17005: DEIBA+ Debate Displays Dumbness.

MediaPost published a column on how dismantled DEIBA+ programs might affect advertising imagery, which provided a platform for a certain reader-cultural critic to stage a debate.

 

Check it out below.

 

With Companies Killing Their DEI Programs, What Happens To Ad Imagery?

 

By Barbara Lippert, Columnist

 

International Women’s Day is Saturday, March 8.

 

But you’d barely have known that in the corporate sector.

 

Ever since January 20, when President Trump signed an executive order banning DEI policies across the federal level and called on private companies to end their own programs, many corporations have retreated, quashing the progress that they’ve actively promoted for the last 15 years or so.

 

Corporate megaliths like Target, Meta, Google, etc. have already publicly curbed their diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

 

The move has since made Target a target of a 40-day boycott.

 

Backwards goes the progress, in a silent but deadly way.

 

In 2017, for instance, female empowerment was a vital part of the zeitgeist, and women’s successes were celebrated by progressive corporate brands and their customers.

 

That’s when investment management company State Street Advisors decided to advertise a State Street fund that invested in businesses with female leaders, and to mark the one-year anniversary of the company’s Gender Diversity Index Fund.

 

A straight ad campaign announcing as much would have come and gone without much fanfare.

 

Working with a team at McCann Erickson, State Street came up with the ultimate universal embodiment of female, and thereby human, possibility and vitality, the statue of “Fearless Girl.”

 

With her head held high, hands on her hips, this stone nine to 11 year old was placed facing down the famous “raging” Bull on Wall Street.

 

The reaction was global and seismic. The original plan was to leave her up for a week. She stayed, (but was eventually moved to another spot) and tens of thousands of inspired girls have since made the pilgrimage to pose with their fellow preteen-sized statue; tens of thousands more, along with their parents, have been dazzled and encouraged.

 

“We believe effective board oversight of a company’s long-term business strategy necessitates a diversity of perspectives, especially in terms of gender, race and ethnicity,” State Street policy announced just last year.

 

This week, the company has quietly done a 180.

 

In its updated policy released a few days ago, the 30% gender requirement was gone. Also missing were requirements for companies to disclose the gender, racial and ethnic composition of its board to State Street and to insure that the company has articulated DEI goals.  We don’t know if the statue will be removed.

 

Given these chilling moves, it’s no surprise that the superb Nike Super Bowl commercial, “So Win” is still an object of online backlash.

 

Narrated by Doeschii, the spot features such female powerhouses as Caitlin Clark, Sha’Carri Richardson, Juju Watkins and Jordan Chiles.

 

The female-focused spot, the first Super Bowl ad for the brand in 27 years, was imbued with the same majesty, art, and anger of those previously aimed at men.

 

The message was all about getting over what female athletes have been conditioned to hear: “You can’t be demanding…relentless…dominate…take credit…speak up…..”

So do it, the spot tells us. “So win.”

 

Of course, in the last decade or so, Caitlin Clark has made women’s basketball culturally relevant and respected, right up there with men’s teams. Other sports still have a way to go.

 

But on You Tube, Matt Walsh complained about the ad's “mindless girl power routine.”

“At a time when wokeness is dying, Nike is hanging on to it, and so is the NFL and that’s why they are cancelled,” he opined.

 

On “Real Time with Bill Maher” the comedian/host also took time to take a stab at “So win.”

 

“I feel like this is a giant zombie lie,” Maher said, explaining the concept as “something that used to be true, that stopped being true, and then people kept saying it.

 

“If the Democrats are ever going to win again, they have to realize something about the American people: They’re not that savvy about politics, but they know when you’re lying. When was the last time a woman was told: ‘You can’t do this, you can’t be confident’?’

 

“Who are these imaginary mean old men of the patriarchy?”

 

Well, Bill, talk about something that “used to be true and stopped being true.”

 

It will be interesting to see if advertisers continue to champion half the population in their messages, even while corporate overlords tow the new line.

 

Here’s the debate…

 

John Caldwell

DEI policies have no place in business or marketing because they undermine the very principles that make companies successful: merit, skill, and innovation. The push for "equity" over excellence does more harm than good by prioritizing surface-level diversity metrics over real qualifications and results. When businesses shift their focus from hiring the best person for the job to meeting quotas based on race and gender, they lower their own standards and sacrifice efficiency, creativity, and overall performance. These policies are inherently racist and sexist, as they judge individuals not on their abilities, experience, or contributions, but on immutable characteristics. That’s discrimination, no matter how it’s packaged.

The backlash against DEI policies isn’t about silencing women or minorities—it’s about rejecting the idea that identity should take precedence over merit. The idea that organizations like State Street abandoning their gender quotas marks some kind of "chilling" regression is absurd. If anything, it's a return to common sense. When companies like Nike push ads built on outdated narratives of oppression rather than celebrating real achievements, they insult their own audience. The notion that women today are universally told "you can't do this" is a "zombie lie," as Bill Maher put it. Women dominate in many fields, and their accomplishments should be recognized for what they are—not used as pawns in an ideological game.

