Fresh Air - How Did DEI Become Part Of A Political Agenda — And A Slur?

Episode Date: March 5, 2025

Georgetown professor Ella Washington and Harvard professor Frank Dobbin discuss the beneficiaries and misperceptions of diversity, equity and inclusion, DEI, and who will be hurt as it's dismantled across public and private sectors.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

This is Fresh Air, I'm Tonya Mosley, and today we're discussing the rapid dismantling of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives commonly known as DEI in both public and private sectors nationwide. One side of the political spectrum praises DEI, often referring to it as a major step toward progress. The other uses it as a slur, an example of won't culture gone too far, and it's become a challenge to debate its merits when we can't even agree on what it is. The cascade to dismantle anything called DEI began in January, when President Trump issued executive orders to eliminate initiatives within the federal government and institutions

that receive funding from the government. Since then, states like Florida, Texas, and Utah have banned DEI offices at public universities, and companies like Pepsi and Disney and McDonald's have done away or quietly shifted their focus away from initiatives that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. To help us understand the criticism, the developments, and implications, we're joined by two distinguished experts, Frank Dobbin, Professor of Sociology at Harvard University, and Ella Washington, an organizational psychologist and professor at Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business. Welcome to you both.

Thank you for having me. Thank you. Well, I think it's good for us to start with some basics because I'm not even sure when I'm in conversation with people about DEI if we're talking about the same things because it's become such a broad term. So I think it's great for all of us to start with how you both define DEI and I'll start with you Dr. Washington. Well, you know, diversity, equity, and inclusion is the terminology that we use at the current date. And it should be noted that this terminology has gone through evolutions over the past

six decades. At the core, what we're talking about with this work is creating workplace environments and systems in our society where everyone has the opportunity to succeed and everyone has the opportunity to thrive. That is the core of diversity, equity, and inclusion. I would say in simple terms, DEI comes out of legislation trying to assure equality of opportunity, that is, having the same chances in the labor market by race, ethnicity, creed, starting in 1961, and then by gender as well, starting in 1964. Can you all remind us of the realities for non-white men in corporate America, I mean, corporate America education, civic life before those civil rights protections, which was

basically another iteration, the earlier iteration of DEI as we know it. I think we have short memories and 60 years have passed since that legislation was passed. And so the current discussion around DEI has become so muddled. I think it would be good for us to have an understanding before those protections on what the realities were in corporate life for people. So before 1961, when John F. Kennedy issued an executive order requiring all firms with federal contracts and by extension all federal agencies to practice what he called affirmative action, which means just taking positive steps to end the history of discrimination in employment.

Before that time, most employers, most private sector corporations, would not hire black men except for a certain number of jobs. So if we take the example of Lockheed's plant in Marietta, Georgia, which was a huge federal contractor building military airplanes, they would only hire black men for a few jobs, such as janitor and washroom attendant. They didn't recruit very broadly for black men. They didn't allow black men to any other kind of job. And they didn't provide the kinds of training that they provided for white men to black

men. So they didn't provide skills training so that they could move up within the workforce. So the 1961 affirmative action order got Lockheed to really change their ways. I think it's important to remember as well that in 1961 Jim Crow laws were still in effect in the South, enforcing segregation in housing, in employment, in education. And just because the North didn't have those laws didn't mean that there wasn't the same kind of employment discrimination that we saw in the South.

So most Northern employers weren't hiring black men for any but the lowest level jobs, weren't promoting them, weren't offering black men for any but the lowest level jobs, weren't promoting them, weren't offering them skilled development. So the world has changed a lot. You know, there is this perception, I mean, much like the argument against affirmative action, that DEI allows for preferential treatment of minority groups, and it has come at a cost,

meaning that it has turned into reverse discrimination. I'm just wondering based on the research that both of you all have done, what groups have benefited most from it and is there research or data that show patterns of reverse discrimination? In the 1970s, there were a number of reverse discrimination legal cases filed against private sector employers and against police and fire departments. And the courts never found any of these cases to have merit. So those cases disappeared in part because lawyers couldn't win them.

