To the Editor:
Re “Inside the Crusade Against D.E.I.” (front page, Jan. 21):
The conservative activists featured in this article aim to eliminate equality of opportunity for the majority of Americans. These ideologues are creating a dangerously false and extremely narrow view of diversity, equity and inclusion — one that equates the “D” in D.E.I. almost exclusively with issues of race and sexual orientation.
Attacks on D.E.I. constitute a strike against equality for most Americans.
In the U.S., diversity is widely acknowledged to encompass numerous communities, which collectively constitute the majority of our nation. D.E.I. programs advance considerations relating to women; Black, Indigenous and people of color communities; veterans; people with disabilities; L.G.B.T.Q. people; and a multigenerational work force.
D.E.I. seeks to ensure that individuals embodying these intersecting identities are provided with equal opportunities to succeed in all walks of life, including in our education system and workplaces.
D.E.I. programs are about realizing the hallowed American dream. It is a shame that conservative activists seek to shatter a bedrock principle of our nation: equality.
Anika Rahman
New York
The writer is C.E.O. of the National Diversity Council.
To the Editor:
Your in-depth report “Inside the Crusade Against D.E.I.” sheds light on the Republican policy goal of rolling back the social and economic progress of modern American history from the New Deal on, including the historic legislation to fight racial and gender discrimination and the protection of voting rights.
As we watch Donald Trump try to claw his way back to the White House with his plan to use the Constitution as a doormat, I keep hoping to wake up from this dystopian tale that could have been written by Margaret Atwood.
Bob Salzman
New York
To the Editor:
Re “Critics of D.E.I. Forget That It Works,” by Caroline Elkins, Frances Frei and Anne Morriss (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 27):
As a lifelong leftist and social activist, I applaud the writers for their eloquent defense of D.E.I. However, as an advocate of academic and intellectual freedom, I also adamantly oppose anything having to do with loyalty oaths or ideological litmus tests, which unfortunately have become elements of D.E.I. initiatives on too many U.S. campuses. I am sorry the authors did not acknowledge this serious and ominous development.
History has shown us all too plainly the harm that well-meaning zealots can do when they fail to take into consideration the possible consequences — unintended and otherwise — of their efforts to retool and reshape the world.
Our campuses need to be proactive in recruiting and supporting diverse faculty, students and others in exactly the ways, and for the exact reasons, that the authors discuss. They must also, however, remain havens of free intellectual inquiry and exchange. After all, this is what “diversity” and “inclusion” are supposed to be about.
David G. Whiteis
Chicago
To the Editor:
For companies and organizations that want to stay the course regarding D.E.I. (as recommended in your guest essay), there’s an important, scientifically proven tool: unconscious bias training.
Much controversy has swirled around this type of training, but the scientific consensus — as reported in 2023 in The Harvard Negotiation Law Review — is that many techniques exist for the reduction of our biases, especially if the trainings are voluntary.
The main problem with unconscious bias training appears to be that its effects abate if they are not reinforced. It is unrealistic to expect transformative effects from a single training, but trainings can provide participants with tools, such as perspective taking, contact and exposure to counter-stereotypic images, that can chip away at ingrained attitudes and produce more diverse, equitable and inclusive outcomes in companies and organizations.
David Hoffman
Boston
The writer is a lecturer at Harvard Law School.
To the Editor:
Critics of D.E.I. do not forget that it works, but rather they are afraid that it does work. D.E.I. is too successful left unchallenged to remain in its intended form!
Mark J. Kropf
Port Jefferson, N.Y.
Abolish the Federal Death Penalty
To the Editor:
Re “Execution in Alabama Leaves Sides Divided” (news article, Jan. 27):
In November 2022 Kenneth Smith was taken off death row, strapped to a gurney and jabbed repeatedly with needles. The execution team failed to deliver its poison, and a punctured Mr. Smith was returned to his cell.
Last week Mr. Smith was strapped to the gurney once again. A mask was clamped to his face, his lungs were filled with nitrogen gas, and this time his life was extinguished.
We are told that the Biden administration was “deeply troubled” by accounts of Mr. Smith’s death. Does this mean that the president will now deliver on his promise to abolish the federal death penalty?
It is within his gift to spare the lives of the 40 men held on federal death row. All that is required is a few strokes of the presidential pen to sign the necessary orders. Why not, Mr. Biden?
Ian O’Donnell
Greystones, Ireland
The writer is a professor of criminology at University College Dublin and the author of “Justice, Mercy and Caprice: Clemency and the Death Penalty in Ireland.”
To the Editor:
Re “A River Ran Through It Before Farms Took Their Share” (news article, Jan. 20):
Thank you for reporting on the drying of the Merced River in California. Unfortunately, it’s not just the Merced. Our scientists estimate that 96 percent of California’s rivers do not have flow protections, meaning that water can be diverted for use until they go dry. People lose safe drinking water, downstream farms lose revenue, and 50 percent of freshwater species in California are on a trajectory to be lost in my son’s lifetime.
Users have the right to take more water each year in California than actually flows in our state. We are perpetually overdrawing our water sources, and need to balance our water use as we face bigger drought and flood cycles from climate change.
But, how much water should be in a river to ensure that it’s healthy? With collaborators, our scientists have developed a “functional flows” approach defining the amount of water needed to support ecological function, which recognizes that we can’t return all our rivers to historical conditions.
Using these tools, the state should set flows standards and regularly monitor conditions. Then we can all start planning how best to use water. It’s a big change, but necessary for our future — one in which we keep rivers like the Merced flowing.
Sandi Matsumoto
Sacramento
The writer is director of the California water program at the Nature Conservancy.
Celebrity Sells
To the Editor:
Your columnists frequently wonder what keeps Donald Trump afloat in the presidential campaign. The answer is in the air all around us: celebrity. Donald Trump acts like a celebrity. Joe Biden does not act like a celebrity.
And how do you act like a celebrity? You are defiant — just like Oscar Wilde, Sarah Bernhardt, Boy George and Madonna. Defiance draws public attention and gives celebrity and success to the loudest voices in the room.
Landon Y. Jones
Princeton, N.J.
The writer is the author of “Celebrity Nation: How America Evolved Into a Culture of Fans and Followers.”