On the night of January 29, 2025, a military helicopter collided with a small passenger airliner in Washington D.C., just as the airliner was about to land at Reagan National Airport. The next morning, while first responders worked to recover the scene and families of the passengers tried to heal from the tragedy, the nation’s first Felon in Chief quickly blamed diversity initiatives and the previous administration for the crash, despite having no evidence.

During the presidential campaign, the Felon consistently attacked diversity initiatives, using “DEI” as a euphemism for derogatory terms: “so and so (of woman or a minority race) is a DEI hire…” implying incompetence based on race or gender. Since his inauguration, he has signed several executive orders to end DEI programs in federal agencies and encouraged federal employees to report colleagues working on those initiatives.

Aside from his well-documented history of racism, his current actions may stem from a personal vendetta against the Black Lives Matter movement during the 2020 presidential campaign he lost. Alternatively, dementia may have affected him to the point where his extremist handlers manipulate him to achieve their personal goals.

I see diversity initiatives as direct actions to undo racism and other types of discrimination. While direct discrimination has long been outlawed and disavowed, prejudices and stereotypes still persist. Diversity initiatives help us to recognize our own biases and look beyond stereotypes. It helps to reduce tension in workplaces and communities.

I have always supported diversity initiatives because I believe they are necessary to prevent painful consequences. During high school, I witnessed the Rodney King saga on TV: police brutality caught on camera, a court trial outcome many thought was unjust, and a riot in Los Angeles fueled by pent-up anger over racial discrimination, which pitted ethnic communities against each other. I’ve also witnessed the ugly campaign waged by then-Governor of California Pete Wilson against undocumented residents with Proposition 187, which stirred up fears in immigrant communities. While that proposition passed (and the court struck down many of the elements) and he served two terms, his actions inadvertently turned the Republican Party in California—home to two modern GOP presidents, Nixon and Reagan—into a permanent minority party, largely unable to win statewide seats.

For many years, community activists have urged transit agencies throughout the United States to pursue social equity, as these agencies determine the level of service and infrastructure investments in various areas. During the 1950s and 1960s, with federal funding, new freeways were built to support emerging white communities, dividing and bulldozing communities of color across the US. Later, in the 1990s, transit agencies pursued suburban rail expansions with federal funds but faced pushback from transit activists. These activists wanted investments redirected to bus services in the inner core, which had a higher minority population. This effort was successful in Los Angeles and Metro Rapid service was introduced in response. To be responsive to community demands and better serve their constituents as both service providers and employers, many agencies are interested in diversity initiatives, especially following the Black Lives Matter movement.

The murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and the Black Lives Matter movement sparked a national conversation about race in 2020. Those events led to significant growth in leadership roles focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), forced transit agencies to reconsider their approach to policing on their systems, and required agencies to revisit their relationships with riders of color.

-The Transit Equity Report by American Public Transportation Association, September 2024.

In the transit industry, although racial diversity exists at the lower levels of the workforce, the industry is largely male-dominated. The executive level remains predominantly white. Without efforts to improve diversity in recruitment, advancement, and awareness, this divide, with its inherent racial and gender biases, may foster a sense of distrust and injustice in a transit agency, affecting both employees internally and riders and the community externally.

Recognizing and appreciating diversity also improves employee morale, enhances decision-making, and decreases worker turnover. This is essential since many agencies have faced operator shortages in recent years, hampering service and ridership recovery after the COVID pandemic. As an example, Santa Clara VTA is partnering with a local ATU to empower women frontline transit workers and address unique needs, such as safety issues and restroom access.

Safety is paramount in the transportation business, whether it’s aviation, railroad, or transit. The safety culture that many companies and agencies strive for requires strict adherence to standards and procedures, and demands a sense of truthfulness and fairness from all transportation workers, whether at the executive level or in customer-facing roles. Diversity initiatives can enhance safety culture by fostering a collaborative atmosphere rather than relying solely on a top-down command hierarchy. This approach focuses on finding solutions and avoiding unsafe situations instead of letting accidents happen and assigning blame.

The notion that someone who has benefited from DEI policies is incompetent or wouldn’t be qualified without lowered standards is not what DEI policies intend to convey. One of the reasons for greater racial diversity at lower levels of transit employment, such as transit operators, is the paid training offered by transit agencies. Candidates for these jobs don’t face the training barrier present in other fields where applicants must pay for their own education. It is well-known that there is systemic bias against minorities in accessing quality education, with cost being a factor. Since the trainees will work for the agencies after training, lowering standards that compromise safety would be counterproductive and costly to the agencies.

Those who advocate against DEI say they’re for meritocracy, but I think what they really meant is toxic “bro” culture. This notion of meritocracy often gets twisted to justify exclusionary practices that favor a certain group over others, under the guise of performance. It’s as if they equate being part of the “in crowd” with actual capability.

A prime example of an employer promoting a toxic “bro” culture is Abercrombie & Fitch under the leadership of then CEO Mike Jeffries from the ’90s to 2014. The company marketed its brand as being for “the attractive, all-American kids.” While the brand’s “white hot” image was very profitable during that era, it also discriminated against racial minority employees for not fitting the white, preppy look and attracted numerous discrimination lawsuits. Even though a fashion company is very different from a transit agency, a toxic culture is equally harmful in both.

The idea that DEI prevents employers from hiring the “best and brightest” is also far from the truth. Most jobs, especially in transportation, don’t require artisanal or creative skills; only competency is necessary to perform them safely. It’s unrealistic to view every job as a sports championship, where candidates must fight hard against each other for the spot and the person hired is considered the best. A decade ago, when public transit jobs were preferred and had more applicants than positions, transit agencies were more selective, making positions harder to qualify for. However, as baby boomers retire, and companies like Uber and Lyft offer more flexible driving gigs, along with more work-from-home jobs available elsewhere, fewer people are applying for transit jobs. Diversity initiatives, especially those targeting women, can help attract more qualified candidates to this traditionally male-dominated field. Even in artisanal and creative positions, people from diverse backgrounds bring new perspectives and can break through the groupthink common in “bro” culture.

A petty and ill-conceived ban on diversity initiatives at the federal level will harm workers and negatively affect everyday Americans who interact with federal agencies. For those who are pushing to ban them, part of the plan is to cause pain. Unfortunately, some large employers, influenced by the false notion of DEI and meritocracy, chose to end their diversity programs as well. Transit agencies, governed at the local level, should know better and firmly reject calls to end these initiatives. They should also resist attempts by the federal government to impose its will through executive actions without Congress’s approval. Embracing diversity improves safety, enhances relations with transit riders and community members, and boosts employee satisfaction.