And so if you wanted to file a reverse discrimination court, you couldn't find a lawyer because lawyers in these tort cases work on commission, essentially. They take 30% of the proceeds if they win. So since then, it's been pretty much impossible to find a lawyer who will represent you in a reverse discrimination suit. Another piece of evidence comes from social science researchers who try to see if there's discrimination either in favor of white people or in favor of non-white people. Typically they're looking at white men versus black men and Hispanic men.

And they send resumes of essentially identical people to employers to see if they get called back and sometimes they send actual job applicants to the same employers. And they have consistently found that white men are advantaged in all kinds of jobs. They have never found these studies that Hispanic men or black men are advantaged in getting any kind of job. You mentioned those lawsuits from the 70s, reverse discrimination lawsuits that didn't go anywhere. You have also made a point to say that, I mean, basically

white nationalist groups have been fighting against the Civil Rights Act and really diversity, equity, and inclusion for the last 60 years. What is different now is that this effort is mainstream. What was the ignition that really set off this effort? Really, it seems like over the last five years or so. Well, I think there are two main things that have gone on over the last few years. One is that the economic situation of white working-class people, men and women, has deteriorated. And it's deteriorated over many years. So over the last 30 years, white, non-college educated Americans, their relative income has declined compared to other groups, in particular, compared to better educated white Americans.

And so that group of people is feeling particularly beleaguered right now. And whenever the economy is in bad straights, it's relatively easy to get people to come out and identify a foe and essentially lay blame to some particular group. So I think what we're seeing here is that it's been very easy for people on the right to demonize immigrants and people of color as causing either problems in the American economy, in the case of people of color, and problems in the labor market, that is, they're stealing your jobs and eating your cats and dogs, in the case of immigrants. But also, we've seen that in the past, when civil rights groups get some wins, it often agitates white people who are on the right end of the spectrum.

So what we saw was, I think, the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement after the murder of George Floyd in 2020. The response to that was a very organized social movement, the reactivation of the Proud Boys, a lot of right-wing extremist groups, white nationalist groups, gained membership, and also we saw some support from Trump and his allies for those groups. So I think the pendulum often swings back and forth when it comes to support for anti-DEI or anti-equality of opportunity groups and pro-DEI, pro-quality of opportunity groups. I do think that, as you suggest, this is just a different moment.

And, you know, I might add just some context around the pendulum swinging and the cyclical nature of social progress. When we look back in history, every major movement from civil rights, gender equity, accessibility, they've all faced pushback at different points in time. And if we look back all the way to 1963, for example, a Gallup survey found that only four in 10 Americans had a favorable opinion of Dr. King right before his famous speech. And so only 16% of those surveys actually viewed him highly favorable.

Fast forward to today, the Pew Research Center says that eight in 10 Americans say that Martin Luther King Jr. had a positive impact on the United States. And so if you just put that in context of where we are today, it's not shocking that we see people on both ends of the spectrum and many people in the middle not quite sure what to think. I do think history will be a teacher for us again, as we see how companies especially that are not under the federal mandates currently have shown up in this moment or have failed to do so. I'm really interested in how private companies, many of them are preemptively doing away with their DEI

initiatives and I would guess that some of them receive subsidies from the US government and that is probably why they're taking these steps. But Dr. Washington, you have often worked directly within the private sector with companies, knowing kind of those internal conversations. What do you make of some of those preemptive strikes to do away with DEI initiatives? When contending with legal ramifications,

institutions have to be very calculated. There are very real downstream consequences of ignoring federal mandates, especially if you are an institution that receives federal contracts and the like. Yet, for those in the private sector where there has not been legal mandates just yet, you know, we see companies dismantling these DEI efforts, and they are sending a clear message that inclusion and diversity and equity are only a priority when it's easy, when it's popular, as we saw in 2020. And so, you know, I think what's at stake is much bigger than any one initiative. It's about who gets access to opportunity

and who doesn't. And I think that companies that abandon DEI preemptively, they're going to find themselves struggling with things like retention, innovation, and reputation in the long run. Because just as employees and consumers were watching very closely what happened in 2020, they're still watching. And I do think at some point they will be holding these organizations accountable. How effective do you think economic boycotts are? There was one that just happened just this past Friday.

