Utweets
Diversity is the presence of people of various backgrounds and experiences within a social group, accounting for race, gender, ethnicity, age, religion, class, and disability. Equity seeks fairness by allocating resources as needed to underserved and historically disadvantaged communities, considering their unique situation and addressing associated societal disparities to achieve equality of outcomes. Inclusion aims for a social or organisational structure where all individuals are heard, represented, and integrated. DEI, in essence, is a framework to foster fair treatment and the participation of all groups, especially those historically discriminated against....CONTINUE READING THE ARTICLE FROM THE SOURCE>>>
The complex social structure in the US, a country noted for its vast racial diversity, has historically been marred by systemic inequalities and discrimination against minority groups. These differences have manifested across education, employment, and housing among other sectors, often resulting in underrepresentation and limited opportunities for groups like African Americans, Hispanic people, Native Americans, and women.
Hence, what would become the DEI framework was created, its roots going back to the US civil rights movement of 1964, which accelerated efforts to develop more diverse and inclusive workplaces by outlawing employment discrimination based on race, religion, sex, skin colour, and nationality.
The movement banned segregation in schools and other public spaces, establishing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to enforce US laws that prohibit discrimination. In a defining move, the erstwhile US President John F. Kennedy signed an executive order on affirmative action in 1961 that effectively prohibited racism among federal contractors.
DEI would evolve beyond federal policy to become a hiring culture for corporate US in the successive decades, with private companies dedicating conspicuous sections of their website to flaunt a “diverse workforce”.
Many firms started incorporating diversity training programmes into their business strategy. Savvy colleges and universities used affirmative action to boost the enrollment of racial minorities at White-majority schools.
DEI saw increased adoption when Joe Biden, on his first day in office as president in 2021, issued Executive Order 13985, which sought to advance racial equity and support for underserved communities. The order acknowledged that US laws, public policy, and institutions too often exacerbated disparities or denied equal opportunity to some individuals and communities. Under it, US federal agencies were required to submit equity action plans to detail how they would further DEI.
But an anti-DEI struggle was already brewing among US conservatives, with prior diversity policies tangling up in the culture war with the progressives.
Critics of DEI argued that such a programme “promoted divisiveness” and undermined what would have otherwise been a merit-based system. This opposition manifested across education, government, and the corporate US. Conservatives claimed DEI’s intentions are noble, but its execution leads to bureaucratic, identity-driven hiring that sidelines merit and corporate schemes prioritizing optics over tangible change. Some contended that diversity policies, when poorly implemented, bred resentment by making opportunities feel like a zero-sum game, where one group’s advancement is perceived as another’s exclusion. Others pointed to cases where rigid DEI measures have resulted in costly lawsuits or declining workplace morale, however exaggerated the argument was.
The anti-DEI movement gained momentum following a landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court in June 2023 that race-based affirmative action programmes in college admissions violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This ruling overturned precedents that permitted limited consideration of race in admissions, thereby intensifying debates and legal challenges surrounding DEI policies in educational institutions.
In January 2025, the right-wing politician Donald Trump issued an executive order as he assumed office as president, effectively terminating DEI programmes which he described as “wasteful” and, quite ironically, “discriminatory”.
Beyond federal contracting, the corporate sector felt the impact. Firms were forced to preemptively adjust their DEI policies to avoid political backlash or retaliation from conservative investors. The US being a dominant player in global markets whose policies often set trends for businesses worldwide, multinational corporations are forced to adjust policies across their entire operations, rather than apply different DEI standards in different regions.
It could be argued that Trump’s DEI purge is largely a political move rather than a principled stand; that Trump is only appealing to his voter base, which mostly views DEI as government overreach, reverse discrimination, and unnecessary bureaucracy that wastes corporate/tax resources at best.
Instead of refining DEI policies to ensure they achieve fairness without unintended consequences, Trump is scrapping them entirely in a move that aligns with his political brand of anti-elite or anti-woke populism.
If fairness were the goal and not a political strategy, one could argue that reform should have sufficed, keeping what works in ensuring access to opportunity while eliminating excesses such as rigid identity-based quotas.
For many on the political right, the DEI purge is not just about policy. It’s part of a broader cultural battle against what they have called “wokeism”.
Again, Trump’s Republican voter base is made up of conservatives, working-class Whites, and libertarians who see DEI as a government overreach that benefits some groups at the expense of others. By purging DEI, Trump energizes these conservatives, reinforcing his “America First” mantra, where policies are to be about individual achievement, not group identity.