Turning away from DEI isn’t about erasing progress; it’s about ensuring that progress is real and sustainable. Businesses succeed when they reward hard work, talent, and ingenuity—not when they make decisions based on race and gender. The companies pulling back from DEI are making a wise choice, not because they fear backlash, but because they understand that success is built on merit, not virtue signaling.

 

Joshua Chasin

100% disagree with the above.

This is the line the anti-DEI forces want you to believe. That DEI is anathema to merit. This is an unfortunate bastardization.

DEI is universally positive and beneficial.

What AREN’T positive or beneficial—and what have in my opinion been a mistake when implemented in the name of DEI—are two things: quotas; and differential standards by race, gender, or sexuality. We can agree that quotas and differential standards should not be part of the hiring decisions. These things are anathema to merit-based hiring.

Unfortunately, the racists and misogynists on the right have made DEI—which is, fundamentally, about REMOVING differential treatment by race, gender, sexuality etc.—synonymous with quotas and differential standards, which is its opposite. To me, DEI should assure that if I’m on the operating table and the best surgeon is trans, half-Japanese, half-black, with they/them pronouns, THAT’s who I want holding the scalpel. I don’t want a mediocre surgeon who got the gig because he’s a tall blonde white Christian heterosexual man. 

Be a champion. Be an ally. We’ll grant you that quotas and differential standards are counter-productive. But diversity, equity and inclusion are all things that make us all better. DEI backlash is driven by the narrow segment of the population that opposes the values of diversity, of equity, and of inclusion. All things that have made the US great for 250 years.

 

John Caldwell

The argument being made here is trying to have it both ways. On one hand, it concedes that quotas and differential standards based on race, gender, or sexuality are a mistake. On the other, it insists that DEI as a whole is “universally positive and beneficial.” That’s the contradiction. The reality is that in practice, DEI policies almost always include quotas, preferential hiring practices, and the prioritization of identity over qualifications. The claim that DEI is merely about “removing differential treatment” flies in the face of how it has actually been implemented in corporate America and academia over the past decade.

The assertion that “racists and misogynists on the right” are the ones equating DEI with hiring based on race and gender isn’t just dishonest—it’s a deflection. The reason DEI has become synonymous with these policies is because that’s exactly what companies have been doing. When corporations openly pledge to hire based on identity rather than merit, when job postings explicitly state that certain racial or gender groups are “strongly preferred,” and when training sessions push ideological narratives over practical skills, it’s clear that DEI is not about removing bias but about institutionalizing a new form of it.

The hypothetical about the surgeon is particularly misleading. No one is arguing that an unqualified White man should be chosen over a highly skilled surgeon of any background. That’s a strawman. The real issue is whether identity politics should play any role in that decision at all. The best surgeon should get the job based on skill, experience, and performance—not because they check a demographic box. Yet, under DEI-driven hiring practices, there is a very real risk that identity does play a role, which directly undermines the meritocracy that makes any profession, from medicine to engineering to business, function at its best.

The claim that DEI backlash is driven by people who oppose “diversity, equity, and inclusion” is another bad-faith argument. Opposing DEI as it currently exists does not mean opposing diversity. It means opposing forced diversity at the expense of competence. It means opposing “equity,” which in practice means engineered outcomes rather than fair opportunities. It means rejecting an approach that demands inclusion for some by excluding others. The United States has thrived because of meritocracy, not because of social engineering. If the best way to make the country great is to ensure that people succeed based on ability, then DEI—as it is actually implemented—stands in direct opposition to that.

 

Dan Ciccone

There is a lot of conflation here.

 

DEI is not going away. It's the “equity” that many companies struggle with (and society in general) as it’s not quantifiable. There is not a single company, nor the U.S. government, that is doing away with trying to achieve a diverse and inclusive workforce—but it is the equity arm that is being challenged and causing angst and confusion. Equity purports “systemic disadvantages” and you’d be hard-pressed to find universal agreement on what “system disadvantages” exist from group to group.

 

As far as ad imagery, is there some kind of study or proof that brands are now not going to cast people of certain races or sexual preference? 

 

The Nike girl power ad is a perfect example—half the audience who saw it thought it was great and the other half thought it was 20 years behind and belittling.

 

No product can be everything to everyone.

 

John Caldwell

This argument tries to separate “equity” from DEI, but the problem is the entire framework. DEI prioritizes identity over merit, embedding race, gender, and sexuality into hiring, promotions, and marketing. It’s not just “equity” causing issues—companies have openly prioritized demographic goals over competence, leading to inefficiency and backlash.

The claim that businesses and the government aren’t moving away from DEI is misleading. Many companies are eliminating DEI roles, dropping quotas, and returning to merit-based standards because DEI weakens performance and alienates customers.

On advertising, the issue isn’t whether brands will stop casting certain groups—it’s whether they’ll stop prioritizing identity over talent and messaging. The Nike ad fell flat because it pushed an outdated victim narrative instead of resonating with audiences. DEI-driven marketing often fails because it prioritizes politics over connecting with consumers.