We'll learn in the next few days the outcomes of those. But people are trying to show their beliefs through their wallets. Historically, how successful has something like that been? Well, we know from the research on social movements and especially social movements targeting corporations that they are pretty effective. It's not really the economic pain that matters so much. It's the optics. It's what will this look like to our clients,

to our potential investors. I think we're in an unusual moment now though, where the person in charge of the country is siding with people who used to be considered a fringe right-wing activists who are favoring white nationalism. So I do think that CEOs are going to struggle to figure out what the best solution to this is. So some of this stuff, the right-wing activism,

really started before Trump came to office. There were certain activists on the right, like Christopher Ruffo and Robby Starbuck, who were coming out against big corporations that, for example, supported Pride events or had public DEI announcements that were quite visible. And a bunch of companies between last June and the inauguration of Donald Trump did backtrack on things. And some of America's biggest employers backtracked on things. But the things they backtracked on were kind of low-hanging fruit, things that probably weren't affecting their workforces much. Like what? Well, for example, they didn't get rid of mentoring programs, which can be super effective

at helping people of color and women to stay in the workforce and to move up. But they got rid of, for example, internships targeting black Americans, usually college students, or they just opened them up to everybody. So that's something that's kind of not part of the main HR strategy. Some employers got rid of set-asides or preferences for, say, use of women-owned businesses, women-owned suppliers or law firms and things like that. So they tended to get rid of things that specifically mentioned a group and not things that were designed to just kind of open up the career system, like the skills training programs

I mentioned. A lot of employers help people of color to move up, just like they help working-class white people to move up by offering apprenticeships and skills training. I didn't see those being closed down. Danielle Pletka Tanya, if I could add something. So, going back to your question around are boycotts effective? In addition to what Dr. Dobbin has said, you know, I think the challenge for the everyday person is balancing the urgency of the moment with a long-term strategy. As we've been talking about, you know, this work didn't just start in 2020 or yesterday, and it will

take, you know, a long time for us to continue to see the progress and unfortunately reverse much of the damage that is being done currently. But for context, the famous Montgomery Bus Boycott in the 1950s was 381 days. And so if we learn from history, we know that there has to be a more long-term commitment to these types of boycotts to really see their impact. One thing that I want to note is we're not only seeing the reversal of DEI in many sectors, but DEIA, which also includes accessibility for disabled people. That has been much less of a headline, but what are you two noticing on that front, Dr.

Dobbin. A for accessibility covers people with disabilities. And I think the surprise to me is that in some of the recent pronouncements from the Trump administration, DEIA is mentioned specifically. And a very large number of people with disabilities are veterans. And a lot of activities that we think of as DEI activities are connected to veterans. So when Ron DeSantis closed DEI offices in the University of Florida system and fired a bunch of people, he was firing a bunch of Veterans Affairs officers as well, as people who we think of traditionally as DEI officers. So to me, it's kind of surprising. It would surprise me if there isn't some backlash within

the right to try to turn back the challenge to accessibility since it covers so many veterans. I think it's important for us to think about all the ways DEI has an impact on our work and lived experience that maybe we don't realize because the media focuses on just a few, you know, impacts of DEI. So things like language translation services, parental leave for fathers, pay equity, time off for religious holidays, remote work or flexible schedules, lactation rooms for nursing mothers. I mean, the list of impact is very long. And the media has taken two or three areas

