NY Times: The Far Left Doesn’t Love DEI

This isn’t exactly breaking news given that anyone who has been paying attention has probably noticed this long before 2025, but it is interesting to see the NY Times highlighting this internal divide in the Democratic Party at a time when DEI is very much on the back foot. 

The story is titled “As Trump Attacks D.E.I., Some on the Left Approve.” It opens with a recent “buy-cott” organized by Al Sharpton in support of Costco, which has doubled down on its commitment to DEI despite pressure to step back.

“Al Sharpton making Costco into a titan of progress that needs mass support days before a potential strike,” Bhaskar Sunkara, the president of the progressive magazine The Nation, grumbled on the platform X.

The episode at Costco, which did not respond to a request for comment, illustrates an underappreciated tension on the left at a time when Mr. Trump has targeted diversity initiatives: Some on the left have expressed skepticism of such programs, portraying them as a diversion from attacking economic inequality — and even an obstacle to doing so.

“I am definitely happy this stuff is buried for now,” Mr. Sunkara said in an interview. “I hope it doesn’t come back.”

Many of the people who feel this way are on the far left of the party. They are usually socialists who support union organizing as the highest good and who see DEI as a kind of interloper in their ongoing battle for power. They see DEI as a kind of dog and pony show put on by management which mostly accomplishes nothing.

Those on the left who have studied diversity initiatives like antiracism and implicit-bias trainings point out that such programs may not work as advertised. A study of hundreds of employers over three decades suggests that the beneficial effects of such training tend to fade within days and that mandatory training can even increase racial resentments.

While some on the left nonetheless support D.E.I., leftist critics argue that these programs tend to advance the interests of companies rather than workers. “D.E.I. is fundamentally a tool of management,” said Jennifer C. Pan, author of “Selling Social Justice: Why the Rich Love Antiracism,” a book to be released in May by the publishing house Verso, which characterizes itself as radical…

Those who share her view often cite evidence suggesting that unions are more effective than D.E.I. programs in closing wage gaps between employees of different genders and races by raising wage floors and improving benefits like paid sick leave. Unlike a labor contract, they note, D.E.I. goals typically don’t impose a direct legal obligation on companies.

They may have a point. Companies who make very public DEI commitments are usually doing so voluntarily and the goals are often pretty vague. And as we’ve seen in the past year, these companies can change their minds a few years later and decide to step back from those commitments when the winds change. There’s no contract involved. Some on the DEI-focused left have suggested that companies that back away from such commitments leave themselves open to lawsuits. So it’s not necessarily true their are no potential consequences, but it’s not a union contract.

Still, the story points out that some unionists see DEI useful if only because it can be leveraged to push those companies further to the left.

…some on the left, while skeptical that diversity programs make workplaces more fair, and distrustful of the corporations that start them, still find the focus on D.E.I. to be tactically useful. When companies that showcase D.E.I. policies, like Starbucks and REI, resist employees’ attempts to unionize, organizers can sometimes gain leverage by accusing them of hypocrisy and tarnishing their progressive reputations.

It would be nice if the discussion would start and end with the fact that DEI training doesn’t work, but few of the companies who jumped on this bandwagon in 2020 seem interested in the truth. They are still trying to walk a fine line between what is socially seen as good behavior (mostly on the left) and what is too extreme and damaging to the bottom line. One thing most of them clearly find too risky is to look at the evidence and tell DEI hucksters to buzz off. It’s hard to blame them given how viscous and destructive the left can be to anyone who fails to toe the line.