Nigeria and the US share a deep-rooted diversity that significantly shapes their political and socioeconomic structures.
Both countries are multi-ethnic, with Nigeria’s over 250 tribes and the US’s racial-cultural mix requiring policies to manage inclusion, representation, and resource allocation.
Just as DEI initiatives in the US aim to address systemic inequalities, Nigeria’s principle of federal character, zoning, and quota system are to prevent dominance by any single group and ensure equitable participation in governance and economic opportunities.
Like the US, Nigeria struggles with the politicization of diversity. In the US, DEI has become entangled in the politics of culture war, where conservatives argue it undermines meritocracy while progressives see it as necessary fairness.
Similarly, in Nigeria, policies meant to balance diversity (such as zoning and the quota system) often become tools for political manoeuvring, leading to tensions over fairness, nepotism, and merit. These policies, while intended to promote inclusion, sometimes fuel grievances among groups that feel left out, mirroring US debates on affirmative action and DEI.
Both nations grapple with how economic opportunities shape identity politics. In Nigeria, tribal sentiments intensify when access to resources and political power is limited, just as racial and class divisions in the US deepen economic disparities and drive DEI-related policies.
The challenge in both cases is ensuring inclusion without fostering resentment, inefficiency, or further marginalisation, although inclusion frameworks in Nigeria primarily apply to public offices, government agencies, and political appointments, with little to no formal regulation for private businesses.
All the analogy is to highlight the reason, if any, as to why Nigeria should examine the implications of the US DEI purge rather than blindly ignore, emulate, or reject it.
Nigeria’s historical attempts at managing diversity through policy tools like federal character, zoning, quotas, and inclusion initiatives were designed to balance representation but have faced corruption, inefficiency, and unintended consequences. Trump’s DEI purge presents an opportunity to reexamine whether these policies are achieving their intended results or simply paving the way for new forms of inequality.
Trump’s attack on DEI is fueled by the perception that diversity initiatives prioritize identity over competence, although his perception of how DEI works is a willful misinterpretation. Nigeria’s quota system and federal character principle have sometimes led to inefficiency by placing ethnic balancing over merit. A key lesson for Nigeria is to ensure that inclusion efforts do not sacrifice excellence to avoid undermining national progress.
As argued in this 2024 article, “Diversity is rarely a problem in Nigeria until it is politically framed”.
Trump’s approach to diversity in the US erases distinctions between political DEI (in government policy) and social DEI (in individual and corporate efforts). Nigeria must not make the same mistake.
Policies should encourage socioeconomic inclusion (ensuring fair access to education, finance, and employment) rather than simply political representation where appointments are shared like political spoils.
DEI policies in the US have been criticised for gradually shifting from equal opportunity to equal outcomes. In Nigeria, the federal character and zoning have attempted a similar balancing act, but these policies can create new grievances. The lesson? Representation must not feel, as US conservatives call it, like reverse discrimination. If a policy disproportionately benefits one group at the expense of another, it may solve one problem while creating another.
In Nigeria, equal political representation ensures that different groups have a seat at the table, but equal outcomes would mean that every group gets an identical share of power, resources, and opportunities, regardless of differences in population size, competence, or political dynamics. Equal outcomes would imply that ethnicities, religions, or regions are guaranteed an equal number of ministerial positions, electoral victories, or economic benefits, whether or not they have the numbers, influence, or merit to secure them.
This can lead to a rigid, artificial balance where leadership is distributed based on identity rather than effectiveness in governance.
A 2024 article recommended structured zoning and rotation as a way to reduce political tensions in Nigeria. Trump’s abrupt DEI purge shows the danger of policy whiplash, where an administration dismantles long-standing initiatives without structured alternatives. Nigeria should avoid knee-jerk reforms like this and instead design predictable, long-term frameworks that balance diversity and merit.
“Tribal sentiments become easily weaponized in Nigeria when economic opportunities shrink.”
Trump’s DEI purge overlooks this reality. Eliminating diversity programmes without addressing economic inequality can breed more resentment. Nigeria must ensure that economic expansion and structural reforms accompany diversity policies. Otherwise, competition over scarce resources will continue to fuel ethnic conflicts.
Instead of scrapping or purging DEI, Trump could have perhaps reformed it by eliminating inefficiencies while preserving its core goal of equal opportunity. A measured approach, based on merit and inclusivity, would have strengthened social cohesion without fueling division or backlash.
But politics has to be played, even while racial minorities pay dearly for it…CONTINUE READING>>