of hiring, promotion, and admissions and focused in on those. But I think part of helping folks understand why this work is so important is helping them understand all of the ways that DEI actually has a real life impact on us, even if you are not in one of those few classes that are often talked about, you know, women and people of color. Our guests today are Professors Frank Dobbin of Harvard University and Ella Washington

of Georgetown. Our conversation was recorded on Monday. More after a short break. I'm Tanya Mosley and this is Fresh Air. A lot happens in Washington every day, from the White House to Capitol Hill and everywhere in between. That's where we come in. On the NPR Politics Podcast, we keep you up to date on what happens inside Washington

and what it means for you and your community. The NPR Politics Podcast. Listen wherever you listen. If you're a super fan of Fresh Air with Terry Gross, we have exciting news. WHYY has launched a Fresh Air Society, a leadership group dedicated to ensuring Fresh Air's legacy. For over fifty years, this program has brought you fascinating interviews with favorite authors, artists, actors, and more. As a member of the Fresh Air Society, you'll receive special benefits and recognition. Learn more at whyy.org slash Fresh Air Society. You know, we've been talking about all of the ways that diversity, equity and inclusion

can be thought of in the context of work and civic life. And Dr. Dobbin, you and your colleagues actually analyzed three decades worth of data from about 800 companies and interviewed hundreds of managers and executives. You found that some of the most effective solutions to inclusivity and diversity aren't even designed with diversity in mind. You mentioned earlier like training programs, but can you give us some other examples of that? Well, so lots of training programs, pretty much every training program we look at helps

to promote diversity if it's open to all employees. And increasingly when firms put in training programs, they are open to all employees. For example, Walmart ten years ago now put in a program to train all frontline workers. Over the course of a couple of years, they trained everybody up. That clearly had an effect on the representation of people of color in their management ranks because it's not necessarily that their skills improved, but they also saw, hey, my employer is making a commitment to me. And since I've been trained, I'm more likely to get a promotion. So training of all sorts, even when it's not under the banner of DEI, is quite effective.

I mentioned mentoring programs before. When companies put in mentoring programs for everybody and ask everybody, please sign up to get a mentor voluntarily, please sign up to be a mentor, it has very significant positive effects on the retention of women and people of color. And so we see for white women,

black men and women, Hispanic men and women, Asian men and women, we see significant increases in their representation in firms and in management after a mentoring program goes into effect. I'll say just maybe two more things. Recruiting more broadly. So a lot of organizations in the last seven or eight years have recruited very broadly because we've had a tight labor market except for a couple of months during COVID. Employers are having trouble finding people to work. The national unemployment rate has been around 4% in some labor markets. It's much tighter than that.

Employers lose people for other jobs, often, more often in the tight labor market. So more employers are recruiting more widely. So if they used to go to, say, the colleges and high schools that their current staff graduated from, now they're going to all of the colleges and high schools that their current staff graduated from. Now they're going to all of the colleges and high schools in the area. In many places, that means they're going to high schools in majority-minority neighborhoods. They're going to historically black colleges, to Hispanic-serving institutions, to institutions that serve a lot of immigrants. And there again, the effect is pretty dramatic increases in the diversity of workers and

eventually in the diversity of supervisors and managerial staff. So these are all things that employers can absolutely continue to do. And that's one reason I'm optimistic that employers that want to stay where they are in terms of diversity and see improvements can do it. You know, I think that is the big question is, if it's not mandated, if it's not under a diversity, equity, and inclusion initiative or mandate, will these things happen? I mean, the beauty of mentoring programs is you don't get to choose who your protege is.

So, formal programs just assign you to somebody if you volunteer to be a mentor. And the great thing about that is that people who wouldn't necessarily have chosen a black woman, a white man executive who wouldn't necessarily have chosen a black woman, a white man executive who wouldn't necessarily have chosen a black woman, gets a black woman as his protege anyway. And we know from lots of research from psychologists and sociologists that being in contact with somebody from another group is the best way to really fight individual-level bias. It's much more effective to have a mentee from another group than it is to go to six diversity trainings for four hours a year. Those tend not to have any effect on what workforce diversity looks like.

