As DEI evolves, what is it actually becoming?
As more companies, colleges and nonprofits are trying to avoid the political backlash of having Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) departments, a grand rebrand is happening. DEI offices, and those who sit in them, are no longer in diversity.
The latest to make that change? Harvard University, which announced Monday that, effective immediately, it would rename its Office of Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging to “Community and Campus Life.”
This language adjustment comes as the 47th President of the United States continues to encourage universities to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion through executive order and the threats of financial cuts. This month, two letters outlining demands to Harvard were sent, urging the university to dismantle its DEI programming—or lose federal funding. Given its $53 billion endowment and diversity office that employs more than a dozen people, Harvard’s efforts were targeted.
In response, Harvard rebuffed the demands and then turned around and sued the administration over the estimated $2.2 billion in federal funding that was frozen.
This new department name change is the latest concession in the political back and forth.
Beyond the change to the name of the office, Harvard’s chief diversity officer position was also retitled to “Chief Community and Campus Life Officer.”
Which had me wonder: What’s in a name?
From impact, culture, engagement and retention, new DEI department names are showing up throughout LinkedIn, on corporate websites, printed on business cards and at the bottom of email signatures.
In what used to be a title that was consistent across the board, it has now become so bespoke across companies, it’s hard to know what the role is—or what purpose it serves.
Rebranding DEI: A Strategic Pivot
For many organizations, the solution DEI headwinds lies in rebranding. By shifting away from the charged acronym “DEI” and adopting less politically fraught terminology, companies are finding ways to continue their work while avoiding backlash. Google, for instance, recently changed the title of its Chief Diversity Officer to Vice President of Googler Engagement, while Meta’s former CDO is now the VP of Accessibility & Engagement. Similarly, Amazon restructured their DEI group under the banner of Inclusive Experiences & Technology, signaling a shift in focus while maintaining its commitment to fostering an inclusive workplace. These changes are not merely cosmetic—they reflect a strategic effort to align with evolving legal requirements and public sentiment.
This heightened scrutiny has left companies grappling with a difficult question: How can they continue to promote diversity and inclusion without running afoul of new regulations or becoming embroiled in political controversy? And if the work of the DEI practitioner is still continuing, is the outside pressure on DEI simply a war on the acronym DEI, but not the work itself? It’s hard to tell, particularly if the companies are keeping the personnel in place.
Despite the political atmosphere, the business case for inclusion remains strong. Studies consistently show that diverse teams outperform their homogeneous counterparts, driving innovation and improving financial performance. Pew Research found that 86% of workers have a neutral-to-favorable opinion about increasing diversity, equity and inclusion in the workplace. Companies that abandon these efforts risk alienating employees, customers and stakeholders who value representation and fairness. Just ask Target, who has recently been involved in a boycott for that reason.
Diversity Officer Are Caught In A Maze
Over the past decade, the pendulum regarding DEI in corporate America has swung both ways: far to the left in 2020 in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder, and far to the right in 2024 with the election of our 47th president.
This shift in agenda has positioned diversity leaders in ways in which they’re quickly being asked to be everything to everybody. And like any role within an organization, that isn’t plausible.
The qualifications and efforts of DEI practitioners—some of which have MBAs, PhDs and decades of experience in corporations or federal agencies—have, in many cases, been overshadowed by the “merit of DEI’’ conversation.
While DEI greatly expanded as a profession over the past decade in the U.S., the reality is that many DEI departments were created to protect companies from litigation and claims made against them, while not offering any protection for the DEI practitioner themselves.
This is just one of many reasons many DEI practitioners are caught in a maze.
Some executives are bringing their chief diversity officers to the boardroom and committing to including their voice, their experience and their vote in management decisions, as well as providing clarity and commitment to their status and their work.
On the other side of the coin, many diversity officers—who took on roles originally intended to help companies carry on the important work of ensuring that all have a seat at the table—are spending every day in their cubicles and offices in a state of invisibility, in addition to fear for their status at the company going forward. They are being minimized and worked around, prohibited from speaking on public panels and prevented from engaging with their colleagues or remaining relevant internally. All of this leaves their professional pride, self-esteem and passion to deliver workplace equity in a state of purgatory. And I’m only speaking about those who stay: as many as 60% of all CDOs have left their roles at S&P 500 companies.
The Future of DEI: Beyond Acronyms
As companies adapt to the changing landscape, the essence of DEI should remain unchanged: creating workplaces where everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. Tools like DEI risk assessments, which measure legal, reputational, financial and cultural risks, are becoming essential for navigating this uncertain terrain. Companies are also shifting their focus from traditional diversity metrics, such as hiring quotas, to broader measures of workplace equity, like promotion rates and attrition patterns.
Perhaps the rebranding of DEI is not a retreat by all, but a recalibration. By adopting more precise language and focusing on actionable outcomes, the process of redefining inclusion strategies both globally and locally can improve and be more effective. The challenge lies in balancing compliance with evolving regulations while staying true to the values that drive innovation and employee engagement.
For companies navigating this new era, the key is to focus on the substance and authenticity of their efforts, ensuring that inclusion is not just a buzzword but a lived reality for employees and stakeholders alike.
And as the pendulum swings, this moment is an opportunity to redefine and strengthen your initiatives beyond “good enough”— and a chance to set your feet firm to lead into the future.