Chasing imaginary diversity demons won’t save our declining institutions

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

America is currently locked in a high-stakes administrative war over who is permitted to manage our skies, build our roads and wear our nation’s military uniform. On June 10, a coalition of 20 state attorneys general filed a federal lawsuit in Maryland to halt a March executive order on diversity, equity and inclusion in federal contracting.

The order directs agencies to rewrite contracts so that universities, transit systems and defense contractors must certify they have eliminated what the administration calls “racially discriminatory DEI activities” or risk losing their federal funding.

At the same time, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has intervened in Navy and Air Force promotion lists, blocking or delaying more than a dozen senior officers, many of them women and people of color, while casting his actions as an effort to root out DEI influence. In hearings and public remarks, senior defense figures and allied institutions have warned that a “DEI agenda” introduces race and sex‑based quotas that supersede merit and undermine recruiting and readiness.

The rhetoric driving this multi-pronged crusade relies on a seductive, post-truth narrative that diversity initiatives are inherently discriminatory and erode the pure, objective standard of merit. But whenever a complex system experiences operational strain, diversity is made the primary suspect long before the empirical facts arrive.

This rush to blame inclusion is not an evidence-based policy; it is a calculated political dodge designed to hide severe, unglamorous failures across America’s critical infrastructure. We have the definitive data to prove it.

When an American Airlines passenger jet and a U.S. Army helicopter tragically collided over the Potomac River, senior officials rushed to live television within minutes to blame the disaster on DEI hiring at the Federal Aviation Administration. Earlier this year, the National Transportation Safety Board released its final report. The verdict was stark, empirical and entirely devoid of culture-war politics.

The investigative board found that deep, underlying systemic failures in airspace design, oversight and risk management by the aviation agency and the Army created the conditions for the crash, including a helicopter route that funneled Black Hawks directly beneath an active approach corridor without adequate safeguards and aircraft that lacked effective collision-avoidance technology. Diversity initiatives and civil rights frameworks were nowhere in the chain of causation.

We saw this exact same playbook deploy following the catastrophic collapse of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, when commentators and politicians immediately pointed the finger at equity initiatives, as if inclusion policies could somehow steer a massive cargo ship into a support column. Federal investigators, by contrast, focused on mechanical navigation failures, power loss and decades of unaddressed structural vulnerabilities.

When politicians insist that diversity is the primary threat to our skies, roads and military readiness, they are executing a dangerous shell game. Look at the tarmac of our nation’s major aviation hubs this summer. Domestic air travel is currently running on fumes. Controllers at major hubs are working exhausting, mandatory six-day weeks, even as federal aviation officials lower staffing targets and acknowledge a persistent, severe shortage of trained controllers.

If the public accepts the premise that diversity itself is the core danger threatening our safety, we will continue to waste our civic and legislative energy rolling back standard hiring tools. Meanwhile, the baseline conditions that actually threaten travelers — severe staff vacancies, employee burnout, outdated radar systems and the slow erosion of public infrastructure investment — will continue to worsen in the background.

None of this is to say that every diversity initiative is beyond critique. Like any administrative policy, equity efforts can be poorly designed. But there is a vast structural difference between a data-driven debate on how to build fair hiring systems and insisting, without a shred of empirical evidence, that those systems are responsible for bridges falling, planes colliding or military decline. The first is a hard, necessary conversation about how public institutions learn. The second is a cynical way of making sure they do not have to.

The investigative record points us away from culture-war ghosts and back to the unglamorous, expensive realities of governance. We cannot afford a political environment that would rather fight imaginary diversity demons than confront the crumbling systems that genuinely put American lives at risk.

The next time a leader tries to turn diversity into a catch-all culprit for an institutional failure, we should ask the only question that matters: What are they hoping we won’t notice while we are arguing about the wrong thing?

Donathan L. Brown, Ph.D. is an associate professor at Northeastern University, a former U.S. Fulbright Professor and the author of five books on civil rights and public policy.

Chasing imaginary diversity demons won’t save our declining institutions

Related stories

Tinubu unveils fourth legacy superhighway, okays N111bn take-off funds

I didn’t know there is still PDP, says Akpabio

Iran after Khamenei: What direction after Supreme Leader's funeral?

Some causes of 1967 civil war still with us, says Obasanjo