You know, what you've been asking about is why companies really care. And I think, you know, there are two reasons that are often given. First as we're talking about the bottom line implications, the business case, if you will. And then also the moral case, the case of are we doing something that's good for society? Are we creating a more fair and equitable society for ourselves, for our children, for those in the communities that we exist in. And, you know, folks in this work have had a long history of saying it's the business

case, the moral case, it's both. But I do think that businesses are paying attention to both. When you think about the moral case, if it's the right thing to do, you know, we could have a whole different conversation about that. But as we focus in on the business case, you know, looking at Gen Z, which is what many companies are thinking about in terms of the war on talent and how they're going to attract and cultivate and retain top talent, Gen Z is the most demographically diverse group that we've ever seen come into the workplace.

And they also have a different perspective on what they expect from their workplace environments. And so while they are just entering and they're entry level workers right now, you know, they will continue to rise in the ranks of organizations and continue to demand differently from the places they work. By 2030, Gen Z will make up 30% of the workforce. And so I think, you know, we can talk about what's right and also organizations are paying attention to the impacts for their talent and for their business. I mean, that's so interesting what you're saying about what Gen Z expects as they enter the workforce, right?

Ten years ago, you know, having a lactation room at a place of employment was like a hard fought win. In many places still don't have them. And you're talking about language services and like language translation services though in the face of what is happening on the national level against uses of other languages, you know, the president declaring that English is the official language, though. It's like all of these things that are expectations are up against like these real shifts and changes that are happening on the federal level. And I'm just wondering how are you looking at those two things in contrast with

each other? Well, let's put it in context of, you know, what Gen Z expects, right? You know, they were born between 1997 and 2012, and the ADA Act has been around since the early 90s. And so they grew up in a world that accessibility was mandated but also part of their lived experience, just like social media has been part of their almost entire lived experience. And so when they show up to work, they have very different expectations, for better or for worse, of what their workplace environment will be.

And they are not afraid to vote with their feet, if you will. You know, 56% of Gen Zers today said they wouldn't accept a job without diverse leadership. And 68% say their employer is not doing enough to build more diverse workplaces. And so I think as we tap into what the future of the workforce requires, we can look at demographics alone, but we also can look at what these Gen Z-ers are expecting from their workplaces as a signal to where companies may need to be paying attention. Dr. Dobbin, I want to go back to something you talked about, you said earlier, around diversity training.

I think one of the most controversial and contentious elements of diversity, equity, inclusion today is the popularity of those types of workshops over the last few years. Why don't diversity and say like implicit bias trainings work? Well, if you think about what implicit bias training is trying to do, just to take that part of diversity training to begin with, the goal is to make people aware of their own biases so that they will be able to interrupt

their own thought processes and decision processes and rid the decisions of bias. So they'll be able to step back and say, ah, wait a minute, am I giving the black candidate a fair shot here? But when people are told that they are biased, and that's what implicit bias training does, it tells everybody that they're biased, they don't react positively. Nobody really reacts positively to being told they're biased. And as a consequence, people often leave, and I'm thinking about white men in particular, people often leave feeling that they've been challenged, that they've been called a slur, a racist, or a sexist.

And they often leave in a very kind of defensive manner, like feeling they need to defend their own fairness. So often people just leave the room antagonized or increasingly they're doing these online and they leave the session antagonized. And what we see in our research is that that kind of training that's designed to convince people that they're biased and that then includes a legalistic component, which basically shows what kinds of judgments have been upheld against firms that were found in court to have discriminated. So basically, here's the punishment your company might get for your biases.

