backlash over lacking diversity, university administrators panicked, turning towards generative AI to literally manufacture a synthetic Black woman over the very real Hispanic student Billy Ramirez.
“It is important to get different perspectives for a lot of different job markets or in school as well,” said junior Diego Vargas. “But sometimes it can feel forced, almost like it’s like a check box they need to fill out.”
This fear is spreading rapidly due to new federal policies. With several policies from the Trump administration, such as “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” the pressure on companies has reversed. Rather than feeling the pressure to include diverse and inclusive racial messages, large entities are reducing equity campaigns, revealing a shift where inclusion is increasingly being viewed as a legal and public relations liability.
This debate has become an issue within the world of education. Critics argue that by prioritizing racial diversity in universities, it may be harder for highly qualified applicants from different backgrounds to get into the same school. This led to the Supreme Court case Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard, in which the Supreme Court ruled against race-conscious admissions. According to Harvard University’s official student newspaper, The Harvard Crimson, in the years after the Supreme Court ruling, the university has received more Asian American enrollment while experiencing a decline in Black student enrollment.
“Too much DEI can cause students to feel unmotivated to try to succeed,” said junior Tanya Lee. “They feel that their chances are already being restricted before they have any opportunity to show who they are.”
However, some see the controversy surrounding DEI as a marketing opportunity, as companies realize that controversy can serve as free publicity. In an era where algorithms reward controversy, being heavily criticized by one side of the spectrum often leads to millions of dollars from the other side.“I definitely feel like a lot of the time it’s to catch a trend or to appeal to their consumers,” Lee said.
Consider American Eagle’s recent campaign featuring actress Sydney Sweeney, which included a slogan about “good jeans,” that many interpreted as “good genes,” causing debates over genetics, privilege, and representation. According to CNN, American Eagle stock rose by 25% in part because of the sensation caused by the Sydney Sweeney ad. Another company that faced heavy backlash was Converse. They created an ad featuring K-pop singer Karina, and many criticized it after noticing the studio lighting on her white clothing looked like a white triangle that strongly resembled a Ku Klux Klan hood. These controversies reveal a clear pattern about modern marketing strategies in which companies deliberately cause a culture war, knowing that the public outcry will keep their brand trending.
Ineffectively carrying out DEI in education can cause a generation to view diversity as a boring corporate policy rather than something that shapes everyday experiences. When schools fail to address stereotypes about different backgrounds, it makes it harder for marginalized individuals to feel welcome in professional schools and workplaces.
From an educator’s perspective, the focus on diversity could be changed to focus more on socioeconomic status than race. By looking at adversity from people from differing class, income and regional backgrounds, schools and companies can promote less represented individuals without causing resentment from those of other races. Therefore, they will be able to promote genuine diversity while still being able to value individual merit.