That kind of training with the one-two, you are biased and your company might be punished in court for it, actually leads to decreases in the diversity of firms after they put that kind of training in. And the disappointing thing is that's the most common kind of training out there. Something like two-thirds, three-quarters of firms have that kind of training out there, something like two-thirds, three-quarters of firms have that kind of training. So it's not that there's no kind of training that works, but for the most part, what companies are doing sort of backfires, and it's ironic because if you ask them why they do it, they'll

say, we'll get into legal trouble if we don't do it, which isn't strictly true. I mean, both of you have talked about some of the pitfalls of outside companies coming into organizations to impart this training, in part because they don't know or understand the culture and some of the ways to really have that kind of conversation using the language and the understanding of the components of the organization? Well, listen, a one-time training is never going to shift your DEI initiatives. It's never going to have the long-term impacts that you want. And unfortunately, a lot of companies saw training as an easy way to bring someone in, give the whole organization some DEI background, some language, some feel-good

moments, if you will. But those companies were still the same ones that were not committed to really integrating this work throughout the whole employee life cycle. You can't do a one-time celebration of Women's History Month or a one-time training and think that it's really going to shift the culture of the organization.

And so, I think even companies that started doing those things in 2020 were already setting themselves up for failure. Now they're looking back and saying, well, we haven't seen much progress. You know, I'd argue that you didn't approach this challenge of your DEI initiatives with an approach that would lead to those long-term outcomes. What have you all seen that works? A full disclosure, many years ago, about a decade ago, when I was at Stanford, I worked with social scientists to create this implicit bias curriculum for newsrooms,

and it wasn't perfect, we knew it at the time, but it allowed us to have conversations about things that we hadn't talked about that really did impact our day-to-day work, like homogeneous teams working in predominantly Black cities, for instance, or Ivy League graduates covering working-class communities. Has research shown any value in having conversations of any kind like this about systemic racism or implicit bias in the workplace, is there space to have that kind of conversation to get to solutions?

So, I think one of the critical things you have to put in context is, are these conversations voluntary or are folks being forced to have them? I think the conversations themselves when they are engaged with folks who really want to be there, who want to learn, who are curious about the experiences of people who come from different backgrounds, I think they are hugely beneficial. However, a lot of the pushback we see and even from a research perspective, we know that trainings that are mandated are not as effective

because people don't come with those open-minded approaches. And so, you know, I completely agree with Dr. Daven that we must create environments where people have that exposure to people with different lived experiences, having diverse teams. However, I would say sometimes it is a catch-22 of what comes first. We want more diverse teams so people can be exposed to people with different backgrounds and we know they will likely have a better work experience from that as well as better performance as a team. But yet if we don't have the systems in place to encourage more diversity, i.e. DEI, then we don't get that experience.

I think further we have to be honest about where the diversity sits within our organization, right? You see many organizations have a diverse team that sits maybe in marketing, or they have women in human resources that are leaders, but we don't see them leading other parts of the organization. And so even organizations with demographic diversity

in the frontline or on paper, are they experiencing that cultural diversity in their everyday interactions? That's not always clear. And so when we rely just on training or just on a monthly cultural celebration to be our DEI strategy, it is going to fail when it comes to

those measurable outcomes that leaders are now looking for in order to prove that they should continue their DEI efforts. You know, I often say systemic problems need systemic solutions. And a training itself is not changing the actual system that created some of those gaps that we see between underrepresented groups. There's also, with the overarching political landscape, with DEI now thought of as a slur, I mean, will companies continue the work in stealth mode and in other ways if there are no longer laws or mandates to require it or there's pressure to dismantle it for fear of losing potential

funding. So, I personally think that some companies will try to do it in stealth mode, and some companies that weren't really that committed to it to begin with and may not mind dismantling parts of it. But for those that are committed, I personally think we need to wait to see what sticks of the many things the Trump administration has tried to do. And that might mean making yourself slightly open to, say, federal litigation, but it's just hard to see how the Department of Justice or the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are going to get their act together quickly to, for example, go after companies that seem to have not abided by Trump's initial orders to cease all DEI activity. Let's take a short break. If you're just joining us, I'm talking to professors Frank Dobbin and Ella Washington, both experts in diversity, equity, and inclusion, about the nationwide dismantling of DEI initiatives. This past weekend, under the Trump administration, the Department of Education launched a new website called NDEI, a federal tip line for reporting

instances where initiatives are being implemented or taught in schools. We'll continue our conversation after a short break. This is Fresh Air. I'm just curious for both of you the toll that these rollbacks have had because I assume you do this work because you feel like it's the right thing to do. I'll start with you, Dr. Washington. Well, I think for me, there's layers here. I'm a black woman. And so not only is this work my professional work, but this is very personal for me me I can't go to work and change my outward appearance and I wouldn't want to but because of that when there are attacks on

Race-based admission when there are attacks on you know women's rights It does have an impact on me not just from a professional lens and so it's been heavy Not only that but for me, there's not often a break from this work. Meaning, when I'm at work, I'm counseling and giving advice to my students or my clients. I turn off the laptop and turn on my personal life and it's there too. And so in every party, at every connection point I have with people, they're eager to talk about this. But those of us who do this work don't often get a break, particularly those of us from underrepresented groups.

Peter Robinson As somebody who's been studying this for more than 40 years now, we've had a lot of ups and downs. And, you know, I certainly studied the ups and downs of the civil rights movement. And this looks like, although I said it's a pendulum before, but this looks like much more than the pendulum swing. It looks like an effort to really roll us back to a time before there were any protections for people of color, for women, for LGBTQ Americans, for Americans with disabilities. But I think it's important to remember that we've been here before. Ronald Reagan tried to do away with affirmative action and equal opportunity protections.

And his own lieutenants stopped him from doing it because, those days, Republicans as well as Democrats thought we had some work to do. And as I was saying earlier, I think perhaps even a bigger force in pushing America towards more equal opportunity is just the labor market because it's been so tight for seven or eight years. Employers have really had to figure out how to do more with fewer people and how to upskill people, how to retain people, and how to give them the things that they need to stay around. Is there a difference generationally in how people view DEI? Like, have your students in particular in class, have they said anything about the things

that are happening in the moment with President Trump's executive orders? I think they're looking for us, the adults in the room, or supposed adults in the room, to give them some context on what to believe, what to do next. They've not lived through a moment like this. And what I explained is I haven't either, right? We are really charting new territory in many ways. However, I do try to point them to many of the historical lessons that we've been talking about during this conversation, that while we may not have seen these exact playbooks,

we have seen a lot of the same strategies that we are seeing today around the anti-dei rhetoric And so if there's any place of hope for me It's looking at this next generation what they expect and what they will demand especially just truly looking at their demographic makeup and how they've been raised to Really think of these efforts as a necessity and not a nice to have. Frank Dobbin, Ella Washington, thank you all so much for your expertise in this conversation. Thank you for having me.

Thank you so much. Ella Washington is an organizational psychologist and professor of practice at Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business. And Frank Dobbin is a professor of sociology at Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business. And Frank Dobbin is a professor of sociology at Harvard University. Tomorrow on Fresh Air, actor Simu Liu. He's best known for his breakout role as Shang-Chi, Marvel's first Asian superhero, and for playing a rival kin in the film Barbie. He'll talk about his latest role alongside Woody Harrelson and the new film Last Breath.

It's about deep sea divers who perform a life-saving rescue. I hope you can join us. To keep up with what's on the show and get highlights of our interviews, follow us on Instagram at NPR Fresh Air. Fresh Air's executive producer is Danny Miller. Our technical director and engineer is Audrey Bentham. Our managing producer is Sam Brigger. Our interviews and reviews are produced and edited by Phyllis Myers, Roberta Shorrock, Anne-Marie Boldonado, Lauren Krenzel, Monique Nazareth, Thea Challener, Susan Ngocundi, and

Anna Bauman. Our digital media producer is Molly Stevie Nesbur. Teresa Madden directed today's show. With Cherry Gross, I'm Tonya Mosley.